Why Republicans?

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, you are waiting for the fall of capitalism. I sure enjoyed the fall of communism. :thumbsup:

not waiting for anything, I just analyze the data in front me. I'm not idelogical.

Why anyone wants to defend either idelogy is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
BBKPoker I have to say yours is by far the best post in this thread, if certain people would not have abused the thanks button here and got it taken away, I would have given you a BIG thanks.

Ya I do generalize a lot here, much too difficult to carry on a long detailed conversation on a forum like this where every other post is a sidetrack off the main subject.

smellyfootwoman If you want to call me names don't try to be coy... it really doesn't work for you. Just come on out and say what you think... Do you really think I am 'stupid" like you inferred?

I don't think your stupid smellyfootwoman, I think your a smart person that is so entrenched into your political beliefs that you have totally closed your mind to anything that disagrees with you.

I also know you really don't personally like me much and thats too bad, cause I just lub u. :D

gm so what do you make a year? I'm guessing around 30K a year... I'll bet you really do believe that 175k a year is rich... and to think the top 1% of the richest makes 350k a year is really "rich".... LOL
Where did you get your info from, got a link?
 
BBKPoker said:
we need significant cuts in spending to National Defense, some cuts to entitlement programs and discretionary spending, and probably a tax hike to begin to eliminate deficit. It's not a particularly sexy proposition, but its necessary before it gets any further.
I agree.
We to put it all on the table, taxes, entitlements, defense, everything.
But it NEEDS to fair.
The cooperations and the very rich should not get another free pass, like they have in the past.
 
gm so what do you make a year? I'm guessing around 30K a year... I'll bet you really do believe that 175k a year is rich... and to think the top 1% of the richest makes 350k a year is really "rich".... LOL
Where did you get your info from, got a link?


Have you not taken the time to read the posts made earlier in this very thread including links? If not then no wonder you are so totally misinformed. You are STILL arguing about the misconception you have that the top 1% earn TENS OF BILLIONS? Can't you even comprehend how ludicrous that is by the stats given?

I'll explain again. 1% is 1 out of 100 people. When you walk down the street do you really think that 1 out of every 100 that you see are worth TENS OF BILLIONS? Really do you? NO. 1 out of 100 makes $350,000+ though. That is your top 1%.
The fact that you could easily look these stats up yourself but didn't is scary. The fact that you are still arguing it and calling me stupid when you are clearly embarrassing yourself with a lack of information is inexcusable. Take 5 minutes and look up some information. If you would just arm yourself with information then much of this thread and debate would not be needed as you would already see your errors.

Doesnt your computer have the ability to use google or some other search engine? If you did that then you may not need to question obvious things.

Here are a few links. Look at them this time:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.



You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


So you still want to tax the top 1% (Including those in the $350k range) More and MORE??? Now that you can see the top 1% isn't made of BILLIONAIRES LOL.

Regarding what I make, it shouldn't make a difference at all, but it was already disclosed in another political rant thread that I am in the top 1% range in most years.
 
I agree.
We to put it all on the table, taxes, entitlements, defense, everything.
But it NEEDS to fair.
The cooperations and the very rich should not get another free pass, like they have in the past.


The very rich pay way more in taxes than you. I already disclosed to you that the top 1% pay more than the bottom 90% COMBINED. If you want it to be fair then you would be for more tax CUTS.
 
smellyfootwoman If you want to call me names don't try to be coy... it really doesn't work for you. Just come on out and say what you think... Do you really think I am 'stupid" like you inferred?

I also know you really don't personally like me much and thats too bad, cause I just lub u. QUOTE]

Does LOTSO know what that means? 1000X1 billion equals 1 trillion.
I don't think this statement, or any part of my comment, indicates I was calling you names.

I don't know why you think I don't personally like you. I don't even know you. I will say however, that I dislike the "tone" of many of your comments.

When an individual or married couple files ordinary income on a 1040. The earnings reported indicate what they earned by working a "job" just like everyone else. If a single
person earns $200,000, Obama/Dems don't consider them "Wealthy" no tax increase. But a married couple earning $400,000.(200,000/ea) will see a tax increase on the amount above $250,000.00 doesn't matter if they have 5 kids to support or two kids in college(who get no "free" gov. money cause parents earn too much. Is that fair?
Is it fair that taxpayers in lower brackets owe no "federal tax on their income" and the majority of them actually get money back for tax credits higher earners don't get?
How much could revenue increase if these taxpayers paid at least $1.00 or $20.00?

In IRS reported that For Tax Year 2006, taxpayers filed 138.4 million individual income tax returns, of which 92.7 million, or 67.0 percent, were classified as taxable returns. A taxable return is a return on which the taxpayer reports total income tax greater than zero dollars. So........33% owed no tax either based on their gross wages or gross wages minus deductions and credits.

Sole-proprietors of small businesses that have employees pay "individual" income taxes on 1040. Their income and the businesses income is one and the same. They get none of the benefits or credits or ability to take advantage of loopholes that Corporates have available. These are the Small Businesses that will be hit the hardest by tax increases.

As my accountant always says "if you earn money(income that you take from your business to pay the expenses of your family, ie house payment, electric, gas, car payment, deductibles on health insurance, house insurance, college tuition, clothing, food.) You will pay ordinary taxes on that amount. No way around that.


The rich get richer because they have more money to invest. They can afford to buy property, stocks, bonds, and invest in "tax shelters". They buy thousands of shares while we buy mutual funds and 100s of shares. Stocks have to increase $1.00 for our 100 shares purchased at $1.00 to earn us $100.00. Their 1000 shares only have to increase by cents to earn 100.00.

They can pay cash for homes and get them for a lower price and pay no interest, reducing their cost basis and affording them a profit when turned-over. We take out loans that increases the cost thousands and thousands of dollars in interest over 15 or 30 years.(you pay capital gains on the difference between purchase price and sale price not ordinary income; this includes Rental property. So they money they make is taxed at the lower capital gains rate)

This is just a few examples of why the rich get richer. So, raising their Ordinary Income Taxes isn't going to yield the Government much more revenue. They will just continue to shift their money into investment that pay them earnings monthly and that are considered captial gaines.

I happen to disagree that the poor get poorer. With the creation of the 10% tax bracket and lowering the other brackets it helped not hurt the lower and middle incomes. Not to mention the Bush and Obama Tax Credits which were only available to lower and middle income brackets. This in itself helped to even things out between higher incomes and those that recieved the various credits and deductions.
Not to mention all of the Government assistance only available to those individuals and families earning under $200,000.00/year.



Soon more people will pay no federal tax yet get refunds due to credits than the number of that owe income tax when they file their tax return. Once that happens, then what?
 
Last edited:
Soon more people will pay no federal tax yet get refunds due to credits than the number of that owe income tax when they file their tax return.

I was rather taken back the first time I heard someone getting money back that didn't pay in to the system.

The poor are definately getting poorer but it is not becauses of taxes, it is because wages are not keeping up with inflation. Which I understand to be about 5 or 6% according to the folks at Fox news anyway. Mathmatically, an hourly working person would need to get at least that % in a yearly raise to maintain the same quality of life.

However, the answer is to make yourself more marketable or you will be left behind.
 
Regarding what I make, it shouldn't make a difference at all, but it was already disclosed in another political rant thread that I am in the top 1% range in most years.

I'm also in the top 1% of earners. Obviously the top 1% doesn't earn close to the billions, but I don't really understand why him getting that wrong is something you keep hammering on unless you're trying to invalidate an entire argument based on one slip which isn't even necessarily central to his argument, but whatever, I digress.

IIRC, the top 1% of income earners starts pretty close to those who make 1.45-1.5 million in income per year.
 
Being in the top US Tax Bracket does not mean you are one of the richest 1%...
I wished it did...

I am also in the top tax bracket (but I am NOT one of the richest 1%), I pay more in federal taxes every quarter than the average American makes in a year... But I am not even close to the earning what the richest 1% do.

A lot of very well off people on this board... Bryan must be very happy attracting that kind of a demographic... ;)


The link is from USC at Santa Cruz. Very well written and researched. Written by the same guy that wrote "Who Rules America" now in it's 6th edition.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
footdr said:
I don't think this statement, or any part of my comment, indicates I was calling you names.

Your twisting things again...
What I said was...
lots0 said:
Do you really think I am 'stupid" like you inferred?
Please note the bolded text.

I never said you were calling me names...
 
Super Rich See Federal Taxes Drop Dramatically
Half Of US Households Pay No Income Tax


Link Removed (invalid URL)
 
Being in the top US Tax Bracket does not mean you are one of the richest 1%...
I wished it did...

I am also in the top tax bracket (but I am NOT one of the richest 1%), I pay more in federal taxes every quarter than the average American makes in a year... But I am not even close to the earning what the richest 1% do.

Sorry lots0 but you are seemingly arguing that making over 350k does not make you one of the top 1% of United States Population. You are trying to say that the richest 1% earn billions or tens of billions or whatever. It was presented clearly to you that this is impossible and also you were given the actual statistics. To put it in another context there are about 3 million people in the US that make over 350k. 3 million is about 1% of 310 million (us population).

So how do you keep arguing that making over 350k per annum does NOT put you in the top 1% ??? You have now seen proof and been given explanation and 3 times now you have argued it. How can you still dispute this and expect to be taken seriously?
 
Sorry lots0 but you are seemingly arguing that making over 350k does not make you one of the top 1% of United States Population. You are trying to say that the richest 1% earn billions or tens of billions or whatever.
That is correct.

It was presented clearly to you that this is impossible and also you were given the actual statistics.
Really where are the facts? All I saw was some links to partisan political sites or sites that had no information on the subject. A few links to partisan political sites proves absolutely nothing.

Besides, you are talking about Earnings, I am talking about the RICHEST 1%.

FYI - Dividend income is not 'Earned' income. Most all of the richest 1%'s income is almost all
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
, that is taxed quite differently (and taxed at a MUCH lower rate) than 'Earned' income.

Here is a non-partisan link...
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


To put it in another context there are about 3 million people in the US that make over 350k. 3 million is about 1% of 310 million (us population).
Not the top EARNERS. I am and have been talking about the RICHEST 1% there is a difference... you did know that, right?

So how do you keep arguing that making over 350k per annum does NOT put you in the top 1% ??? You have now seen proof and been given explanation and 3 times now you have argued it. How can you still dispute this and expect to be taken seriously?
See the last answer.

If you really want to know the answers to these questions... you should ask your own CPA/ Tax Attorney... see what he/she says... I did.
 
lots0,

Fair enough on earners vs. richest. I get you now, I didn't get that before. As a matter of fact. That isn't what you said and have been saying. For example you said if you make 175k you are middle class. You didn't say if you were worth 175k you were middle class. That would be nonsense anyways. Plus the entire arguement was on who pays taxes and you were discussing earnings. Anyways........................
but lets just pretend that you did mean have instead of earn. Lets take a look at that.

If you think a guy making 175k is RICH, your sadly misinformed and obviously very poor.

the middle class makes 175k...

The richest 1% make tens of BILLIONS of dollars a year.

So you were saying "makes" I equated that with "earned".

thus there are a few points to bring up. Still typically the top 1% EARN 350k+ per annum. They are still taxed hard on that money. Then they are taxed 15% on investment earnings. However, they are not allowed to deduct passive income (investment) LOSSES. This money that they are investing (gambling) has ALREADY BEEN TAXED when it was earned. So you want a guy to get taxed hard on making 350k per annum. Then get taxed again when he risks it and is succesful, but not just taxed, taxed MORE. Why do you want to keep taking and taking from this guy? You will stunt investments. He won't want to invest the money because he will be taking the risk for a minor reward. You have to leave people alone. Let them be free. Let them invest and enjoy the successes of that should they succeed. you want to punish the success. Take from them. and you want to do it over and over. That is crazy. If you have so many social programs that you need to tax the same dollar over and over again from the same person then you have too damn many social programs and they need cut and eliminated.

Also, that top 1% of earners and the top 1% of rich are STILL not billionaires. As was stated that would be impossible. there are only a little over 400 billionaires. That is not 1% of the population. That is .00013% of the population. Not a half a percent. Not a tenth, not a hundredth, not even one thousandth of one percent. So you are just plain wrong and absurdly so.

Also, 175k is not middle class. I don't know where to attack that but it isn't middle class at all. Only 34% of USA households make over 65k per annum.
 
Here is why

Why do Republicans want to make the 1% of the richest in America pay less and the Middle class pay more?

Why do Republicans want to Cut Education?

On the first part, nobody is "paying less." The bottom 50% is paying viurtually nothing in income taxes. The top 1% is paying far more than their fair share no matter how you cut it. Taking more in taxes is taking away jobs.

As to cutting education, simple. Our schools are doing a terrible job lately. Where I come from you don't get a raise when you don't do a good job. In any case, the Department of Education is unconstitutional and should be shut down. Read the 10th Ammendment.

And I suggest you quit trolling so obvioulsly or/and get your news from a more fair and balanced source.
 
lots0,

Fair enough on earners vs. richest. I get you now, I didn't get that before. As a matter of fact. That isn't what you said and have been saying. For example you said if you make 175k you are middle class. You didn't say if you were worth 175k you were middle class. That would be nonsense anyways. Plus the entire arguement was on who pays taxes and you were discussing earnings. Anyways........................
but lets just pretend that you did mean have instead of earn. Lets take a look at that.



So you were saying "makes" I equated that with "earned".

thus there are a few points to bring up. Still typically the top 1% EARN 350k+ per annum. They are still taxed hard on that money. Then they are taxed 15% on investment earnings. However, they are not allowed to deduct passive income (investment) LOSSES. This money that they are investing (gambling) has ALREADY BEEN TAXED when it was earned. So you want a guy to get taxed hard on making 350k per annum. Then get taxed again when he risks it and is succesful, but not just taxed, taxed MORE. Why do you want to keep taking and taking from this guy? You will stunt investments. He won't want to invest the money because he will be taking the risk for a minor reward. You have to leave people alone. Let them be free. Let them invest and enjoy the successes of that should they succeed. you want to punish the success. Take from them. and you want to do it over and over. That is crazy. If you have so many social programs that you need to tax the same dollar over and over again from the same person then you have too damn many social programs and they need cut and eliminated.

Also, that top 1% of earners and the top 1% of rich are STILL not billionaires. As was stated that would be impossible. there are only a little over 400 billionaires. That is not 1% of the population. That is .00013% of the population. Not a half a percent. Not a tenth, not a hundredth, not even one thousandth of one percent. So you are just plain wrong and absurdly so.

Also, 175k is not middle class. I don't know where to attack that but it isn't middle class at all. Only 34% of USA households make over 65k per annum.

unless I'm missing something or the tax laws have changed isn't it the capital gains that's taxed and not the principle?

Aren't taxes are lower than in the clinton era? Not sure where the debate is?
 
And now for your Half-time entertainment: :)

Three Prophecies

Have you read Lenin lately? Lenin said
The generals would do the Germans in.
He prophesied disaster dead ahead
Once military planning ruled Berlin.

For England, Lenin traced a falling curve
Descending from the first Elizabeth;
With little on the island in reserve,
The Kingdom would expand itself to death.

He also had a chilling word to say
About the way the likes of us would end.
America, he said, would pass away
Because of an obsessive urge to spend.

Two out of three so far! That's quite a score
For someone who passed on in '24.

W.H. von Dreele (There's something about a Liberal)
 
unless I'm missing something or the tax laws have changed isn't it the capital gains that's taxed and not the principle?



Exactly. That is why I said if the investor is succesful he gets taxed again on those earnings from the money he was already taxed on. However, if he loses then likely he will be unable to claim that as it is passive/investment income and if his bracket is that he makes 350k or more then no deductions would be allowed.

Aren't taxes are lower than in the clinton era? Not sure where the debate is?
The debate started as lots0 saying the poor are paying more and the rich are paying less. Then the absurdity of that comment was spelled out nicely for him. Then the debate changed to lots0 claiming that the top 1% make tens of billions. That has been proven false about 200 times on this thread.

So basically the debate is lots0 and like minded people thinking that the top 1% should pay even more in taxes although they already shoulder a majority of the burden and others refuting that point and claiming that taxes AND social spending need to lower.
 
There is something about politics that makes people very, very cranky. Especially when it comes to commenting on another that thinks differently than you. It just brings out the worst in some people as evidenced in this thread. People are being less than tolerant and actually showing too much disrespect for other points of view.

And that is why, I do not "do politics".

Carry on, folks!! :D
 
There is something about politics that makes people very, very cranky. Especially when it comes to commenting on another that thinks differently than you. It just brings out the worst in some people as evidenced in this thread. People are being less than tolerant and actually showing too much disrespect for other points of view.

And that is why, I do not "do politics".

Carry on, folks!! :D[/QUOTE


Oh I don't know jod. I've seen more ruckus and name calling than this at my family gatherings when politics come up. And we're all supposedly on the same side. :rolleyes:
 
Here is a list of the wealthiest people in America from the IRS (the only real authority on this subject)
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


BYW - when I was saying the "1%", it was not meant to be numerically correct. It is a 'saying', kinda like the Bikers that wear the 1% badge, there are a lot more bad bikers than 1%.;)

Only in this case there are a lot less than 1%...

So you are saying that the very small group of the richest people in America are paying their fair share?

The people that own ~90% of all assets in America pay less than ~10% of the total tax bill.

Super Rich see federal taxes drop
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


As a person in the middle class, I pay ~38% of my total income, while the super rich that own most everything, pay less than 10%(in most cases nothing)...
that is just not fair.. anyway you cut it.

There are so many breaks that 45 percent of U.S. households will pay no federal income tax for 2010, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Eric Schoenberg former investment banker]"I simply point out to people, `Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'"
Eric Schoenberg is on the above list from the IRS, he is a Billionaire and one of the richest people in America.


source:
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

gaydave said:
The debate started as lots0 saying the poor are paying more and the rich are paying less
And I still stand by that. I am poor(when compared to the super rich) and I pay a larger percent of my income in taxes than the super rich. ;)
 
Last edited:
I posted that same story yesterday.

Super Rich See Federal Taxes Drop Dramatically
Half Of US Households Pay No Income Tax

Link Removed (invalid URL)
 
You have a real problem

Your twisting things again...
What I said was...

Please note the bolded text.

I never said you were calling me names...

smellyfootwoman If you want to call me names don't try to be coy... it really doesn't work for you. Just come on out and say what you think... Do you really think I am 'stupid" like you inferred?

Your the one that always twists things read your comment. It clearly implies you believe I was calling you "names".
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Click here for Red Cherry Casino

Meister Ratings

Back
Top