kelpdiver 2 #426 January 24, 2012 Quote Mr Romney was also able to cut his taxable income by almost $5 million (£3.2 million) because of losses carried over from previous years, thanks to a controversial rule. There's nothing controversial about this rule. Capital losses can offset capital gains. But even if you got hit badly in a year (say 2008), you can't declare a greater net capital loss than $3000. Any excess can be used to offset future capital gains. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #427 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. . Incorrect. The only person you fool is yourself. I think I'll take the IRS' word over yours. It's not the IRS's word, it's your INCORRECT interpretation of the data. You REALLY should take a class in statistics. Is that where I can learn to divide by hypothetical percentages and make entirely bogus numbers like you did? A > B isn't an 'interpretation'...it's simple mathematical fact.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #428 January 24, 2012 QuoteIf you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this. WHAT main point??? You don't have one other than "he has too much and should give it to other people".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #429 January 24, 2012 Quote Quote If you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this. WHAT main point??? You don't have one other than "he has too much and should give it to other people". nonsense "he has a lot and gives it to other people" is called Charity. it's a right wing concept. stereotypical lefties believe in "he has a lot, so the government should take it and give it away to anyone else (after I possibly can get a portion of the huge cut the legislators take)" I believe Dekker is an advocate of charitable giving, but that's not the content of you two poking each other at all ... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #430 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteIf you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this. WHAT main point??? You don't have one other than "he has too much and should give it to other people". re-read my first post to you here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4261385#4261385 You never even answered the questions. Your statement after your question is just off base. You really seem to have no interest in discussing anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #431 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you aren't willing or able to actually address the main point, then there is no sense continuing this. WHAT main point??? You don't have one other than "he has too much and should give it to other people". re-read my first post to you here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4261385#4261385 You never even answered the questions. Your statement after your question is just off base. You really seem to have no interest in discussing anything. So, you skipped over my post immediately below that, where I *did* answer the questions? And you're accusing ME of not wanting to discuss?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #432 January 24, 2012 Actually you didn't answer the question, you said: "They or their families worked for it and took the risks. " Which clearly doesn't deal with possible risks associated with a small minority owning the far majority of wealth. In comments after you just dismissed it all as envy. So yeah, you still haven't answered the question(s). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #433 January 24, 2012 QuoteActually you didn't answer the question, you said: "They or their families worked for it and took the risks. " Which clearly doesn't deal with possible risks associated with a small minority owning the far majority of wealth. So I should have to reframe my answer because I didn't express a belief in your hypothetical 'threat of the rich'? How about you prove it exists, first? QuoteIn comments after you just dismissed it all as envy. So yeah, you still haven't answered the question(s). So yeah, you still need to prove the rich are some sort of threat and that there's some sort of wealth monopoly. Get back with me once you have that sorted out and we'll continue. Until then, I disregard the hypothetical 'rich threat' and 'wealth monopoly' scenarios.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #434 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe only person you fool is yourself. I don't think you're even fooling rushmc. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly favored the wealthy. Except the IRS numbes show it didn't. . Incorrect. The only person you fool is yourself. I think I'll take the IRS' word over yours. It's not the IRS's word, it's your INCORRECT interpretation of the data. You REALLY should take a class in statistics. Is that where I can learn to divide by hypothetical percentages and make entirely bogus numbers like you did? A > B isn't an 'interpretation'...it's simple mathematical fact. (A/X) < (B/Y) is also a simple mathematical fact. And if A is shared by X% of the people, while B is shared by Y% people, you get an meaningful comparison of benefit to the respective sets rather than your ridiculous one. You really should learn some basic math and statistics.... 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
SkyDekker 1,465 #435 January 24, 2012 QuoteSo I should have to reframe my answer because I didn't express a belief in your hypothetical 'threat of the rich'? Not at all. If there had been an actual answer to the question, that would have been great. QuoteHow about you prove it exists, first? I already stated, twice, that in current day it doesn't exist. I was trying to have a discussion regarding potential problems in the future. Clearly you are unable or unwilling to have that discussion. I am done trying to have an adult conversation with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #436 January 24, 2012 QuoteI am done trying to have an adult conversation with you. Playing make-believe games is an adult conversation? Using made-up future scenarios as support for actions *now* is adult conversation? Interesting idea of 'adult' you have.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #437 January 24, 2012 Both of you - enough. If you don't want to talk to each other, don't. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #438 January 24, 2012 Quote(A/X) < (B/Y) is also a simple mathematical fact. And if A is shared by X% of the people, while B is shared by Y% people, you get an meaningful comparison of benefit to the respective sets rather than your ridiculous one. Ridiculous is the amount of goalpost shifting you're doing when the numbers go against you....over and over and over again. QuoteYou really should learn some basic math and statistics. Which basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #439 January 24, 2012 QuotePlaying make-believe games is an adult conversation? You probably do it quite frequently in your job. "If this happens, then what do we do?" "If that happens, then what do we do?" QuoteUsing made-up future scenarios... As opposed to what? Actual future scenarios? You have a time machine over there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #440 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuote(A/X) < (B/Y) is also a simple mathematical fact. And if A is shared by X% of the people, while B is shared by Y% people, you get an meaningful comparison of benefit to the respective sets rather than your ridiculous one. Ridiculous is the amount of goalpost shifting you're doing when the numbers go against you....over and over and over again. QuoteYou really should learn some basic math and statistics. Which basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself.... 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 #441 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuotePlaying make-believe games is an adult conversation? You probably do it quite frequently in your job. "If this happens, then what do we do?" "If that happens, then what do we do?" Sure we do - what we *don't* do is say "we're going to change *this* now, just in case *that* happens at some point in the future".Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #442 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteWhich basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is *more* than 3 trillion, apparently. *edited for typoMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #443 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhich basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, apparently. Actually 700 billion IS less than 3 trillion. You are getting tied up in your own misdirection.... 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 #444 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, apparently. Actually 700 billion IS less than 3 trillion. Yes, I typoed - thanks for the point that out, I'll correct it. QuoteYou are getting tied up in your own misdirection. Tied up in YOUR attempts to misdirect, actually.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #445 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, apparently. Actually 700 billion IS less than 3 trillion. Yes, I typoed - thanks for the point that out, I'll correct it. QuoteYou are getting tied up in your own misdirection. Tied up in YOUR attempts to misdirect, actually. Of course $700B shared by 1% of the population gives each of them a whole lot more than $3T shared among 99% of the population. Hence members of the 1% benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts. Thanks for playing.... 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 #446 January 24, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWhich basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, apparently. Actually 700 billion IS less than 3 trillion. Yes, I typoed - thanks for the point that out, I'll correct it. QuoteYou are getting tied up in your own misdirection. Tied up in YOUR attempts to misdirect, actually. Of course $700B shared by 1% of the population gives each of them a whole lot more than $3T shared among 99% of the population. Hence members of the 1% benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts. The 700B and 3 trillion numbers are the supposed *costs* of the tax cuts, not benefits from the cuts. QuoteThanks for playing. Indeed - I believe they call that 'hoist upon your own petard'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #447 January 24, 2012 QuoteBoth of you - enough. If you don't want to talk to each other, don't. skydekker wants to talk - mnealtx just keeps up a constant pa with accusations of 'envy'...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 2,107 #448 January 25, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Which basic math - the one where 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, or YOUR version? . The only person you're fooling is yourself. Because I won't take *YOUR* word for it that 700 billion is less than 3 trillion, apparently. Actually 700 billion IS less than 3 trillion. Yes, I typoed - thanks for the point that out, I'll correct it. Quote You are getting tied up in your own misdirection. Tied up in YOUR attempts to misdirect, actually. Of course $700B shared by 1% of the population gives each of them a whole lot more than $3T shared among 99% of the population. Hence members of the 1% benefited disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts. The 700B and 3 trillion numbers are the supposed *costs* of the tax cuts, not benefits from the cuts. Quote Thanks for playing. Indeed - I believe they call that 'hoist upon your own petard'. You introduced those numbers. (Post #345 this thread). Now you're telling us that they are not relevant to the topic. Thanks for conceding the point at last.i have to congratulate you for keeping the red herring going for so long.... 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 #449 January 25, 2012 Quote You introduced those numbers. (Post #345 this thread). Maybe you should re-read the post, where it mentions "cost" *twice*. Quote Now you're telling us that they are not relevant to the topic. Nope, not saying that - I'm saying that YOUR argument was based on a false premise. Quote Thanks for conceding the point at last. The only concessions are yours. Quote i have to congratulate you for keeping the red herring going for so long. Yeah, that's yours, too.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #450 January 25, 2012 QuoteBoth of you - enough. If you don't want to talk to each other, don't. i'm not allowed to comment on this warning? presumably someone pmed you to complain...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
