For all you "Separation of Church and State" types.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How do you feel about Zero using Jesus and religion to justify his class warfare tax increases against the rich?

 

 

[Little Rusty 17]

He's an absolute player of fools & tools,......homie don't play dat

[hoytdwow 202]

How is it "class warfare" to criticize a tax code that favors rich people or to try to rectify the imbalance, but NOT "class warfare" to create said tax code? Is that Reverse-class warfare?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How is it "class warfare" to criticize a tax code that favors rich people or to try to rectify the imbalance, but NOT "class warfare" to create said tax code? Is that Reverse-class warfare?

 

We know your thoughts on taxes. How do you feel about Zero using Jesus to justify his tax policy?

[hoytdwow 202]

We know your thoughts on taxes. How do you feel about Zero using Jesus to justify his tax policy?

 

Another non-answer /Recliner Pilot

 

Jesus believed in helping poor people. I should think the so-called christians on the right would be all for it.

[Vikings4ever 496]

Another non-answer /Recliner Pilot

 

Jesus believed in helping poor people. I should think the so-called christians on the right would be all for it.

He said to help the less fortunate.

 

Not to elect politicians to do it for you.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Another non-answer /Recliner Pilot

 

Jesus believed in helping poor people. I should think the so-called christians on the right would be all for it.

So, you are in favor of politicians basing public policy for the country on Jesus' teachings and the bible.

 

Mmmkay.

[Little Rusty 17]

Another non-answer /Recliner Pilot

 

Jesus believed in helping poor people. I should think the so-called christians on the right would be all for it.

 

Yes they do, but of their own heart, NOT the Governments theft of another mans wealth to be given to lazy libs on perpetual welfare.

[MedStudent 56]

How do you feel about Zero using Jesus and religion to justify his class warfare tax increases against the rich?

 

 

 

Its dumb to use religion as a reason for doing anything. Raising taxes on the rich makes sense on a purely economical basis. But I guess the President has to appeal to the religious zealots who are too dumb to understand economic principles. Its not something I approve of.

[Strike 4,081]

Its dumb to use religion as a reason for doing anything. Raising taxes on the rich makes sense on a purely economical basis. But I guess the President has to appeal to the religious zealots who are too dumb to understand economic principles. Its not something I approve of.

 

Specifically, how much would you raise taxes on the rich and what would be the specific effect on our budget and deficit? You seem extremely knowledgeable in this area. TIA.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Its dumb to use religion as a reason for doing anything. Raising taxes on the rich makes sense on a purely economical basis. But I guess the President has to appeal to the religious zealots who are too dumb to understand economic principles. Its not something I approve of.

Didn't take long for the "I'm an atheist so I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude to show up.

[MedStudent 56]

Specifically, how much would you raise taxes on the rich and what would be the specific effect on our budget and deficit? You seem extremely knowledgeable in this area. TIA.

 

I would raise the top tax rate from 35% to 50% and get rid of most deductions. It would raise about 70-90 billion of additional revenue. It would reduce the budget deficit by about 70-90 billion dollars.

[Strike 4,081]

I would raise the top tax rate from 35% to 50% and get rid of most deductions. It would raise about 70-90 billion of additional revenue. It would reduce the budget deficit by about 70-90 billion dollars.

 

A few questions about this proposal:

 

1) At what income level would you raise that rate?

 

2) Where do you get your revenue numbers from?

 

3) You realize that with your rates rich people would pay upwards of 60% of their income in taxes. For example, in CA the state income tax rate is 10%. So, that's 60% right there before you add in payroll taxes, local taxes, etc....Do you really think that's fair?

 

4) Would you make the same rate change to capital gains? I mean, raising the income tax rate to 60% would have ZERO effect on Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney since they make most of their money in capital gains. So, would you raise the capital gains rate to 50% as well?

[Mungwater 589]

I would raise the top tax rate from 35% to 50% and get rid of most deductions. It would raise about 70-90 billion of additional revenue. It would reduce the budget deficit by about 70-90 billion dollars.

 

Stick to medicine kid

[Phurfur 70]

How is it "class warfare" to criticize a tax code that favors rich people or to try to rectify the imbalance, but NOT "class warfare" to create said tax code? Is that Reverse-class warfare?

 

How does it favor rich people when half of the workforce pays no tax or gets more back than they put in. Please explain this to me.

[Phurfur 70]

Another non-answer /Recliner Pilot

 

Jesus believed in helping poor people. I should think the so-called christians on the right would be all for it.

 

Jesus did not believe it was the governments place to help the poor. HTH

[Herbivore 916]

Didn't take long for the "I'm an atheist so I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude to show up.

 

Why should it, religion is stupid. People can talk about it, just keep it out of the law of the land.

[Phurfur 70]

Its dumb to use religion as a reason for doing anything. Raising taxes on the rich makes sense on a purely economical basis. But I guess the President has to appeal to the religious zealots who are too dumb to understand economic principles. Its not something I approve of.

 

on a purely economical basis it makes just as much sense to tax the bottom 50% who don't pay taxes.

[Bishop82 61]

Jesus did not believe it was the governments place to help the poor. HTH

 

Rink?

[MDC 5,955]

How does it favor rich people when half of the workforce pays no tax or gets more back than they put in. Please explain this to me.

 

The bolded part above isn't true. 46% of Americans pay no federal income tax but they do pay federal payroll / excise tax, and state / local income, sales, and property taxes. And of that 46% around 90% of them are the elderly or working poor and they are exempt because they make very little income.

 

I'm not saying it's right, just saying your claim that 50% of people pay no taxes is wrong.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why should it, religion is stupid. People can talk about it, just keep it out of the law of the land.

 

It's your Hero making policy decisions based on religion, Sport.

[NewbieJr 541]

Jesus did not believe it was the governments place to help the poor. HTH

Is that what he told you?

 

Bam!!!

[Phurfur 70]

Why should it, religion is stupid. People can talk about it, just keep it out of the law of the land.

So you want to legalize murder and theft?

[Mungwater 589]

So you want to legalize murder and theft?

 

Don't forget rape

[Phurfur 70]

Is that what he told you?

 

Bam!!!

 

His beliefs are documented. HTH

[Bishop82 61]

His beliefs are documented. HTH

 

Chuck Norris?

[MedStudent 56]

A few questions about this proposal:

 

1) At what income level would you raise that rate?

 

2) Where do you get your revenue numbers from?

 

3) You realize that with your rates rich people would pay upwards of 60% of their income in taxes. For example, in CA the state income tax rate is 10%. So, that's 60% right there before you add in payroll taxes, local taxes, etc....Do you really think that's fair?

 

4) Would you make the same rate change to capital gains? I mean, raising the income tax rate to 60% would have ZERO effect on Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney since they make most of their money in capital gains. So, would you raise the capital gains rate to 50% as well?

 

1. I would add more brackets starting at the the current 35% braket. The richest paying higher than 50% but the end result would be the current 35% bracket paying an effective rate of 50%.

 

2. Tax Policy Center

 

3. Yes

 

4. No I wouldn't raise capital gains tax as much or maybe not at all. That would raise the cost of doing business in the country and could have a net negative effect. I may look at reclassifying certain income that people like hedge fund managers claim as capital gains as being considered income.

[Herbivore 916]

So you want to legalize murder and theft?

 

What?

[MedStudent 56]

on a purely economical basis it makes just as much sense to tax the bottom 50% who don't pay taxes.

 

Not at all. Basically all the money that the poor make, goes directly into the economy. They spend everything they make.

[Mungwater 589]

Didn't you guys see what happened in illinois when you raise the tax?

[NewbieJr 541]

What?

Don't ask for an explanation. He's very old and very dumb and he tried actually expressing himself without simply posting song lyrics. As retarded as the reply was, it's actually a step in the right direction for Phurfer.

[Herbivore 916]

It's your Hero making policy decisions based on religion, Sport.

 

No its not Corky.

[Strike 4,081]

1. I would add more brackets starting at the the current 35% braket. The richest paying higher than 50% but the end result would be the current 35% bracket paying an effective rate of 50%.

 

2. Tax Policy Center

 

3. Yes

 

4. No I wouldn't raise capital gains tax as much or maybe not at all. That would raise the cost of doing business in the country and could have a net negative effect. I may look at reclassifying certain income that people like hedge fund managers claim as capital gains as being considered income.

 

More questions:

 

1) You think it's fair to tax marginally rich people (379k) at MORE than 60% while half the country pays ZERO income tax?

 

2) You want to tax the marginally rich at MORE than 60% while letting guys like Buffett and Romney get off at 15%? So, the really poor and the really rich get off easy but the people in the middle get soaked?

 

3) You said you'd get rid of most deductions. Can you provide some examples of the one's you'd keep?

 

Just trying to understand your point of view on all of this.

[hoytdwow 202]

So, you are in favor of politicians basing public policy for the country on Jesus' teachings and the bible.

 

Mmmkay.

No, I'm not. But you obviously are since you distinguish yourself from us "separation of church and state types." I'm in favor of religion being a personal matter and out of government, just like the all-hallowed Framers were. ZerObummer!^TM saying stuff about Jesus and helping the poor hardly rises to a state endorsement of "Jesus' teachings and the bible." He was at a prayer breakfast for crying out loud; of course he's going to say something to this effect. I mean, do you think Jesus would be against a progressive tax code? Or for rich people paying higher taxes?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

No, I'm not. But you obviously are since you distinguish yourself from us "separation of church and state types." I'm in favor of religion being a personal matter and out of government, just like the all-hallowed Framers were. ZerObummer!^TM saying stuff about Jesus and helping the poor hardly rises to a state endorsement of "Jesus' teachings and the bible." He was at a prayer breakfast for crying out loud; of course he's going to say something to this effect. I mean, do you think Jesus would be against a progressive tax code? Or for rich people paying higher taxes?

If it's a violation of "separation of Church and State" for some town in bumfukk Nebraska to put a manger scene in front of the court house, why isn't Obama violating it by using Jesus to sell his tax policy?

[hoytdwow 202]

If it's a violation of "separation of Church and State" for some town in bumfukk Nebraska to put a manger scene in front of the court house, why isn't Obama violating it by using Jesus to sell his tax policy?

Because the policy is not intended to enshrine the christian faith. All he says is, "this is the right thing to do, and by the way, I think it's what Jesus would do as well."

[MTSkiBum 1,605]

Thanks Recliner Pilot for keeping the geek club up to date on pressing news issues. I would have never known that Obama mentioned jesus's name. You cover subjects that the mainstream media is too afraid to touch.

[NewbieJr 541]

:lol:

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Thanks Recliner Pilot for keeping the geek club up to date on the pressing news issues. I would have never known that Obama mentioned jesus's name. You cover subjects that the mainstream media is too afraid to touch.

 

I guess you missed the thread a few weeks ago where people here were saying stuff along the lines of: Because he is religious if you support Santorum you don't know what this country was founded on.

 

I figured I would give those same posters the opportunity to be consistent and say if you support Obama you are clueless as to what the country was founded on.

 

Once again, if you don't like the subject of a thread why not PM Mike and have him explain how you avoid clicking on, and then reading said threads. HTH

[Herbivore 916]

I guess you missed the thread a few weeks ago where people here were saying stuff along the lines of: Because he is religious if you support Santorum you don't know what this country was founded on.

 

I figured I would give those same posters the opportunity to be consistent and say if you support Obama you are clueless as to what the country was founded on.

 

Once again, if you don't like the subject of a thread why not PM Mike and have him explain how you avoid clicking on, and then reading said threads. HTH

 

Chalk it up to one of the many things you missed the point on.

 

 

eta - Sport