mnealtx 0 #351 January 19, 2012 QuoteSo the 1% made way more out of the tax cuts than the 99% So what? (Nice bogus numbers, btw) The 99% make way more out of earned income credits and child care credits than the 1%. Equally valid argument, and equally immaterial to a comparison of the supposed gain from taxing the rich vs. the 'cost' of the cuts overall. QuoteIn fact, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy argument and equally immaterial.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #352 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo the 1% made way more out of the tax cuts than the 99% So what? (Nice bogus numbers, btw) The 99% make way more out of earned income credits and child care credits than the 1%. Equally valid argument, and equally immaterial to a comparison of the supposed gain from taxing the rich vs. the 'cost' of the cuts overall. QuoteIn fact, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy argument and equally immaterial. FACT: The Bush era tax cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Your attempts to claim otherwise only reflect poorly on you.... 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 #353 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo the 1% made way more out of the tax cuts than the 99% So what? (Nice bogus numbers, btw) The 99% make way more out of earned income credits and child care credits than the 1%. Equally valid argument, and equally immaterial to a comparison of the supposed gain from taxing the rich vs. the 'cost' of the cuts overall. QuoteIn fact, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy argument and equally immaterial. FACT FALSE: The Bush era tax cuts heavily favored the wealthy. Fixed that for you. Fact: The Bush tax cuts resulted in the rich paying a HIGHER share of the total income tax bill, while reducing or even eliminating the tax liability of the lower brackets. QuoteYour attempts to claim otherwise only reflect poorly on you. Your continual attempts to mis-state the situation reflect poorly upon you. Must suck when the only arguments you have are class envy and economy of scale fallacies.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #354 January 20, 2012 there is also the fact that kallend is right and you are hopelessly confused...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #355 January 20, 2012 Quote there is also the fact that kallend is right and you are hopelessly confused... And that my friend is complete bull shit. Both are to a degree correct but far right and left on their thinking, which is the problem with the country.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekender 0 #356 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Anecdote != data any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument? BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it. The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich. there is no special low rate reserved for anyone. Oh yes, there is. It's called carried interest and it allows some wealthy individuals' fees to be treated at preferential rates. The Dems tried to eliminate it in 2007, but were blocked by the GOP. The law applies to everyone not just the rich. It so happens that it benefits hedgefund managers more than poor people. That doesnt make it preferential or special. you dont like the law, so say so. its dishonest to keep implying that a specific group gets a special rate. we all could qualify for this rate. most just dont run their business in this manner. again to be clear, i feel that the law should change to tax management fee's and all gains from comingled assets as ordinary income. Like Kallend i dont like the law. unlike him, im honest about the law when discussing it."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #357 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Anecdote != data any even crazier - you're criticizing someone else for commenting on your provided anecdote? Perhaps you should think twice before using one that doesn't support your argument? BTW, it's the 2 and 20 that makes him ridiculously well paid, not the fact that they have a questionable policy on how it's taxed. But why do you care? That income comes from high net worth folks who voluntarily agreed to pay this insane amount, despite the fact that most hedge funds don't deliver results to warrant it. The source of the income is irrelevant. It's income, and should be taxed like any other income, not at some special low rate reserved only for the privileged super-rich. there is no special low rate reserved for anyone. Oh yes, there is. It's called carried interest and it allows some wealthy individuals' fees to be treated at preferential rates. The Dems tried to eliminate it in 2007, but were blocked by the GOP. The law applies to everyone not just the rich. It so happens that it benefits hedgefund managers more than poor people. That doesnt make it preferential or special. What nonsense. Only the wealthy have any hope of taking advantage of it. The overwhelming majority of citizens cannot possibly benefit from it. It gives preferential treatment to the wealthy.... 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
kallend 2,108 #358 January 20, 2012 To repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99%... 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
weekender 0 #359 January 20, 2012 >What nonsense. Only the wealthy have any hope of taking advantage of it. The overwhelming majority of citizens cannot possibly benefit from it. It gives preferential treatment to the wealthy. the law applies to all but not everyone qualifies. it is not nonsense that only some people qualify for certain tax treatments. i dont qualify for child credits or earned income credits. i suppose if i was a angry jealous man like you, i would scream nonsense. thanksfully, im not. at least we can agree the law should be changed so they are taxed more. of course, my opinion is based on what is fair and rational. yours is based on a white hot anger stemming from an irriational jealousy of succesful people. (smiling)"The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #360 January 20, 2012 Quote Only the wealthy have any hope of taking advantage of it. Much like only the poor have any hope of taking advantage of the vast majority of programs and other tax breaks out there. 15% on capital gains is a heckuva lot more than the zero being paid by the poor. It's a matter of subjective value. That's all. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #361 January 20, 2012 Quote >What nonsense. Only the wealthy have any hope of taking advantage of it. The overwhelming majority of citizens cannot possibly benefit from it. It gives preferential treatment to the wealthy. the law applies to all but not everyone qualifies. it is not nonsense that only some people qualify for certain tax treatments. i dont qualify for child credits or earned income credits. i suppose if i was a angry jealous man like you, i would scream nonsense. thanksfully, im not. at least we can agree the law should be changed so they are taxed more. of course, my opinion is based on what is fair and rational. yours is based on a white hot anger stemming from an irriational jealousy of succesful people. (smiling) Oh, and there I was thinking your opinion was based on the selfishness and greed of those who work in the financial sector. (smiling).... 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
weekender 0 #362 January 20, 2012 >Oh, and there I was thinking your opinion was based on the selfishness and greed of those who work in the financial sector. (smiling). actually my opinion is based on what i feel the intent of the law is. The law is intended to not tax capital gains the same as regular income. at the time written, hedgefunds were not a large sector nor considered. they have benefitted from the current tax structure by luck. NOT in my opinion by design. IMO, if a manager collects a fee, it should be income. if a manager comingles his personal assets with clients, it should be taxed as income. Why? because when he comingles his funds he is given a huge market advantage based on the size of his assets. Not going to get more granular than saying it should be obvious to all that larger funds have access to better sources. the fund manager should, in fairness, have to pay for this advantage through taxes. this is all my opinion based on my personal taste on what is fair. No greed or selfishness was used to form this opinion. if its nonsense or irrational, i welcome criticism."The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #363 January 20, 2012 And your one warning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #364 January 20, 2012 QuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #365 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? just the facts... (put your envy away)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #366 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? Can't dispute the facts so you resort to insults.... 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
dreamdancer 0 #367 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? Can't dispute the facts so you resort to insults. that's all he's got...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #368 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? Can't dispute the facts so you resort to insults. Class envy whinging != facts, sorry. And the bit about insults is frigging HILARIOUS, since you do it so much more than anyone else.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #369 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? Can't dispute the facts so you resort to insults. Class envy whinging != facts, sorry. And the bit about insults is frigging HILARIOUS, since you do it so much more than anyone else. all you have is insults. please come up with something new...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #370 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTo repeat, the average TAX SAVINGS of the 1% exceeded the average INCOME of the 99% Class envy, AGAIN? Can't dispute the facts so you resort to insults. Class envy whinging != facts, sorry. And the bit about insults is frigging HILARIOUS, since you do it so much more than anyone else. all you have is insults. please come up with something new... All you have are remarks on the poster - come up with something to refute and we'll go from there. Something *original*, that is - re-spews from alternut and the like need not apply.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,548 #371 January 20, 2012 Mike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #372 January 20, 2012 QuoteMike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P. Because it's an appeal to emotion (Look at how much those greedy rich saved in taxes - it's more than what you made in a YEAR!) and doesn't advance the discussion. Kallend uses it as a club in an attempt to beat down any opponents to his view.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #373 January 20, 2012 QuoteMike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P. Maybe those like Kallend & dreamdancer should start to use the tax code to their advantage instead of crying about those that do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,079 #374 January 20, 2012 >Maybe those like Kallend & dreamdancer should start to use the tax code to >their advantage instead of crying about those that do. Which is equivalent to saying "maybe people should start using the tax code to their advantage instead of whining and crying that taxes are too high." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #375 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteMike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P. Because it's an appeal to emotion (Look at how much those greedy rich saved in taxes - it's more than what you made in a YEAR!) and doesn't advance the discussion. Kallend uses it as a club in an attempt to beat down any opponents to his view. Interpretation: Mike can't refute the facts so he resorts to insults.... 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
