Cry me a river for the freakin "poor" - Page 3 - Politics and War Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:38 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

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:

No, you just refuse to admit that you got hung on looking like an ungrateful jerk who uses the system but then whines about having to pay into it. If you can't let that go, and you need to keep looking like a righteous "Patriot" who can take a break while at low income but can't extend one after moving up the income ladder, then keep proving it. It's just how I roll, making YOU roll in your own doody.

It's not like anyone reads this sh!t anyway, so keep smearing Bactine on that cut I pried open. So long as you continue to cry about being exposed, I refuse to move on to other points. Now whine about that; no sense changing your tune now, right?




Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, April 13, 2010 4:39 PM




Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:11 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

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?


i'm not implying they are at all, i just stated that because you mentioned making taxes pro-customer rather than pro-business. just playing devil's advocate a little.





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 6:25 PM on j-body.org
I kept most of 5K I was given, (not a return since I didn't PAY IN). My wife works as a waitress at high end restaurant in down-town, she makes 2.13/hr and brings home around 100-150 buck in a 5hr shift. Her employer taxes her tips based on the total of her nightly sales, most of her paychecks are around 10-15.00 every two weeks because of her low hourly pay is used to cover the taxes on her tips. She only made about 300.00 buck last year on paper, but made near 20K in cash. We had a combined cash net income of about 45K after paying all medi-care, social security, and private health care. We roughly bring home after taxes between 3500-4K a month depending on how much my wife works.

Why did we still get a check from the IRS? We followed all the tax laws through out the year and Jackson-Hewitt thought the same thing when we did our taxes.

There is a hourly worker at my place of employment who has 6kids and a wife that doesn't work, he gets housing assistance, food stamps and his children qualify for insurance. Come the end of the year is BEGGING to home early and doesn't want to use his PTO so that is annual income stays under a certain amount so he can keep all his hands out.



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:01 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

No, you just refuse to admit that you got hung on looking like an ungrateful jerk who uses the system but then whines about having to pay into it. If you can't let that go, and you need to keep looking like a righteous "Patriot" who can take a break while at low income but can't extend one after moving up the income ladder, then keep proving it. It's just how I roll, making YOU roll in your own doody.

It's not like anyone reads this sh!t anyway, so keep smearing Bactine on that cut I pried open. So long as you continue to cry about being exposed, I refuse to move on to other points. Now whine about that; no sense changing your tune now, right?
Meh, just as I figured. You are unwilling or unable to have an intelligent discussion on the substance. That's how you roll, fool.

If you want to see someone who is refusing to admit error, I suggest you walk to the closest mirror. You've got nothing, and you've exposed no hypocrisy on me, nor any backpedalling. What you've further exposed is your inability to comprehend clear points, and have an adult discussion. You fail every time you try, yet you still keep going. The only thing you accomplish with this is to make a big mess out of a thread that could have been worthwhile for the rest of us. Maybe that's just what you like to do, seeing as you spend so many hours up late at night doing it. Perhaps if you got more sleep, your head wouldn't be as foggy, and you wouldn't be such a cranky infant.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:06 PM on j-body.org
Ztwenty4door wrote:

There is a hourly worker at my place of employment who has 6kids and a wife that doesn't work, he gets housing assistance, food stamps and his children qualify for insurance. Come the end of the year is BEGGING to home early and doesn't want to use his PTO so that is annual income stays under a certain amount so he can keep all his hands out.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the lack of incentive to better one's situation. When the laws make it better for a person to cut down their hours, they create an entire sector of the public that goes about their lives making sure they don't get ahead, because they will lose their hand-outs.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:17 PM on j-body.org
Wow sorry for my poor grammar in that quote.... its been a long day.

That is all.



Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:00 PM on j-body.org
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:10 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Ztwenty4door wrote:

There is a hourly worker at my place of employment who has 6kids and a wife that doesn't work, he gets housing assistance, food stamps and his children qualify for insurance. Come the end of the year is BEGGING to home early and doesn't want to use his PTO so that is annual income stays under a certain amount so he can keep all his hands out.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned the lack of incentive to better one's situation. When the laws make it better for a person to cut down their hours, they create an entire sector of the public that goes about their lives making sure they don't get ahead, because they will lose their hand-outs.

More obviations. People have been avoiding higher tax brackets forever. Like this is some kind of revelation. It's the way the system's worked as long as I have been in it. What makes you think it should change just because you now make enough to be offended by it?





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:28 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. Protector of the Rich wrote:


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.

If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?

Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:10 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

Is it a problem that I work with baby mamas or that they ARE baby mamas? Are you assuming something?

No, I am not assuming and judging by your choice of words; I'm accusing you of having racial problems/issues with the people that does not look like you, just like 70% of your threads/response.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.

Run that tale to Sarah Palin so she can use it as another scare tactic to the RNC. Business lets of go folks because the lack of business or employers get accustomed to one or couple of folks doing the same job instead of a few doing the same job. That's capitalism and one of it's aspects. If employer sees the job gets done with the least amount of people, why keep more on the pay roll? Maximize profit, not because of "tax burden." Government is not out to destroy business, do you even comprehend how ludicrous and insane that logic is? What does government get out of it, if it's out to destroy a business? The end result is all negative in every aspect for them. I can give you... regulations to run thing appropriately, yes. No regulation equals products like the ones found in China... or now Toyota.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

R.W.E. Protector of the Rich wrote:


Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
As I've pointed out to you before, you forget the deductions. Let's say the person in your hypothetical situation is just a single man living alone. They would have a standard deduction of $5,700, and a personal exemption of $3,650, leaving a taxable income of $10,650. The 25% tax on that would only be 2662.50. This works out to 13.31% of his income, leaving 17337.50. That's close the $18,000 in your 10% scenario. However, the guy making $20M, after deductions (let's say he's married with 3 kids), he would be paying 25% of $19.97, which is $4.99M. The deductions don't significantly affect him at all. If a flat tax were to be instituted with higher personal exemptions, it would effectively take care of the low income earners the same way a lower marginal rate for them would, if not better.

If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?

Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.

Saved me from typing it up. lol



THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 9:40 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

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.
You're forgetting an aspect of this. There are many, and I mean many, small business owners who have laid off employees, or cut hours back from full time to part time, and picked up the slack themselves, out of necessity to maintain their business, due to increased burdens placed on them by the government in the form of taxes on both the business, and the payroll. Not all of these type situations have to do with the slow economy. Lower these burdens, and many of these business owners will be able to pay the people to do the work again. I work with a lot of small businesses, and a large number of them have gone back to working long hours again over the past few years because they had to let people go or cut back their hours to cut down payroll. These people would rather have employees doing the work, so they could spend less time actually working their company, and more time running it, but the cost of employees has increased tremendously without the actual pay the employees receive going up.

Speaking as an actual Businessman, my tax burden has not increased at all in years. It's most CERTAINLY not why I laid off employees in this depression! I laid them off because revenues fell. Revenues fell because sales volume dropped off. As to what ramrodded the economy into that state, I attribute it to the horrific economic policies in place when it all occurred, with the final death plunge starting in Q3 2007. Guess who was at the controls not only then, but in the years leading up to this catastrophe, the years that created it? Yep. The Grand Old Party, taking obscene profits from insane mortgages, completely unrealistic real estate values, outrageous interest rates on consumer credit, and decimating the USA's industrial base while it made STUPID money importing junk from Asia.

Y'all sold us down the river...and you think we're gonna believe you're here to rescue us NOW? LOLOLOL!








Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:19 AM




Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:08 PM on j-body.org
The term "Baby Momma" is not exclusive to any race or ethnicity. It means "single unwed mother". I work with two white girls currently. Both single, both with more than 1 kid each. March, they begin counting down the days til the next tax refund payday. It used to be three baby mommas, with whom I worked, but Kelly (the black baby momma), got a first shift job, so she could work while her kids were in school...and saving a lot of daycare money.

The closest you'll get to finding actual bonafide racist content from me, is in regard to Muslim terrorists- aka- terrorist Muslims.
If I see someone do something and say " hey guess what person "X" was doing today? If they were doing it...well it just happened to happen that way.


“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 10:24 PM on j-body.org
It's a sad day in the USA when a woman who decides to raise her child(ren) on her own is portrayed as some evil 'ward of the state'. I've a lot of respect for single parents. It's a challenging place to find oneself in this world.

This may not be racism, per se, but it's just as ugly, just as stereotypical, and just as hateful.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:28 AM on j-body.org
Neither of them are "wards of the state" in the traditional welfare sense. They are working single moms, but baby mommas nonetheless. What is unfortunate is society's embrace of unwed parenthood. It may be forward thinking, and oh-so liberating, but it has diminished the role of the father. In many cases, it reduces the man to the role of a tomcat...roving around, looking out for himself. Doesn't mean that either parent is a bad person...so spare me the hallmark stories of single mo

y triumphent over all the odds to bring her babies a better life.


“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
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:32 AM on j-body.org
Don't appear to pick on single moms, and you won't have to listen to the stories! Society shifts, and it has shifted in this naiton toward more single-parent households. In the case of single parents, they do end up on the low end of taxable income along wih the high end of government subsidies. It's just a fact, and like so many uselessly whined about in this forum, it's not worth losing sleep over.

A nation has to raise its children. Without a future generation, we cease to be viable.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:56 AM on j-body.org
Group A- children of single unwed parent. Group B- children of married/ divorced parents

which group will more likely end up on the dole or in trouble with the law.


“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
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:29 AM on j-body.org
I didn't say one was preferable over the other. Nor is this discussion about the moral implications and/or likely ramifications of single parenthood. We're talking about tax revenues, and took a quick segue down the path of your distaste with single parents. I'd prefer to get back to the point now.

Speaking of which...since you and RWE have decided that a tax overhaul would solve some "issues", riddle me this...if it's your impression that tax burdens should be reduced for business, and not raised for the individual or family, but you are also concerned about the total tax revenues...how can you reconcile the fact that your points are in direct conflict with one another? You propose 'solutions' that do not generate additional revenue.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:41 PM on j-body.org
No one can make a point to you bill, because you refuse to believe that low business tax burdens, encourage business growth, expansions, etc....which allows more people to be hired...who pay income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fees etc. And there's your revenue. Some think that lowering business taxes results in no job growth, but instead, CEOs swimming in heir money bin ala Scrooge mcduck


“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
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 5:53 PM on j-body.org
Anyone can make a point if they are willing to be concise and not contradict themselves. You've not done so, however. I'm not against any of the things you've mentioned in this post, but I am against you not being able to tie it all together.

Indulge me...go ahead, make your point. Tell me how you fix the swelling deficit by reducing taxes.





Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:36 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

More obviations. People have been avoiding higher tax brackets forever. Like this is some kind of revelation. It's the way the system's worked as long as I have been in it. What makes you think it should change just because you now make enough to be offended by it?
Once again, you missed the point. This isn't about people trying to avoid higher tax brackets, it's about people trying to avoid losing their hand-outs. The system should be there to help people when they fall on hard times, and get them back on their feet. The problem is there are too many entitlements these days that are set up in a way that provides all the incentive to stay where you are instead of working to improve your situation. This has nothing to do with me being offended by it because I'm not in that income bracket anymore. My views on the subject have never changed. I got out of that bracket by accepting the fact that it was up to me to do it, and no one else. I firmly believe that this culture of entitlements causes less and less people to accept responsibility for improving their own life.

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?

Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.

...if it's your impression that tax burdens should be reduced for business, and not raised for the individual or family, but you are also concerned about the total tax revenues...how can you reconcile the fact that your points are in direct conflict with one another? You propose 'solutions' that do not generate additional revenue.
See, there you go again, taking the narrow view and making it the main point of your response. The similar outcome is at the bottom end, where the person in the example wouldn't be hit with a massive tax increase. However, to have a flat tax like that would incentivize investments and growth. Why would a flat tax work? History has proven that lowering marginal rates ends up stimulating economic activity in such a way that the end result is that revenues increase. The reason for this? Even though taxes take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie becomes much larger, so the take still increases. By making a flat tax, the incentive for investment is even greater, and the end result will be that the government realizes more revenues, and the system is fair to everyone, since everyone keeps the same percentage of their taxable income. You talk about shouldering the burden, but this is to believe income tax is a zero-sum game, which proponents of higher taxes for the higher earners always ignore. Another thing to consider regarding the history of lower rates producing higher revenues is that opponents claim it doesn't work, because they look at a short 4-5 year period, and show that for that entire period, the higher tax rates would have produced higher revenues. What they ignore is the fact that the annual revenues have actually begun to skyrocket toward the end of that period, because of the growth following a logarithmic scale.

It should also be noted that I'm a proponent of major budget cutting, so increasing the revenues to keep up with the spending is not exactly a top priority. Stimulating major growth in the economy is #1, while simultaneously reigning in the budget, and maintaining a founding principle of this country, which is personal liberty.

If you want to do some reading on how lowering tax rates in the higher brackets actually increases the percentage of the tax burden paid by those at the top, as well as how lowering the rates affected an economy that had been sliding for years turn into an economy that boomed (for everyone) for a decade, read this. An important group of statistics:
Quote:

The top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers (roughly speaking those making over $200,000 a year) saw their share of income tax payments rise from 7 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1986. The share of taxes borne by the top 2 percent of taxpayers (roughly those making over $60,000) rose from 26 percent in 1981 to 34 percent in 1986. Taxpayers on the bottom half of the income scale saw their share of tax payments fall from 7 percent at the start of the decade to only 6 percent by 1986. The great American middle class, people earning between $20,000 and $60,000 in the early 1980s saw their tax share fall from 67 percent to 60 percent between 1981 and 1986.



Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:

Run that tale to Sarah Palin so she can use it as another scare tactic to the RNC. Business lets of go folks because the lack of business or employers get accustomed to one or couple of folks doing the same job instead of a few doing the same job. That's capitalism and one of it's aspects. If employer sees the job gets done with the least amount of people, why keep more on the pay roll? Maximize profit, not because of "tax burden." Government is not out to destroy business, do you even comprehend how ludicrous and insane that logic is? What does government get out of it, if it's out to destroy a business? The end result is all negative in every aspect for them. I can give you... regulations to run thing appropriately, yes. No regulation equals products like the ones found in China... or now Toyota.
LOL. There's your demonization of business owners, right on schedule.

You know, there are two things to say about this. One, most business owners are not out to make their buck at the expense of their employees. For one, most successful businesses are built with employees who are glad to be part of it. Most business owners want to be able to pay their employees well, offer benefits, and retain them. Sure, like with everything else out there, there are the bad ones, but they are not the majority.

Lastly, the Toyota comment, really? Because those cars aren't built in the US, under US regulations, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm no Toyota fan, but let's be realistic about that statement.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 7:07 PM on j-body.org
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

More obviations. People have been avoiding higher tax brackets forever. Like this is some kind of revelation. It's the way the system's worked as long as I have been in it. What makes you think it should change just because you now make enough to be offended by it?
Once again, you missed the point. This isn't about people trying to avoid higher tax brackets, it's about people trying to avoid losing their hand-outs. The system should be there to help people when they fall on hard times, and get them back on their feet. The problem is there are too many entitlements these days that are set up in a way that provides all the incentive to stay where you are instead of working to improve your situation. This has nothing to do with me being offended by it because I'm not in that income bracket anymore. My views on the subject have never changed. I got out of that bracket by accepting the fact that it was up to me to do it, and no one else. I firmly believe that this culture of entitlements causes less and less people to accept responsibility for improving their own life.


Wrong. It's ZERO different than people holding back their income to avoid paying higher taxes. You are running in circles now. It's a DEPRESSION. It is a time of MAXIMUM government assistance. Your pleas don't just fall on deaf ears...they fall on NO ears. No one is listening right now.

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

If through the deductions you now cite, a similar outcome as now is achieved...what's the point of revamping the code to do a flat tax?

Let's cut to the chase: avoid hypotheticals and endless rationalizing, and simply state why a flat tax would be an improvement. In doing so, indicate how it will increase revenues, and who will shoulder the addtional burden required to achieve said increase.

...if it's your impression that tax burdens should be reduced for business, and not raised for the individual or family, but you are also concerned about the total tax revenues...how can you reconcile the fact that your points are in direct conflict with one another? You propose 'solutions' that do not generate additional revenue.
See, there you go again, taking the narrow view and making it the main point of your response. The similar outcome is at the bottom end, where the person in the example wouldn't be hit with a massive tax increase. However, to have a flat tax like that would incentivize investments and growth. Why would a flat tax work? History has proven that lowering marginal rates ends up stimulating economic activity in such a way that the end result is that revenues increase. The reason for this? Even though taxes take a smaller piece of the pie, the pie becomes much larger, so the take still increases. By making a flat tax, the incentive for investment is even greater, and the end result will be that the government realizes more revenues, and the system is fair to everyone, since everyone keeps the same percentage of their taxable income. You talk about shouldering the burden, but this is to believe income tax is a zero-sum game, which proponents of higher taxes for the higher earners always ignore. Another thing to consider regarding the history of lower rates producing higher revenues is that opponents claim it doesn't work, because they look at a short 4-5 year period, and show that for that entire period, the higher tax rates would have produced higher revenues. What they ignore is the fact that the annual revenues have actually begun to skyrocket toward the end of that period, because of the growth following a logarithmic scale.

It should also be noted that I'm a proponent of major budget cutting, so increasing the revenues to keep up with the spending is not exactly a top priority. Stimulating major growth in the economy is #1, while simultaneously reigning in the budget, and maintaining a founding principle of this country, which is personal liberty.

If you want to do some reading on how lowering tax rates in the higher brackets actually increases the percentage of the tax burden paid by those at the top, as well as how lowering the rates affected an economy that had been sliding for years turn into an economy that boomed (for everyone) for a decade, read this. An important group of statistics:
Quote:

The top 0.1 percent of all taxpayers (roughly speaking those making over $200,000 a year) saw their share of income tax payments rise from 7 percent in 1981 to 14 percent in 1986. The share of taxes borne by the top 2 percent of taxpayers (roughly those making over $60,000) rose from 26 percent in 1981 to 34 percent in 1986. Taxpayers on the bottom half of the income scale saw their share of tax payments fall from 7 percent at the start of the decade to only 6 percent by 1986. The great American middle class, people earning between $20,000 and $60,000 in the early 1980s saw their tax share fall from 67 percent to 60 percent between 1981 and 1986.

The 'pie' is not going to get bigger until more jobs materialize. That will take years, if ever, thanks to the destructive economic policies that gutted our job base in the 2000's.

Radically revamping the tax code right now is pure folly. You cannot achieve such grandiose effects while the bulk of the nation's businesses and families are struggling so hard just to stay afloat. There is no more MONEY to take from anyone to close the deficit gap. You cannot reduce entitlements either when people are starving. A flat tax does not "create" economic activity...if it forces those in the upper brackets to pay more tax, it destroys it. This "cure" would be far worse than the disease.

What will work is what's happening now in a natural economic way. Survival of the fittest for businesses, competitive improvements, belt tightening, and changes in attitudes leading to improved savings and reduction in rampant consumerism. You seem to think a tax overhaul is some magic bullet, an elixir of Hope and Change. Oops. Yes, I said it...that is, YOU said it.

Quik, all you do is parrot what your handlers have told you, over and over, ad infinitum. You do not have an original thought in your head.







Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:12 PM on j-body.org
ScottaWhite wrote:

The term "Baby Momma" is not exclusive to any race or ethnicity. It means "single unwed mother". I work with two white girls currently. Both single, both with more than 1 kid each. March, they begin counting down the days til the next tax refund payday. It used to be three baby mommas, with whom I worked, but Kelly (the black baby momma), got a first shift job, so she could work while her kids were in school...and saving a lot of daycare money.

The closest you'll get to finding actual bonafide racist content from me, is in regard to Muslim terrorists- aka- terrorist Muslims.
If I see someone do something and say " hey guess what person "X" was doing today? If they were doing it...well it just happened to happen that way.

"Baby Momma" is derived from the South Eastern usually low income or uneducated afro-american community. Knowing your past stupidities as in thread starters and thread response that terminology only tells me you have issues with that group, which is why you brought this thread up as a form of vent, much like your Dodge Magnum thread. If you think that I'm to believe you work with anglo-saxon pregnant women to diminish your connotations, then let me sell you a bridge.
What's next, a thread on: "black crimes," and half way down the thread you respond... "Brotha stole ma' girlfriend!" ?

R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:

the Toyota comment, really? Because those cars aren't built in the US, under US regulations, right? Don't get me wrong, I'm no Toyota fan, but let's be realistic about that statement.

Toyota was an example of when no such regulation was brought up even though it was known for years. Could it be relaxing the regulation, or being paid off? What ever it was Toyota was not being monitored. The case of Toyota could be the food you consume, to the paint you use. Regulation is our safety net for knowing what we purchase is safe to use.

Learn what happened here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-g-baker/the-toyota-coverup_b_462187.html
&
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/toyota-president-denies-cover/story?id=9717478


THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.

Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:24 PM on j-body.org
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Wrong. It's ZERO different than people holding back their income to avoid paying higher taxes. You are running in circles now. It's a DEPRESSION. It is a time of MAXIMUM government assistance. Your pleas don't just fall on deaf ears...they fall on NO ears. No one is listening right now.
LOL. So now your head is so big that you think you speak for everyone, huh? Not only are you the authority on everything, but you think people aren't listening to me just because you say so? How about the fact that since you've been so hot and heavy back in the War Forum 6 months ago, too many have left, because every time they try to have an intelligent discussion, you jump in and start with your insults and name-calling, bringing it down to a first-grade schoolyard level?

By the way, explain how in a depression, it's a good thing that people have an incentive to avoid improving their income so that they can stay on a hand-out? How exactly do you see that being a positive for the country? As I said, government assistance should help people get back on their feet, not become a way of life.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

The 'pie' is not going to get bigger until more jobs materialize. That will take years, if ever, thanks to the destructive economic policies that gutted our job base in the 2000's.
Oh, really? Then explain this one: Between January 2001 and August of 2008, there was an increase in employed persons of 7.4 million. That's just about 1 million new jobs per year. In 2001, Bush took office with a rising unemployment rate, and we were in a recession. Following 9/11, the recession continued with a slight kick. Following tax rate cuts in 2003, we turned around and unemployment dropped steadily, bottoming out in 2007 at 4.5%. We had an economic crash that was tied to the housing bubble inflated by horrible lending practices on the highest risk buyers, pushed by liberal policies, not conservative ones. The source for my numbers: http://www.bls.gov/data/

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Radically revamping the tax code right now is pure folly. You cannot achieve such grandiose effects while the bulk of the nation's businesses and families are struggling so hard just to stay afloat. There is no more MONEY to take from anyone to close the deficit gap. You cannot reduce entitlements either when people are starving. A flat tax does not "create" economic activity...if it forces those in the upper brackets to pay more tax, it destroys it. This "cure" would be far worse than the disease.
First off, where did I say we need to radically revamp the tax code right now? LOL. Scott brought up a flat tax, and you started asking for an explanation of why it works. Now that I've given an explanation, you're acting like I've been saying this needs to be done now. Do I believe we should get there? Absolutely. Do I believe we should litterally throw out the system right now and put in a new one? No. However, we could get there in a similar fashion to the ERTA of 1981, where it's staged in over a period of years with decreases in rates, as well as reductions in loop-holes, until we get to where it needs to be. As for there being no more money? Exactly why we need to stop this ridiculous spending. Hell, if they lower taxes, and collect less right now, and cut spending, the country would still be better off, since we wouldn't be setting the table for inflation, or racking up massive deficits which add compounding interest burdens on the national debt.

Second, a flat tax doesn't force the upper brackets to pay more tax, the end result is they pay more tax because they make more money. These kind of statements from you prove that you don't actually comprehend half of what I post. You read everything I post with a preconcieved notion of what I'm saying, so nothing makes any sense to you when read in that context. Lower taxes stimulate economic activity. It's proven. Just to remind everyone, in the early 80's, we were in a worse situation than we are now. We had the same rapid increase in unemployment, but we also had outrageous interest rates. Through tax policies that created incentives for investment in business, we had one of the longest periods of economic growth in our history.


Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

What will work is what's happening now in a natural economic way. Survival of the fittest for businesses, competitive improvements, belt tightening, and changes in attitudes leading to improved savings and reduction in rampant consumerism. You seem to think a tax overhaul is some magic bullet, an elixir of Hope and Change. Oops. Yes, I said it...that is, YOU said it.
At least we can agree on one thing. As for tax overhaul being a magic bullet? It doesn't happen overnight, but lowering taxes works. What I find rather interesting is that a few months ago, you jumped into a thread where I was discussing this with someone else, and you agreed with me. What's changed your mind since then? Do you really believe now that it doesn't work, or do you just have such a bug up your ass to argue with me that you no longer care what it's about?

Take Back the Republican Party wrote:

Quik, all you do is parrot what your handlers have told you, over and over, ad infinitum. You do not have an original thought in your head.
This holds no more truth than the first time you claimed it. Just because you can't comprehend basic logic doesn't mean I'm simply repeating what I've heard. It may make you feel better about yourself to continue trying to smear me, but you're failing, as usual.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 8:53 PM on j-body.org
RWE of JBO wrote:

...you think people aren't listening to me just because you say so? How about the fact that since you've been so hot and heavy back in the War Forum 6 months ago, too many have left, because every time they try to have an intelligent discussion, you jump in and start with your insults and name-calling, bringing it down to a first-grade schoolyard level?

By the way, explain how in a depression, it's a good thing that people have an incentive to avoid improving their income so that they can stay on a hand-out? How exactly do you see that being a positive for the country? As I said, government assistance should help people get back on their feet, not become a way of life.

It worked to bring us out of the last depression, and we went on to rule the world economically (well, with the help of WWII as well). This is not the time to let people starve on the streets. It's going to be expensive to crawl out of the hole the GOP-dominated government of the 2000's shoved us into. No amount of hypocritical, hysterical flag-waving will change that. The GOP government did tremendous damage to our country. They put a permanent stain on capitalism with policies that benefitted the few and left the rest of the nation holding the bag big-time. Sure, the libs promoted the concepts that led to junk mortgages. But the Republican-dominated institutions that took the cash sure didn't seem to mind. It was all a great big non-partisan Ponzi played on the public by those who abused power and lined their own pockets as long as possible.

I don't speak for everyone, just those who are exhausted so much by your endless yammering that they just don't even bother reading it anymore...and based on current audience levels, that does appear to be just about everyone. As for me taking on all the rightwingnuts here and spanking them repeatedly, that's why they gave up. Even a dog learns to finally leave the yard when its ass is handed to it over and over

RWE of JBO wrote:

At least we can agree on one thing. As for tax overhaul being a magic bullet? It doesn't happen overnight, but lowering taxes works. What I find rather interesting is that a few months ago, you jumped into a thread where I was discussing this with someone else, and you agreed with me. What's changed your mind since then? Do you really believe now that it doesn't work, or do you just have such a bug up your ass to argue with me that you no longer care what it's about?

I'd like to see the thread to which you now refer. You have to keep in mind, I'm not going to be in lockstep with any one platform, so what may feel like vacillation or inconsistency to you may well be my centrism and the tendency it creates to draw points of view from more than one school of thought.






Re: R.W.E can take money, but he can't get OK with giving it
Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:12 PM on j-body.org
We went on to rule the world because the rest of the world was mostly destroyed. Our manufacturing was intact....Europe was screwed. That is what boosted us to greatness.


“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