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

[Recliner Pilot 61]

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

 

No, I got the point dead nutz on. You are just butthurt cuz I turned it on your Hero.

[hoytdwow 202]

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.

 

Don't be dense. Nobody said that. What we criticized Assfroth for was for seeking to legislate his anti-gay, abortion, and contraception beliefs that are based on his narrow interpretation of the christian faith. They have no other basis other than religion.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Don't be dense. Nobody said that.

I believe HoytdCorky said that, almost word for word, Sport.

[MedStudent 56]

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.

 

1. I'm not really too concerned with worrying about what is fair. The ratio of CEO pay to the avergae worker in the US has grown to something like 325:1. thats not fair either. At this point, I'm more worried about what is best for the economy of the country.

 

I wouldn't be taxing the marginally rich at 60%. There would be a few more brackets going up from the 35% rate for the top earners currently. 60 % would be the very top. The average would be 50% for those in the 35% bracket currently.

 

 

2. I think people like Buffett and Romney, should be paying income taxes when they make money off of other peoples money. If they are investing their own money that they have already earned, then it should not be taxed as income but as capital gains.

The middle class would see no difference from the current rate.

 

3. state income tax, property taxes, child tax credit

[NewbieJr 541]

Don't be dense. Nobody said that. What we criticized Assfroth for was for seeking to legislate his anti-gay, abortion, and contraception beliefs that are based on his narrow interpretation of the christian faith. They have no other basis other than religion.

You've just thrown logic and common sense into the argument. RP doesn't deal very well with those elements. Of course, he'll still have a nonsensical rebuttal. Likely including the name zero for Obama and bubbles or corky for you. He's cool like that.

[MTSkiBum 1,626]

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

 

That is mighty kind of you. If you didnt give them the opportunity then no one else would have.

 

 

 

 

You are always looking out for the liberal, and to think they call you a partisan hack. They have you all wrong.

[KSB2424 3,172]

a tax code that favors rich people

We have a regressive tax code?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What we should be criticizing Obama for is seeking to legislate his anti-success beliefs based on his narrow interpretation of the christian faith.

 

WWJD?

[Strike 5,975]

 

I wouldn't be taxing the marginally rich at 60%. There would be a few more brackets going up from the 35% rate for the top earners currently. 60 % would be the very top. The average would be 50% for those in the 35% bracket currently.

 

 

Hold your horses. The 70+ billion that you based your revenues on is based upon changed the CURRENT 35% to 50%. You go and start tiering it up from 35 to 50% and you're going to lose some of that revenue. So let's say, using your system, that we increase revenues by 60 billion. That's a drop in the bucket compared to where our finances are.

 

Ok then.

[hoytdwow 202]

We have a regressive tax code?

no, dumbass. What is it with you and RP? You have this thing where you act intentionally dumb in order to try and refute what I said, even though I never focking said it.

 

The 15% capital gains rate and all the other sundry loopholes and tax shelters favor the rich because they're the only ones they apply to. That's why they paid lobbyists to get Congress to create them. And yes, I know they're all legal, but they favor the rich.

[KSB2424 3,172]

You don't have to increase rates on anything. You just have to close the loopholes that allow business/people the ability to claim income as capital gains in transactions. Amongst other similar loopholes. For the love of God, I don't want to live in a country where anybody has to give HALF of their earned money to the government. My word. I don't care if they are bazillionaires. That just ain't right kid.

[hoytdwow 202]

WWJD?

Quote manip. Good one

[KSB2424 3,172]

even though I never focking said it.

I didn't quote manipulate you at all.

 

This is a posting bored. There are no hand gestures or physical signs we can see to know if you mean what you type. If you don't mean something then don't type it.

[hoytdwow 202]

I didn't quote manipulate you at all.

 

I didn't say you did. You posted "We have a regressive tax code?" Which, I never said or suggested we did. I said the tax code favors the rich.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Quote manip. Good one

I just took your reasoning and justification you used in the Santorum thread to claim he was ignoring the Constitution, and correctly applied that same reasoning to this situation. Ya know, to give you the opportunity to be consistent.

 

You chose not to take advantage of that opportunity.

[KSB2424 3,172]

The 15% capital gains rate and all the other sundry loopholes and tax shelters favor the rich because they're the only ones they apply to. That's why they paid lobbyists to get Congress to create them. And yes, I know they're all legal, but they favor the rich.

This simply isn't true.

 

Middle Class people utilize any and every tax "grey area" they can to pay as little taxes as they can. They don't report cash transactions on side jobs. They catergorize income as a gift. Everybody uses every loophole they can.

 

Also even if a Buffet or a Romney earns zero income and ONLY investment income, their marginal tax rate is still going to be 15%. A middle class person with no investment income and ALL earned inocome would have to make over 100k to have a marginal tax rate of 15%.

[KSB2424 3,172]

I didn't say you did. You posted "We have a regressive tax code?" Which, I never said or suggested we did. I said the tax code favors the rich.

A progressive tax code favors the poor.

A regressive tax code would favor the rich.

 

You said: Our tax code favors the rich.

 

Therefore I asked: So we have a regressive tax code?

 

You don't understand taxes and are thus confused.

[hoytdwow 202]

I just took your reasoning and justification you used in the Santorum thread to claim he was ignoring the Constitution, and correctly applied that same reasoning to this situation. Ya know, to give you the opportunity to be consistent.

 

You chose not to take advantage of that opportunity.

I guess I'll try one more time. Although, I don't know why I bother with cro-magnons like you. I said a few posts up (please, just please actually read), that Obama's attending the prayer breakfast and talking about taxes and jesus did not violate church and state because he wasn't attempting to enshrine the christian faith, as those who want to post the 10 commandments in the courthouse want to do. Assfroth is attempting to enshrine christianity because he wants laws and amendments written preventing people from having birth control, or from having abortions or being gay, based on his interpretation of christianity. All Obummer said was, "and oh by the way, I think it's what Jesus would do, too." You know, because he was at a focking prayer breakfast and all. He isn't using it as the justification or basis for his policy.

[MedStudent 56]

Hold your horses. The 70+ billion that you based your revenues on is based upon changed the CURRENT 35% to 50%. You go and start tiering it up from 35 to 50% and you're going to lose some of that revenue. So let's say, using your system, that we increase revenues by 60 billion. That's a drop in the bucket compared to where our finances are.

 

Ok then.

 

I said the average 35% would be 50%. I would tier all teh way up to 60%.

 

I never said we were going to balance the budget with this. I think you could end up raising 100 billion when all is said and done by reclassifying income and raising rates. I never said we would balance the budget with this. But an 8% dent is nothing to scoff at. I wouldn't begin cutting until the economy was running better.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He isn't using it as the justification or basis for his policy.

 

Um, yes he is.

[hoytdwow 202]

A progressive tax code favors the poor.

A regressive tax code would favor the rich.

 

You said: Our tax code favors the rich.

 

Therefore I asked: So we have a regressive tax code?

 

You don't understand taxes and are thus confused.

Is that kind of how Romney said he didn't care about the very poor, but actually meant he isn't so much worried about them since there are programs in place already? How could anyone misunderstand him?

[Strike 5,975]

I said the average 35% would be 50%. I would tier all teh way up to 60%.

 

I never said we were going to balance the budget with this. I think you could end up raising 100 billion when all is said and done by reclassifying income and raising rates. I never said we would balance the budget with this. But an 8% dent is nothing to scoff at. I wouldn't begin cutting until the economy was running better.

 

So you think the marginally rich should pay 70% of their income, just in income tax????? And that doesn't even include payroll taxes. But you really think someone making, say, a million a year, should pay 700,000 just in income tax????

[Phurfur 70]

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

 

 

 

Let's go through this at your speed.

 

and what do the rich people do with their money?

[porkbutt 897]

i thought this thread was gonna be about obummer basically wiping his ass with the constitution and forcing healthcare that pays for sterilization & abortions on catholic hospitals, etc. he's even losing some libtard support with that one.

 

is there a thread on that travesty?

[Little Rusty 19]

Let's go through this at your speed.

 

and what do the rich people do with their money?

 

make the World go 'round

[parrot 789]

Let's go through this at your speed.

 

and what do the rich people do with their money?

 

They commit a large portion of it to speculating on the value of assets in secondary markets.

[NewbieJr 541]

i thought this thread was gonna be about obummer basically wiping his ass with the constitution and forcing healthcare that pays for sterilization & abortions on catholic hospitals, etc. he's even losing some libtard support with that one.

 

is there a thread on that travesty?

You should start one. The board needs another anti-Obama thread.

 

It'll make you guys feel better, despite knowing that he's going to destroy the dolt the GOP is wheeling out there against him./

[jerryskids 7,053]

no, dumbass. What is it with you and RP? You have this thing where you act intentionally dumb in order to try and refute what I said, even though I never focking said it.

 

The 15% capital gains rate and all the other sundry loopholes and tax shelters favor the rich because they're the only ones they apply to. That's why they paid lobbyists to get Congress to create them. And yes, I know they're all legal, but they favor the rich.

It seems to me that the vast majority of people who benefit from the capital gains tax structure are retirees who are living off of that income.

 

Why do you hate the elderly?

[Phurfur 70]

They commit a large portion of it to speculating on the value of assets in secondary markets.

 

How much? Link?

[Strike 5,975]

1. I'm not really too concerned with worrying about what is fair. The ratio of CEO pay to the avergae worker in the US has grown to something like 325:1. thats not fair either. At this point, I'm more worried about what is best for the economy of the country.

 

 

Not sure what this has to do with anything. Most of the people you're talking about aren't CEO's. It's nice that fairness doesn't enter your equation though.

 

Don't really know what you're talking about re: the economy either. This won't help the economy. If anything it will hurt it.

[Bert 1,128]

The 15% capital gains rate and all the other sundry loopholes and tax shelters favor the rich because they're the only ones they apply to. That's why they paid lobbyists to get Congress to create them. And yes, I know they're all legal, but they favor the rich.

 

Pure ignorance.

[porkbutt 897]

You should start one. The board needs another anti-Obama thread.

 

It'll make you guys feel better, despite knowing that he's going to destroy the dolt the GOP is wheeling out there against him./

so i'll assume you're on his side with this?

[Bert 1,128]

A progressive tax code favors the poor.

A regressive tax code would favor the rich.

 

You said: Our tax code favors the rich.

 

Therefore I asked: So we have a regressive tax code?

 

You don't understand taxes and are thus confused.

[Phurfur 70]

1. I'm not really too concerned with worrying about what is fair. The ratio of CEO pay to the avergae worker in the US has grown to something like 325:1. thats not fair either. At this point, I'm more worried about what is best for the economy of the country.

 

I wouldn't be taxing the marginally rich at 60%. There would be a few more brackets going up from the 35% rate for the top earners currently. 60 % would be the very top. The average would be 50% for those in the 35% bracket currently.

 

 

2. I think people like Buffett and Romney, should be paying income taxes when they make money off of other peoples money. If they are investing their own money that they have already earned, then it should not be taxed as income but as capital gains.

The middle class would see no difference from the current rate.

 

3. state income tax, property taxes, child tax credit

 

It's the spending stupid! Government spending has doubled in the last decade; the rich don’t have enough money to support your spending habits. Do the math; you can use a calculator if you want.

 

 

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money," - Margaret Thatcher

[NewbieJr 541]

so i'll assume you're on his side with this?

Define 'this'

[Mungwater 601]

I pay capital gains taxes each year, I'm far from rich

 

 

Why are people demonizing folks for investing their money

[penultimatestraw 473]

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

The bottom 50% earn less than $32396. They earn 13% of all income, in comparison to ~17% for the top 1% or earners and 32% for the top 5%. This is reported/taxable income, of course - I'd be willing to bet these numbers grossly underestimate the true wealth disparity. But let's assume the lower earners are taxed at a higher rate: how much discretionary income do the have? What would be the societal cost of reducing this number? Mathematically it doesn't make sense, either. My link

 

To the OP, Obama is not establishing a national religion in any shape or form in that speech. He is appealing to his audience, first and foremost. They are likely mindless zealots, but zealots are voters, too (unfortunately). In any case he also mentions Judaism and Islam, so he hasn't favored any flavor of witchcraft more so than others. A shout out to Brahma and Buddha would have been nice, I'll agree.

[parrot 789]

How much? Link?

 

Yeah, I'll get back to you as soon as I get this pig off the ground.

[Bert 1,128]

The bottom 50% earn less than $32396. They earn 13% of all income, in comparison to ~17% for the top 1% or earners and 32% for the top 5%.

 

And eventhough the 5% only earn 32% of the income they pay over 50% of the personal income tax.

[porkbutt 897]

Define 'this'

this