Lucky... 0 #251 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote the super rich power brokers and their lobbyists and accountants have too much to lose. I hope you are including Al Gore, the Clintons and the Kennedy clan in your list of the super rich. But Gore/Clinton raised taxes to their own cost, so make a little sense every now and then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #252 January 8, 2010 Quote >the more money you have.. the more creative accounting the tax attorneys become. Good for him. If he stays within the law, that's a smart move on his part. On an individual basis, yes, on a national level, it hurts the country when taxes are cut. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #253 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Well, Lucky, it appears the Rushter is going to live. I'd bet he was on his way out of this world, found out how happy you were, and pulled through JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!! Happy New Year. Like they say, only the good die young. Rush will be here for a while to comment on and make 10's of millions, buit never do anything for America. I call that a parasite. Lucky for you that listening to his BS is purely optional, but him paying more income taxes in one year than you probably will your entire life is not. I personally can't stand to listen to him, but the taxes he pays on those tens of millions sure come in handy for ol' Uncle Sam. And you pose that gives him license to act like a sociopathic asshole? And those advertiser dollars would have gone elsewhere, so who cares they end up with him other than you worship rich people? Like to take the oportunity to constantly lie about him??You all really need a different web site to get your Rush talking points What lies? - Made fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson's - Made a racist remark about McNabb saying he isn't good, just the media wants to support him due to his color/race - Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be one just for a few.... No lies, just your inability to refute them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #254 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote It show's he can influence a lot of followers and/or created a niche/cult based upon his style of elitist-love. Hey, Billy Ray Cirus made it big on one pathetic song; does that mean he's worth listening to? Does it mean he's accomplished anything? No, it means he appealed to a group of idiots long enough to bilk millions for nothing. No one will say BRS is meaningful, but people follow Lush with a cult-like approach, a guy who makes fun of Parkinson's victims....suddenly the BRS followers look intelligent and reasonable. You really are disturbed by anyone, who seems to catch a lucky [Irony, indeed] break, aren't you? Honestly, if you could become a One Hit Wonder, which, at this point, in life, is extremely doubtful, wouldn't you? and you'd be playing your base, to the last dollar. Why can't you just ever say,"Good on him, for hitting it big", whoever it is? You missed teh comparison and focused on me allegedly hating BRS. Not sure if you did so purposely or you were just unable to comprehend the comparison. BTW, look yourself in the mirror for never-to-be 1-hit wonders. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #255 January 8, 2010 >On an individual basis, yes, on a national level, it hurts the country >when taxes are cut. No one is talking about cutting or raising taxes here. If you wish to pay more than what you owe you are free to do so; indeed, the IRS encourages this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #256 January 8, 2010 Quote >On an individual basis, yes, on a national level, it hurts the country >when taxes are cut. No one is talking about cutting or raising taxes here. If you wish to pay more than what you owe you are free to do so; indeed, the IRS encourages this. The Ron Paul ref was. And flat tax is code for less tax, let's be real here, Bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #257 January 8, 2010 Quote How ever we get there, taxes need to be increased, esp for the rich. As I've asked before, show me a major fed tax cut that led to + things. So I don't care how we stack it, what we call it, the country does better under higher taxes. what you really seem upset about is all the deductions available to those with the startup money to start and operate a small business. What about a system with no deductions? How about a system designed by economists, not politicians?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #258 January 8, 2010 Quote The Ron Paul ref was. And flat tax is code for less tax, let's be real here, Bill. so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income families. Why is that? Is it not fair that they're making more money? Why should a $200000 income family have to pay 34% when a 50000 income family pays 20%?? (pulling those percentages out of my ass, but I'm sure someone will still bitch because they're wrong) How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #259 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Well, Lucky, it appears the Rushter is going to live. I'd bet he was on his way out of this world, found out how happy you were, and pulled through JUST TO PISS YOU OFF!!! Happy New Year. Like they say, only the good die young. Rush will be here for a while to comment on and make 10's of millions, buit never do anything for America. I call that a parasite. Lucky for you that listening to his BS is purely optional, but him paying more income taxes in one year than you probably will your entire life is not. I personally can't stand to listen to him, but the taxes he pays on those tens of millions sure come in handy for ol' Uncle Sam. And you pose that gives him license to act like a sociopathic asshole? And those advertiser dollars would have gone elsewhere, so who cares they end up with him other than you worship rich people? Like to take the oportunity to constantly lie about him??You all really need a different web site to get your Rush talking points What lies? - Made fun of MJ Fox's Parkinson'sThis is a mischaracterization a best a lie a worst. It is what your hate Limbaugh media said he did but it was more a shot a Fox himself. You really should do better than this - Made a racist remark about McNabb saying he isn't good, just the media wants to support him due to his color/raceThis one is totally wrong. This was a shot at the MEDIA and had nothing to do with McNabb at all except he we the center of the point. It WAS about McNabbs race, but not about McNabb. Two lies in a row sir - Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be oneHe was addicted to pain pills for pain. Far step from a druggy. You are stretching here just for a few.... No lies, just your inability to refute them. So, 1 for 3 at best and that is give the benefit of the doubt. Now, will you or billvon tell me where you get your Limbaugh talking points so I can get some humor each day please"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
ianmdrennan 2 #260 January 8, 2010 Quote Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be oneHe was addicted to pain pills for pain. Far step from a druggy. You are stretching here You may not know anyone who's addicted to pain pills then - trust me, they're a 'druggie'.Performance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #261 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be oneHe was addicted to pain pills for pain. Far step from a druggy. You are stretching here You may not know anyone who's addicted to pain pills then - trust me, they're a 'druggie'. Didnt say he was not adictied did I Different implications"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
Royd 0 #262 January 8, 2010 Quote How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax?Now, we're talking.... Recently, I went to renew the tags, on my trailers....All tags have been doubled in cost...I was not happy about it, but knowing that every person, who drives a car, has been hit, equally, makes me feel much better. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ianmdrennan 2 #263 January 8, 2010 Not really. A druggie is a druggie. If you're addicted to a drug you're a druggie. Now, not all druggies are bad people. Everyone has their demons. In this case though, if he's shouting from the rooftops about 'druggies' he's in a glass house. You can't call Lucky out as a 'liar', in this case, if Rush was addicted to pain pills. IanPerformance Designs Factory Team Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #264 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Swore all druggies to hell, then was discovered to be oneHe was addicted to pain pills for pain. Far step from a druggy. You are stretching here You may not know anyone who's addicted to pain pills then - trust me, they're a 'druggie'. Didnt say he was not adictied did I Different implications Just like other dopers he did all kinds of illegal actions to aquire the chemicals he was addicted to. The volumes of drugs he aquired were staggering for someone aquiring them for personal use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #265 January 8, 2010 >so you want a tax system that is aggressively progressive. I do, whether it's an implementation of a flat tax or an income tax. Flat tax has some significant advantages. >Which really (in plain verbiage) means you want the higher income >families to pay a larger percentage of their income than the lower income >families. Why is that? Because: 1) it is less of a hardship for low income families 2) it is less damaging to the economy overall. >How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The >rich tend to buy more things than the poor. The rich tend to save, actually. Which is how they become rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #266 January 8, 2010 Quote The rich tend to save, actually. Which is how they become rich. on an absolute value basis, they will generally spend more. They may also save, but a family making $0.5M per year, is going to spend a lot more (absolute dollar value, not percentage of income) on consumables than a family that makes $50K, or even $100K.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #267 January 8, 2010 Quote How ever we get there, taxes need to be increased, esp for the rich. 15% of 1 million is more than 15% of 10k. That I would agree with."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #268 January 8, 2010 Quote Cut out the BS, it's not nice to tease my hero. Don't know any Lush Rimjob... Come on, bro... You can do it. Try to cut out the BS and try again All you have to do is use the guys real name, are you able to have a real discussion? Or do you just prefer the childish BS?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #269 January 8, 2010 >on an absolute value basis, they will generally spend more. Agreed. But on a RELATIVE basis they will spend less. To put it another way, give a rich guy a $10,000 tax break, and some of that will show up in the economy. Some will just go in the bank. Take that same money and use it to give tax breaks to 20 people just above the poverty line, and all that money will show up very quickly at Wal-Mart, Safeway and Midas. So if you have $10,000 in tax breaks to give out, and you want to stimulate the economy quickly, giving it to lower income people is the way to go. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #270 January 8, 2010 Quote How about a tax that's based on consumption of goods instead. The rich tend to buy more things than the poor. How about a national sales tax? That hurts the poor more than the rich. The only truly "fair" tax is a flat rate that starts to accumulate once above the poverty level."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #271 January 8, 2010 Quote The only truly "fair" tax is a flat rate that starts to accumulate once above the poverty level. and the best way to stay in Congress under this system is to define "poverty level" as the income level defined at or below 49% of all the other citizens - once half the people are getting free ride from the other half, you are a professional incumbent ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #272 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote The only truly "fair" tax is a flat rate that starts to accumulate once above the poverty level. and the best way to stay in Congress under this system is to define "poverty level" as the income level defined at or below 49% of all the other citizens - once half the people are getting free ride from the other half, you are a professional incumbent "Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" - George Bernard ShawMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #273 January 8, 2010 Quote "Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" - George Bernard Shaw The new paradigm seems to involve both Peter and Paul robbing their children. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #274 January 8, 2010 Quote Quote "Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul" - George Bernard Shaw The new paradigm seems to involve both Peter and Paul robbing their children. Blues, Dave Seems like it, unfortunately.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #275 January 8, 2010 Quote Not really. A druggie is a druggie. If you're addicted to a drug you're a druggie. Now, not all druggies are bad people. Everyone has their demons. In this case though, if he's shouting from the rooftops about 'druggies' he's in a glass house. You can't call Lucky out as a 'liar', in this case, if Rush was addicted to pain pills. Ian Ok,for this thread I will give him that one. He is a liar on the other two and the info is out there to prove it. Only it is not on the huffingtion puffington web site"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
