Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Page 2 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:15 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

LMAO. I think we struck a nerve.

Bill, you're so f*cking clueless, it's unbelievable. I have been in that position in my life before, and it's not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. There was a point not so long ago that I had 2 kids and a household income of approximately 40K. I still managed to have 2 decent cars, pay my rent, and save enough of a down payment to purchase a house. It can be done, but people aren't willing these days to go without any luxury items, such as a big screen TV, the latest game system, etc., and racking up credit card debt on foolishness they don't need. People piss their money away on crap, and then don't understand why they can't get ahead.


Here's where Quik steps on his Dick so hard, it's more than funny, it's ceremoniously outstanding:

When his "family" was making 40K a year, he was paying minimal if any income tax. As a result, he was able to save enough to make a down payment on a house. Had taxes taken a larger bite of his minimal income at that time, he'd not have been able to save that down payment money.

Quik, you completely f'ed yourself on this one. Unless you didn't take advantage of this low tax burden and intentionally paid more into income tax than you were required to (as a conscientious objection to the low tax rate applied to you at that time, a scenario I find EXTREMELY unlikely), you are guilty of having benefited from the very tax situation you are now whining about.

Dude, I claim checkpoint on this one. You are done. The tax benefit you enjoyed with that low income got you your down payment for a house. You just illustrated my point better than I ever could. You're not only a hypocrite, you're also clueless about how to effectively argue a point.







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Saturday, April 10, 2010 10:19 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

He used to make the 40k. He's still married with the kids. Just because someone has a family and doesn't make a lot of money, should not exempt them from shouldering part of the tax burden. To believe otherwise is to believe "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". People can live off $3000 a month...comfortably too. They might live in a poorer area of town and drive a used cavalier, and pack their own lunches for work, no morning starbucks run....one landline and no cell phones...kinda like how my grandparents raised my parents. It can be do e easily if people don't get buried in high interest car loans and collections companies.

As a single man, it irks me that baby mamas, earning the same or less $ than me, pay no federal income taxes at all. And don't go one about how expensive kids are to raise. Having a kid is like buying a dog. It's gonna cost you X amount of money to take care of it. I that isn't in your budget, then perhaps a box of Trojans is.


YOU are the one who got castigated here for being such an A-hole for your plans to take a house from an old lady because you were in the right place at the right time. You are completely incapable of making any commentary about this subject. You're a selfish, self-absorbed bitch who will never know a thing about earning a home or raising a family. Hearing you whine about @!#$ like this is beyond funny...it's pitiful.




Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 6:19 AM on j-body.org
I don't have it. I'm still in the will though. And my lands Bill, I haven't seen such potty words from you in a long time....not tilnthis thread anyway. Kinda makes me wonder if you were some poor little Huck Finn who's drunk waste-of-space daddy pissed away the family money...leaving you in rags to be made fun of at school.

And castigated? Those degenerates' opinions of my character don't bother me. But sooner or later, who knows when, I'll inherit the house, post the pics, and watch the fun ensue.

Finally, did you ever think that folks were bettering their lives, raising kids, saving up and buying houses, long before all these vote-buying tax "credits" came into being? Sure it would be harder to do, but it's still possible.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 7:43 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Here's where Quik steps on his Dick so hard, it's more than funny, it's ceremoniously outstanding:

When his "family" was making 40K a year, he was paying minimal if any income tax. As a result, he was able to save enough to make a down payment on a house. Had taxes taken a larger bite of his minimal income at that time, he'd not have been able to save that down payment money.

Quik, you completely f'ed yourself on this one. Unless you didn't take advantage of this low tax burden and intentionally paid more into income tax than you were required to (as a conscientious objection to the low tax rate applied to you at that time, a scenario I find EXTREMELY unlikely), you are guilty of having benefited from the very tax situation you are now whining about.

Dude, I claim checkpoint on this one. You are done. The tax benefit you enjoyed with that low income got you your down payment for a house. You just illustrated my point better than I ever could. You're not only a hypocrite, you're also clueless about how to effectively argue a point.
LOL. There you go again, thinking you have somehow "won" when you further proved your ignorance. When my household income was $40K, none of these credits were in place. The $1,000 child tax credit was instituted in 2003, by which time I had purchased a house.

And if you had been paying attention at all, we haven't been talking about people paying minimal income tax, we've been talking about people getting back more than they paid in, such as Ztwenty4door illustrated (by the way, I see you ignored his post, since it was another real world example, and you were claiming our arguments were about hypotheticals). Low taxes are a completely different story than hand-outs, which is exctly what we're talking about.

Once again, Bill, you were so excited because you thought you had a point on me that you fell on your face with misinterpretation, and further made an ass of yourself.

As for your previous response to the same post of mine (yeah, you've got such a hard-on for trying to smear that you come back 12 hours later with another retort of idiocy--LOL), you again make assumptions and resort to infantile insulting. You're so far off it's hilarious. It seems to me you've got some pent up anger that you need to deal with. I don't know if it makes you feel better to insult everyone, but it's blatantly obvious to the rest of us that you're an angry old fool, and nothing more.


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

What irks me is when low and mid level income folks that bitch on the tax credits when it is designed for their own category, and ridiculous when those low and mid level income folks defend the high level income folks as if they them selves fall in that category. Some of you all remind me of the juveniles sitting and not clapping; because Obama didn't mention more tax credit for the 10% in the first 2mins of the vid and Obama pointed it out. lol.
Goodwrench, again you miss the point that there are many people who you think should be supportive of these type of policies that actually see how they can hurt their chances for bettering their lives, because they result in less opportunity, and a slower economy. Liberals always love to talk about how things are for the greater good, but they fail to accept the fact that many of the very things they like to vilify are, in fact, for the greater good more than the punitive tax laws they try to sell people on. The statistics prove it. When taxes are lower for everyone, the revenue increases, jobs increase, and the top earners actually foot a larger portion of the bill.

By the way, back to the original topic of tax credits, the EIC hasn't even been brought into this equation. Those three credits together are why more and more people are becoming tax recipients rather than tax payers. If you can't see why this causes problems with the economy, you could use a good lesson in economics.







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 9:51 AM on j-body.org
No, Quik. You blew it, hard. Pouring words onto the page is your way of trying (in vain) to deal with that. You stepped in it so deep you can't clean it up with paragraphs. You fool no one, except perhaps yourself.

Yes, keep criticizing families for doing exactly what you did yourself when your income was lower. I enjoy seeing you run yourself in circles. I enjoy even more having made you do so!

Thank God you are not the average Republican. If you are, they are indeed lost in a mire of hypocrisy and hatred.

This may be a good time for you to once again announce your departure, but actually make good on it this time. You just don't seem to be able to stop doing this to yourself.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:17 PM on j-body.org
I don't think he read it.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:20 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

No, Quik. You blew it, hard. Pouring words onto the page is your way of trying (in vain) to deal with that. You stepped in it so deep you can't clean it up with paragraphs. You fool no one, except perhaps yourself.

Yes, keep criticizing families for doing exactly what you did yourself when your income was lower...
Nowhere, in this thread or any other, have I bitched about families making $40K not paying a high enough tax. What I said was no one should get back more than they pay in. It's a simple concept. You obviously realized that you couldn't win that argument, so you moved on to claiming I am clueless as to how hard it is to raise a family of four on $40K per year. I spelled it out for you how I have been there, and made out just fine without the hand-outs. Somehow you read into it that when I was in that situation, I received the same hand-outs I'm against, but you're wrong. Again, to spell it out better for you: I have never received more than I paid in, because when my income was at $40K, the credits weren't there (also, the deductions were lower, causing my taxable income to be higher). I have stepped in nothing, you have simply misread everything and jumped to incorrect conclusions.

Now if you have anything useful to contribute to the discussion about tax credits, go right ahead. If you have nothing more than personal insults to hurl, why don't you go hit a weight bag for a while. You obviously have some anger to release.







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Sunday, April 11, 2010 8:16 PM on j-body.org
Sorry dude. This ain't helping. Lick your wounds and go find something else to hypocritically and uselessly whine about...struggling in quicksand just makes you sink deeper.





Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Monday, April 12, 2010 4:49 AM on j-body.org
Bill Hahn Jr. wrote:

Blah blah blah...I won, you're squirming...blah blah...hypocrite...blah blah...rightwing nutjob...blah blah...
Bill, everything you post sounds the same, and you're still getting it wrong.

Simply put: reading comprehension > you







Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Monday, April 12, 2010 9:13 AM on j-body.org
You made it easy to comprehend that you are shatting on people for taking advantage of a low tax rate but didn't stop to realize that you did the same thing. OOPS.

Of course, you'll whine that today's people in the same boat are now getting an even better deal than you did, and you'll insist that's why it's now so wrong. But the bare fact is this...the details have changed, sure, but the overall concept has not, and you hung yourself on it this time. So now that your income is higher, you are helping out those below you on the ladder the same way those who were above you once helped you. How the hell was it okay for you to get a leg up, but not then extend the same? Pure Selfishness.

Taxation was never about everyone getting the same deal perpetually. It changes, it evolves, it always has, and always will. You seem to think it should stay in lockstep forever, and that's just more of your inflexibility and selfishness showing, not to mention a window into ignorance about the ebb and flow of economies and social aspects. You didn't get as good a deal, so now you're pissed that others are. Oh sure, wave the flag (as if your perceptions are more 'patriotic' lol *PUKE*), Chicken Little it all, pretend you know more about any of this than anyone making the actual decisions. As usual, all you achieve is nothing.

If you'd stop pissing and moaning about it all, and just lay back and enjoy life, you would not find yourself having your nose rubbed in it by people like me. I dunno, maybe you enjoy this. Masochism does seem to accompany your type of attitude.






Re: Cry me a river for the freakin
Monday, April 12, 2010 3:43 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I can't comprehend that credits that give you back money you didn't pay in and low tax rates are not the same thing. OOPS.
Fixed. This is your biggest problem. You're comparing apples to oranges, and using your misreading of my posts to back up your purile insulting, because you can't have an intelligent discussion. Your weakness.

Now make sure you respond quickly with more idiocy, so as to continue having the last post in 8 of the 10 threads at the top of this forum. Good job sh!tting up yet another thread with your immaturity.








R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, April 12, 2010 5:38 PM on j-body.org
Sorry you refuse to comprehend that your point is completely diluted by your actions and previous tax status.

You once kept back more money while those with more income paid more into the system. That's why you were able to afford your house down payment.

Now that you're making more money, you think that's all so unfair. HAH!

Hypocrisy is a bitch, dude. You're 100% guilty.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, April 13, 2010 12:06 AM



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, April 12, 2010 7:24 PM on j-body.org
So, lets end the pissing contest. The thread was about people getting back more than they paid in. The AP article showed it was happening, and a member posted his story. It happens all the time.

So what's wrong with a flat income tax.....no deductions....no safe havens......no loopholes. Or if that isn't to our liking....a flat national sales tax, while abolishing the income tax altogether. You only pay in when you use.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, April 12, 2010 7:30 PM on j-body.org
I don't believe the flat income tax is a good idea, if only because the sliding scale worked so well to bring this nation from depression to world power. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

As for the flat sales tax which replaces the income tax...same answer.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, April 12, 2010 9:52 PM on j-body.org
So you believe the current tax system is working? That is a joke. I don't know where you live, but the tax system aint paying off the national debt any time soon.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Monday, April 12, 2010 10:49 PM on j-body.org
I think it worked well enough to take this nation out of the Depression and make it the world's sole Superpower. It may not be perfect now, but's not reason enough to just trash it and start over.

Tweaks and fine-tuning can and have always occurred, but what you are proposing is a clean sheet of paper altogether. That fundamental and far-reaching of a change has zero actual precedent, and could well be catastrophic. I think it's too potentially dangerous to implement.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 5:28 AM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Sorry you refuse to comprehend that your point is completely diluted by your actions and previous tax status.

You once kept back more money while those with more income paid more into the system. That's why you were able to afford your house down payment.

Now that you're making more money, you think that's all so unfair. HAH!

Hypocrisy is a bitch, dude. You're 100% guilty.
The only lack of comprehension is on your part Bill. To illustrate better what the difference is, when I was making $40K, I was paying in close to $2,000 per year in Federal taxes. Now, someone in the same situation receives almost as much as I was paying in. See the difference? A positive number is different than a negative number. This is where you are lost. I am not comparing low tax rates to different low tax rates. I am comparing low tax rates to hand-outs. This is a huge difference, and it's where the tax code is currently causing problems. Not only do we have flat-out taking from one and giving to another, but it begs the question: how the hell are they ever going to bring the budget even close to balanced if they're giving money to people who should be paying into the system? It's not about the shoe being on the other foot, it's about changes that have been made which have turned the tax system into a subsidy system for the bottom 20% of income earners. I have absolutely no problem with low income families paying little or no taxes. My problem, (that you are either too stupid to understand, or have ignored for sake of perpetuating your idiocy) is when money is given to them through the tax system, under the name "credits". Simply put, a tax refund should never exceed the amount paid. I don't know if this childishness on your part makes you feel good about yourself or not, but it's only making you look like an incompetent fool to anyone who reads it.

As for a flat tax system not working, let's look at history for a moment: the closest we have ever come to a flat tax system would be the 80's, when we had 4 tax brackets, less deductions and credits, less loop-holes, and the top marginal rate actually dropped off. What happened? 20 million new jobs in less than a decade, and the standard of living grew faster than ever. Personally, I'd like to see a 2 or 3 tier system, with no credits, and reasonable deductibles. Hell, give a $8,000 personal deduction, with no standard deduction. That would give the same family of 4 their first $32K tax-free. Have a 15% first bracket, and their only paying $1,200. Still less than 10 years ago.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:09 AM on j-body.org
I'm past your f-up now. You should get past it too. Take Scotta's advice.

As for the flat tax concept? I still don't buy it. No, even a simpler system like you describe from the past is nowhere near a flat tax. The impression I am getting here is that you and Scotta feel the future of the nation's finances rests on making the avarage Joe and Jane pay more during these harsh times? As I see the current fed tax situation, it's designed to help the general population get a leg up during these tough economic times (times, that, by the way, were not evident when you were making a family income of $40K). More tweaks should come in the future. For the time being, slamming the rank and file harder isn't going to help anything. Let's heal first.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:53 AM on j-body.org
How can we heal first when businesses are getting screwed over with taxes? Why is it that Texas is the number one destination for people moving away from their home state? Very pro-business tax structure there. It seems to be working well for them, but to adopt Texas' policies, is to admit defeat, and we can't have that in an election year, or jeopardize Hope N' Change II in 2012.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:15 AM on j-body.org
Pro-business and pro-consumer are very closely related. Businesses need consumers with money...





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:13 PM on j-body.org
customers also need jobs to have money, so why punish the businesses? it all comes back to them. i firmly believe if businesses had lower taxes, they would hire more workers.





Check out my build thread!


Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:45 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

I'm past your f-up now. You should get past it too.
You only want to move past the argument now because I've shown repeatedly how the entire pissing contest was due to your desire to smear, and that you were fabricating the argument with either false accusations or false impressions. However, if you're willing to stop your childishness, and have a reasonable discussion, let's have at it:

Quote:

As for the flat tax concept? I still don't buy it. No, even a simpler system like you describe from the past is nowhere near a flat tax. The impression I am getting here is that you and Scotta feel the future of the nation's finances rests on making the avarage Joe and Jane pay more during these harsh times? As I see the current fed tax situation, it's designed to help the general population get a leg up during these tough economic times (times, that, by the way, were not evident when you were making a family income of $40K). More tweaks should come in the future. For the time being, slamming the rank and file harder isn't going to help anything. Let's heal first.
A 3% net tax rate would be hardly slamming someone (if you do the math on my example, that's how it works out paying 15% on the $8,000 [1/5 of the $40K actual gross income]). While the concept of giving someone a leg-up seems reasonable, and don't get me wrong, I'm not at all about keeping anyone down, when you have actual hand-outs (look at Ztwenty4door's example--he got a check from the IRS for over $5k, and he had paid nothing in all year), the incentive is to stay where you are. When there are only deductions, which lowers your taxable income, but you actually pay a small amount on that, the result is that as you make more money, you are still keeping most of it, thereby giving an incentive to increase your income.

Your impression is simply that: an impression. It's a conclusion you draw based on your preconception of my position. This is why you couldn't get past the argument before. You insist that I'm talking about one thing, when in fact I've been talking about something else. Hell, I'd be willing to give a family of four a full $40,000 deduction, as long as they remove the credits system which gives them money they didn't pay. Tax only the amount they make over that. Do you see what I'm getting at here? For once, try to forget your desire for internet fighting, and actually consider what I'm saying on an intellectual level. Hell, if you're willing to have this intellectual discussion on the actual substance, I'll get some real world numbers so we can see how various scenarios play out.

Also, pro-consumer is not always related to pro-business, and as Rugged pointed out, making it harder for businesses to create them is ultimately going to hurt everyone. Making things better for businesses, entreprenuers, and investors will lead to more opportunity for everyone.

One thing to remember here: I think it's safe to say that we all want the same thing, which is for the country to succeed in a way that allows everyone the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. To get into pissing contests and name-calling is to waste time and ruin a potentially good discussion.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 3:34 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

The low income people don't typically own legal businesses, and therefore, do not create legal job opportunities.

Lobs like to say, "rich should pay still more, so we can give it to the poor, who will spend it on the rich mans goods"

Non-Lunatics believe "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods"

when you are only concerned about unfair policies that affect someone else, you are settling into a mindset of "it can't happen to me".

When you allow govt to erode someone else's liberty, you are enabling them to to remove yours next.


That notion of : "lowere the rich mans business taxes, and he'll hire an extra worker, who will earn a paycheck, and spend it on rich mans goods" is a fallacy.
If you have a market that is in the dumps, lowering taxes or even removing taxes for the rich folks does not equal instant hire. That would be terrible business if one hires X amount of people and nobody buys your product/service. Seriously, how do you expect to pay their salary? More loans, file bankruptcy, credit, Monopoly money?
I'm a firm believer on let the market takes it's course when it comes to crap like that. You don't want to hire? Fine, somebody else (and possible middle class too) will open something similar to what you used to offer/or sell. Let someone else take the initiative of offering employment with better quality products or service which consumers will notice and hence forth... set future growth.
And you're right, low income people DO NOT create jobs, but the flip side, they maintain a business going. You remove those low wage folks on the bottom and guarantee that the high income folks won't be staying high and viable for long.


ScottaWhite wrote:

Lookee Lookee ^^^

Yep. And if he is telling the truth. Then it did went to the right group of people. That group of people are the ones that move the economy, unless he decides to save that money. With that type of money, he can now purchase all types items and services. Remember the old credit of $300 that the average folk would get a couple of years ago, and the 10% would get enough to buy a Lexus? Tell me how well did that go?

ScottaWhite wrote:


So what's wrong with a flat income tax.


What's wrong with flat tax? Read what Bill wrote. I'll add... learn how this country was being taxed when this country was #1 for everything (the heydays), the country was doing excellent because the upper section would pay into it. Roads were up to date, NASA had technology that eventually would trickle to the rest of us, schools would have resource and students where ranked in the top ten in the world. And that's just the beginning.
Flat tax is only beneficial to the top. Much to the contrary to what Rush Limbaugh says, nobody takes into account the ratio. You flat tax a person, let say... 25% and the person makes $20K per year (gross), that's $15K (net) that person gets to take home. That is enough to live bare bones basic, no amenities, and no amenities means absolute no movement in the economy. All in all, a tremendous dent in the way that person spends. 25% for a person making $20 million a year, that person will be paying $5 million, that person will take in $15 million (net). At $15 million you can live lavishly, and does not have to think twice on how that person spends, as opposed to the person making $20K per year. Now you put 10% for the $20K person, now that person takes $18K net. That extra $3K has more wiggle room to spend more, and actually contribute to the growth of the economy.
The only place that a flat tax might work is in a communist country. Where you have doctors to teachers, to janitors, to skill makers all making roughly the same amount of money. Flat tax would not impact them in ratio as all are taxed the same and roughly earning the same. Contrary to what the right wing extremist say on the radio, this is not a Communist nation. A person can earn $3K and a person can earn $45 billion and since the beginning there was a tax scale, and because of that scale, is what made the country powerful, even though since the '80s we've been loosing the fury, as the scale has been favorable towards one side as money has not been put in the country as much as before. Personally, I would like to see no income tax, but I know the country as a whole would not do to well.

ScottaWhite wrote:

How can we heal first when businesses are getting screwed over with taxes? Why is it that Texas is the number one destination for people moving away from their home state? Very pro-business tax structure there. It seems to be working well for them, but to adopt Texas' policies, is to admit defeat, and we can't have that in an election year, or jeopardize Hope N' Change II in 2012.

I would like to read this info.


But we can discuss all this through post after post, but the bottom line is, that you have a problem… like in your other threads:
ScottaWhite wrote:

I work with 2 baby mammas. They have 2 + 3 kids respectively.





THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:31 PM on j-body.org
RuggedZ wrote:

customers also need jobs to have money, so why punish the businesses? it all comes back to them. i firmly believe if businesses had lower taxes, they would hire more workers.

I fail to see how current policies are "punishing businesses". Did I miss something?





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:32 PM on j-body.org
Is it a problem that I work with baby mamas or that they ARE baby mamas? Are you assuming something?


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search