sv3n 0 #176 November 2, 2007 Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by?...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #177 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm I liked what Bill Clinton had to say: QuotePresident Clinton on the Today Show, September 16, 2005 Matt Lauer: What sacrifices would you ask the American people to make to pay those [hurricane relief and Iraq war] bills? President Clinton: I would repeal the tax cuts for upper-income people. I myself have gotten 4 tax cuts while young Americans have gone off to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, while we've had this massive natural disaster. We've run up this huge deficit. How are we covering this money? We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, Korea, Saudi Arabia to pay for the suffering of our people in the Gulf area, to pay for the Iraq War, and to cover my tax cuts — and we are expecting our children to pay the bill. We've made a decision to lower the living standards of our children and grandchildren and to soak other people around the world who don't have the money we do, by and large, to cover our self-indulgence. I can keep getting more and more articles that talk about how the rich get tax breaks that the lower class don't or can't take advantage of. If you want reading assignments let me know. Again - find me some FACT - not hearsay. FYI - "Fact" in this case would be something like a link to thomas.state.gov or similar, where the text of the law can be looked up. Anecdotal interviews from Democratic talking heads != "proof" Read forest read. http://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ex=1325912400&en=e1dc82f54ac7eacb&ei=5090 http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #178 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote I hate to say it, but we're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm sorry, but trickle-down economics are BS..............it's a great ingrained "if boss gets more money, just maybe he'll give me some if he's got extra" mentallity. I just don't believe that some people buy into it. Perhaps because the data proves you wrong? In the 1920's, the top tax rate was reduced from 71% to 24%. Tax revenues grew over 60%. JFK reduced the rate from 91% to 70%. Tax revenues rose over 60%. Reagan reduced the tax rate from 70% to 28%. Tax revenues rose 54%. Looks like "lower taxes, more money coming in to fed.gov". Quote Seriously............"yeah, we want them to get tax breaks so that we can just maybe get a little drop if we're lucky, yeah, yeah candy mountain charlie, let's go to candy mountain"...............and next thing you know your kidney's are gone. Simple question, not bs just a straight forward question...........who needs tax breaks, the guy with millions or the guy just barely scraping by? Recent data from the IRS - The top 25% of taxpayers (AGI over ~62K) earned 67.5% of the nation's income, while paying 86% of all taxes. The top 1% (AGI over ~365k) earned roughly 21% of the nation's income, while paying over 39% of the taxes. Roughly 42 MILLION people were able to use deductions and benefits to entirely wipe out their tax liability or even get back more than what they paid in. That's due to those tax credits that the rich (you know - those folks that are making over 62k/year) can't get. The top 1% ends up paying more in tax than the bottom 95% - how much more before YOU think they're paying their fair share? Sounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. And to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #179 November 2, 2007 QuoteIt's particularly galling that the wealthy people whining loudest for tax breaks that Joe Sixpack doesn't get, are also the most likely to be cheating on their taxes. More "set" theory by the learned perfesser? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #180 November 2, 2007 Quote Read forest read. About time! Quotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm Ok... So it's GIVING back the personal exemption that was taken from higher income earners (net result: no harm to lower income, VERY slight benefit to high income), and removes the itemized deduction PENALTY that was enacted on the higher income (net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html Ok...this is the cut on investment taxes - Show me how this is hurting lower income families, since the "benefit" to the rich is only due to economy of scale, unless I'm misreading something. (net result: no harm to low income) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ex=1325912400&en=e1dc82f54ac7eacb&ei=5090 Opinion piece whining about the rich getting more benefit from the tax rate decrease - I refer you, again, to the theory of "economy of scale". http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm Another opinion piece, this time whining about the investment tax cut that equally benefits lower income families (assuming they invest) - see reference above to "economy of scale" Sorry, but you've still not proven your point - none of these do harm to lower income families, so we're right back around to where we started - you feel that the rich should be covering the taxes / expenses of the lower income rates. You still haven't proven WHY they should.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #181 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuote Read forest read. About time! Quotehttp://www.cbpp.org/9-19-05tax.htm Ok... So it's GIVING back the personal exemption that was taken from higher income earners (net result: no harm to lower income, VERY slight benefit to high income), and removes the itemized deduction PENALTY that was enacted on the higher income (net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income). http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/05tax.html Ok...this is the cut on investment taxes - Show me how this is hurting lower income families, since the "benefit" to the rich is only due to economy of scale, unless I'm misreading something. (net result: no harm to low income) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html?ex=1325912400&en=e1dc82f54ac7eacb&ei=5090 Opinion piece whining about the rich getting more benefit from the tax rate decrease - I refer you, again, to the theory of "economy of scale". http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/05/news/tax_cuts/index.htm Another opinion piece, this time whining about the investment tax cut that equally benefits lower income families (assuming they invest) - see reference above to "economy of scale" Sorry, but you've still not proven your point - none of these do harm to lower income families, so we're right back around to where we started - you feel that the rich should be covering the taxes / expenses of the lower income rates. You still haven't proven WHY they should. could you explain..............."(net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income)"? So it's not harming the low income people, but it's a benefit to the high income people? So it's only a benefit to the high income group?...and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #182 November 2, 2007 QuoteSounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. QuoteAnd to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #183 November 2, 2007 You seem to live in a world of class jelousy. If you stop worrying about someone haveing more than you (and most of them worked very hard for it) you would be much happier. Or, you could work very hard yourself, become rich like them instead of sitting on your ass hoping the gov wiill take some of thier wealth away and give it to you."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #184 November 2, 2007 Quotecould you explain..............."(net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income)"? Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - yet again I refer you to 'economy of scale'. The removal of those restrictions isn't any sort of "break" for the rich - it's giving them what the lower income levels ALREADY HAVE! The argument over investment tax is like arguing the case that Sam's Club prices hurt the person shopping at HEB. QuoteSo it's not harming the low income people, but it's a benefit to the high income people? So it's only a benefit to the high income group? Why are you so DAMNED jealous of someone who's better off than you? Why should they have to pay more just because you THINK they should? You're still not answering that question - you've gone on and on about how UNFAIR it is that the millionaire gets, in effect, a volume discount on investment taxes, WITHOUT showing how the lower income family is being hurt in ANY DAMN WAY by it!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #185 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteSounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. QuoteAnd to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #186 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuotecould you explain..............."(net result: no harm to low income, some benefit to high income)"? Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - yet again I refer you to 'economy of scale'. The removal of those restrictions isn't any sort of "break" for the rich - it's giving them what the lower income levels ALREADY HAVE! The argument over investment tax is like arguing the case that Sam's Club prices hurt the person shopping at HEB. QuoteSo it's not harming the low income people, but it's a benefit to the high income people? So it's only a benefit to the high income group? Why are you so DAMNED jealous of someone who's better off than you? Why should they have to pay more just because you THINK they should? You're still not answering that question - you've gone on and on about how UNFAIR it is that the millionaire gets, in effect, a volume discount on investment taxes, WITHOUT showing how the lower income family is being hurt in ANY DAMN WAY by it!!! Simple............taxes are being taken out of the pool that could be spent on better things. By giving tax breaks that only affect the wealthy you're not collecting the taxes you're supposed to............creating less income. Thereby you have less tax money to fund things....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #187 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteSounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. QuoteAnd to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. I am uninterested in finding a secondary source to satisfy your restriction, and in fact, answered your links despite the source. If the source I used is not satisfactory, I'm sure you could Google the information yourself - assuming you can find it on one of your 'approved' sources. Conversely, you could find your own information to try and rebut the claim - especially as you have NO proof that the information is not "good" due to source, as you try to imply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #188 November 2, 2007 QuoteSimple............taxes are being taken out of the pool that could be spent on better things. By giving tax breaks that only affect the wealthy you're not collecting the taxes you're supposed to............creating less income. Thereby you have less tax money to fund things. ANYONE that invests can reap the benefit of that reduction - the rich see MORE benefit from it due to volume, nothing else. That is *not* a "tax break for the rich", and you have NOT proven anything. Again, this goes back to you feeling that the rich STILL aren't paying ENOUGH for YOUR pet projects - that's all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #189 November 2, 2007 Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #190 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteI am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. Was he really implying the Heritage Foundation is on par with "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #191 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! Yes, I could have worded that better, but you know what I mean - there is a LARGE difference between 'not gaining as much benefit' and 'not having at all' which is what Sven and yourself are implying.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #192 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteI am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. Was he really implying the Heritage Foundation is on par with "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"? The information must come from State-approved sources, Comrade!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #193 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! Yes, I could have worded that better, but you know what I mean You mean Kallend is intentionally misunderstanding your point? Say it ain't so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #194 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! Yes, I could have worded that better, but you know what I mean You mean Kallend is intentionally misunderstanding your point? Say it ain't so. He wrote what he wrote. No misunderstanding needed.Think of all those janitors and burger flippers reading through the WSJ figuring out in which hedge fund to invest their savings.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #195 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! Yes, I could have worded that better, but you know what I mean You mean Kallend is intentionally misunderstanding your point? Say it ain't so. He wrote what he wrote. No misunderstanding needed.Think of all those janitors and burger flippers reading through the WSJ figuring out in which hedge fund to invest their savings. Wow...you mean Joe Sixpack ISN'T being grievously harmed by Warren Buffet not having to pay quite as much tax on his investments? Say it ain't so, Doc!!!!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #196 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Because everything EXCEPT the removal of restrictions on the personal exemption and itemized deductions are equally available to lower incomes, if they were investing at the same sort of level as the higher incomes - it!!! Oh yeah! Yes, I could have worded that better, but you know what I mean You mean Kallend is intentionally misunderstanding your point? Say it ain't so. He wrote what he wrote. No misunderstanding needed.Think of all those janitors and burger flippers reading through the WSJ figuring out in which hedge fund to invest their savings. Wow...you mean Joe Sixpack ISN'T being grievously harmed by Warren Buffet not having to pay quite as much tax on his investments? Say it ain't so, Doc!!!! Right! I'll ask our department's cleaning lady where she bases her personal jet.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #197 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Wow...you mean Joe Sixpack ISN'T being grievously harmed by Warren Buffet not having to pay quite as much tax on his investments? Say it ain't so, Doc!!!! Right! I'll ask our department's cleaning lady where she bases her personal jet. You MUST be a superstar if you have Nancy Pelosi as your cleaning lady!!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #198 November 2, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Wow...you mean Joe Sixpack ISN'T being grievously harmed by Warren Buffet not having to pay quite as much tax on his investments? Say it ain't so, Doc!!!! Right! I'll ask our department's cleaning lady where she bases her personal jet. You MUST be a superstar if you have Nancy Pelosi as your cleaning lady!!! Well, you could say that (but I wouldn't).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sv3n 0 #199 November 2, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSounds interesting...........proof? It's great to write it down, but I'd trust an article on it or a valid source. Yes, by all means, dispute the source if you can't argue the data. QuoteAnd to keep things in the fair..........a right wing website isn't a valid source. In the fair? Any other stipulations you want to add to stack the deck in your favor? In that case, you may wish to remove your links in your previous post to the articles from the NYT, CNN and CBPP - all either liberal or advocating support for liberal pet issues. what you don't like your own arguments? I am simply stating that I don't want a source from "bob's rightwing rumproast blog"............I would like a valid source and preferably more than one, which isn't stacking the deck......it's simply asking for good information. The article that I got the information from regarding the tax rate reductions and subsequent increase in revenues was from the Heritage Foundation, which *does* espouse conservative views. I am uninterested in finding a secondary source to satisfy your restriction, and in fact, answered your links despite the source. If the source I used is not satisfactory, I'm sure you could Google the information yourself - assuming you can find it on one of your 'approved' sources. Conversely, you could find your own information to try and rebut the claim - especially as you have NO proof that the information is not "good" due to source, as you try to imply. It's the exact same thing you ask for all the time. Sad you can't even prove your own point with solid proof, yet you're one of the first to ask for it....and you're in violation of your face! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #200 November 2, 2007 QuoteIt's the exact same thing you ask for all the time. Incorrect - I'll look for myself first, then ask for a link if I can't find it. I tend to NOT consider opinion pieces as 'proof', however, which is probably where you're making your misconception. Quote Sad you can't even prove your own point with solid proof, yet you're one of the first to ask for it. Here's a thought for ya, chief - why don't you try to rebut the information, rather than the site it came from? You'll get further that way.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
