Why Republicans?

lots0

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Location
Hell on Earth
Why do you Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich?

I really don't get it...

Why do you want the richest people in America to pay LESS while at the same time you want the poor, old and disabled to pay MUCH MUCH MORE?

Why do you Republicans want to cut education?
Don't you realize that our future is our children and their education?

You republicans say you are all for creating jobs here in America.... So WHY do you Republicans continue to support tax breaks to companies for shipping our jobs overseas?

I also don't understand how Republicans can support a tax system that allows GE(the worlds largest Corp) not to pay any taxes at all and still receive a $3.2 BILLION DOLLAR Tax refund for shipping our jobs to China.

I don't understand these things... please educate me...
 
I am not a Republican but do you really believe that hogwash those democrats feed you... Come on now Do you really feel your fellow american who happens to be a Republican want to kill all old folks, take away education etc etc
Itd called RHETORIC pal,

When you owe too much money do you still go out on a spending binge? You have to sacrifice a bit or until you catch up or hit a big random jackpot then you can start to indulge again
So dont listen to any BS from either of those parties esp HUSSEIN OBAMA who is the biggest manipulator of all time
 
Not hogwash.

Fact.

All you have to do is actually look at the Republican budget
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Tax breaks for the Rich and all the rest are right there in the Republican Budget...

So my information is right from the Elephants mouth, so to speak.
 
Why do you Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich?

I really don't get it...

Why do you want the richest people in America to pay LESS while at the same time you want the poor, old and disabled to pay MUCH MUCH MORE?

Why do you Republicans want to cut education?
Don't you realize that our future is our children and their education?

You republicans say you are all for creating jobs here in America.... So WHY do you Republicans continue to support tax breaks to companies for shipping our jobs overseas?

I also don't understand how Republicans can support a tax system that allows GE(the worlds largest Corp) not to pay any taxes at all and still receive a $3.2 BILLION DOLLAR Tax refund for shipping our jobs to China.

I don't understand these things... please educate me...



Scary stuff. It is unbelievable that this hogwash is believed by some uninformed.

1)GE is in bed with Obama and there are calls for them to be investigated. If GE is helped by the Reps then why do they contribute so much to the Obama campaign and constantly lobby that admin? Hogwash of a statement. If you only watch NBC or MSNBC then you probably are unaware of this as neither of those stations reported on this scandal (parent company of both liberal media outlets: GE)

2) Do you at all understand how taxes work? What the hell do you mean rich pay less and poor pay more? That is proof positive YOU DON'T know how taxes work:

The top 1% of earners pay more than the bottom 90% COMBINED! but that isn't enough for you? Screw the rich guy, take all his money? What HOGWASH indeed. How could you possibly even type the words "poor pay much more"? That is so far from anything that actually happens here it is scary to think you actually beleive that.

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


I showed tons of these charts in another thread you were involved in but must have missed them. Here are a few to show how ridiculous it is to say the poor pay more. They don't pay ANY. in fact they TAKE. The lowest 50% of earners in America only pay a little over 12% of the taxes:

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.


3) Conservatives don't want to cut EDUCATION they want to cut the ridiculous OVERSPENDING on education. We keep spending more tax dollars on education and our scores keep falling. The liberal agenda has failed and keeps failing. why do you want to continue on that failed path? How about we educate more wisely instead of just throw gobs of money at it and watch it continue to underacheive under liberal policies. It's obvious that the unions and such support liberals but it is just as obvious the reason is money, not results. It is insane to keep throwing money as the results continue to lower. conservatives want to do what is best for the CHILDREN not the EDUCATION SYSTEM. They are totally different.

4) Why do you want people and corporations to pay more,more,more?? You should realize that tax breaks are good for EVERYONE. It is good for the wealthy because they are the ones that actually pay the taxes. Poor do not pay taxes (when counting tax refunds, tax credits, Govt. handouts). They pay negative taxes. The rich purchase more goods and services. If you take more from them then they buy less. Killing jobs and not stimulating the economy. If you want to create jobs then let the job creators alone for a while and get the govt out of their pockets and off of their backs.
 
Here's a good example lots0. The following is for California, run by liberals and unions who tell us year after year we must cut school programs, fire and police. What about all the rest? You're the one that needs to get educated. And at a new school. :)

California Academic Performance Index (API) * California Access for Infants and Mothers * California Acupuncture Board * California Administrative Office of the Courts * California Adoptions Branch * California African American Museum * California Agricultural Export Program * California Agricultural Labor Relations Board * California Agricultural Statistics Service * California Air Resources Board (CARB) * California Allocation Board * California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority * California Animal Health and Food Safety Services * California Anti-Terrorism Information Center * California Apprenticeship Council * California Arbitration Certification Program * California Architects Board * California Area VI Developmental Disabilities Board * California Arts Council * California Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus * California Assembly Democratic Caucus * California Assembly Republican Caucus * California Athletic Commission * California Attorney General * California Bay Conservation and Development Commission * California Bay-Delta Authority * California Bay-Delta Office * California Biodiversity Council * California Board for Geologists and Geophysicists * California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors * California Board of Accountancy * California Board of Barbering and Cosmetology * California Board of Behavioral Sciences * California Board of Chiropractic Examiners * California Board of Equalization (BOE) * California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection * California Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind * California Board of Occupational Therapy * California Board of Optometry * California Board of Pharmacy * California Board of Podiatric Medicine * California Board of Prison Terms * California Board of Psychology * California Board of Registered Nursing * California Board of Trustees * California Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians * California Braille and Talking Book Library * California Building Standards Commission * California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education * California Bureau of Automotive Repair * California Bureau of Electronic and Appliance Repair * California Bureau of Home Furnishings and Thermal Insulation * California Bureau of Naturopathic Medicine * California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services * California Bureau of State Audits * California Business Agency * California Business Investment Services (CalBIS) * California Business Permit Information (CalGOLD) * California Business Portal * California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency * California Cal Grants * California CalJOBS * California Cal-Learn Program * California CalVet Home Loan Program * California Career Resource Network * California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau * California Center for Analytical Chemistry * California Center for Distributed Learning * California Center for Teaching Careers (Teach California) * California Chancellors Office * California Charter Schools * California Children and Families Commission * California Children and Family Services Division * California Citizens Compensation Commission * California Civil Rights Bureau * California Coastal Commission * California Coastal Conservancy * California Code of Regulations * California Collaborative Projects with UC Davis * California Commission for Jobs and Economic Growth * California Commission on Aging * California Commission on Health and Safety and Workers Compensation * California Commission on Judicial Performance * California Commission on State Mandates * California Commission on Status of Women * California Commission on Teacher Credentialing * California Commission on the Status of Women * California Committee on Dental Auxiliaries * California Community Colleges Chancellors Office, Junior Colleges * California Community Colleges Chancellors Office * California Complaint Mediation Program * California Conservation Corps * California Constitution Revision Commission * California Consumer Hotline * California Consumer Information Center * California Consumer Information * California Consumer Services Division * California Consumers and Families Agency * California Contractors State License Board * California Corrections Standards Authority * California Council for the Humanities * California Council on Criminal Justice * California Council on Developmental Disabilities * California Court Reporters Board * California Courts of Appeal * California Crime and Violence Prevention Center * California Criminal Justice Statistics Center * California Criminalist Institute Forensic Library * California CSGnet Network Management * California Cultural and Historical Endowment * California Cultural Resources Division * California Curriculum and Instructional Leadership Branch * California Data Exchange Center * California Data Management Division * California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission * California Delta Protection Commission * California Democratic Caucus * California Demographic Research Unit * California Dental Auxiliaries * California Department of Aging * California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs * California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Board * California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control * California Department of Boating and Waterways (Cal Boating) * California Department of Child Support Services (CDCSS) * California Department of Community Services and Development * California Department of Conservation * California Department of Consumer Affairs * California Department of Corporations * California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation * California Department of Developmental Services * California Department of Education * California Department of Fair Employment and Housing * California Department of Finance * California Department of Financial Institutions * California Department of Fish and Game * California Department of Food and Agriculture * California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) * California Department of General Services * California Department of General Services, Office of State Publishing * California Department of Health Care Services * California Department of Housing and Community Development * California Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) * California Department of Insurance * California Department of Justice Firearms Division * California Department of Justice Opinion Unit * California Department of Justice, Consumer Information, Public Inquiry Unit * California Department of Justice * California Department of Managed Health Care * California Department of Mental Health * California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) * California Department of Personnel Administration * California Department of Pesticide Regulation * California Department of Public Health * California Department of Real Estate * California Department of Rehabilitation * California Department of Social Services Adoptions Branch * California Department of Social Services * California Department of Technology Services Training Center (DTSTC) * California Department of Technology Services (DTS) * California Department of Toxic Substances Control * California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) * California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVets) * California Department of Water Resources * California Departmento de Vehiculos Motorizados * California Digital Library * California Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification Program * California Division of Apprenticeship Standards * California Division of Codes and Standards * California Division of Communicable Disease Control * California Division of Engineering * California Division of Environmental and Occupational Disease Control * California Division of Gambling Control * California Division of Housing Policy Development * California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement * California Division of Labor Statistics and Research * California Division of Land and Right of Way * California Division of Land Resource Protection * California Division of Law Enforcement General Library * California Division of Measurement Standards * California Division of Mines and Geology * California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) * California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources * California Division of Planning and Local Assistance * California Division of Recycling * California Division of Safety of Dams * California Division of the State Architect * California Division of Tourism * California Division of Workers Compensation Medical Unit * California Division of Workers Compensation * California Economic Assistance, Business and Community Resources * California Economic Strategy Panel * California Education and Training Agency * California Education Audit Appeals Panel * California Educational Facilities Authority * California Elections Division * California Electricity Oversight Board * California Emergency Management Agency * California Emergency Medical Services Authority * California Employment Development Department (EDD) * California Employment Information State Jobs * California Employment Training Panel * California Energy Commission * California Environment and Natural Resources Agency * California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) * California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES) * California Executive Office * California Export Laboratory Services * California Exposition and State Fair (Cal Expo) * California Fair Political Practices Commission * California Fairs and Expositions Division * California Film Commission * California Fire and Resource Assessment Program * California Firearms Division * California Fiscal Services * California Fish and Game Commission * California Fisheries Program Branch * California Floodplain Management * California Foster Youth Help * California Franchise Tax Board (FTB) * California Fraud Division * California Gambling Control Commission * California Geographic Information Systems Council (GIS) * California Geological Survey * California Government Claims and Victim Compensation Board * California Governors Committee for Employment of Disabled Persons * California Governors Mentoring Partnership * California Governors Office of Emergency Services * California Governors Office of Homeland Security * California Governors Office of Planning and Research * California Governors Office * California Grant and Enterprise Zone Programs HCD Loan * California Health and Human Services Agency * California Health and Safety Agency * California Healthy Families Program * California Hearing Aid Dispensers Bureau * California High-Speed Rail Authority * California Highway Patrol (CHP) * California History and Culture Agency * California Horse Racing Board * California Housing Finance Agency * California Indoor Air Quality Program * California Industrial Development Financing Advisory Commission * California Industrial Welfare Commission * California InFoPeople * California Information Center for the Environment * California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) * California Inspection Services * California Institute for County Government * California Institute for Education Reform * California Integrated Waste Management Board * California Interagency Ecological Program * California Job Service * California Junta Estatal de Personal * California Labor and Employment Agency * California Labor and Workforce Development Agency * California Labor Market Information Division * California Land Use Planning Information Network (LUPIN) * California Lands Commission * California Landscape Architects Technical Committee * California Latino Legislative Caucus * California Law Enforcement Branch * California Law Enforcement General Library * California Law Revision Commission * California Legislative Analyst's Office * California Legislative Black Caucus * California Legislative Counsel * California Legislative Division * California Legislative Information * California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus * California Legislature Internet Caucus * California Library De velopment Services * California License and Revenue Branch * California Major Risk Medical Insurance Program * California Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board * California Maritime Academy * California Marketing Services * California Measurement Standards * California Medical Assistance Commission * California Medical Care Services * California Military Department * California Mining and Geology Board * California Museum for History, Women, and the Arts * California Museum Resource Center * California National Guard * California Native American Heritage Commission * California Natural Community Conservation Planning Program * California New Motor Vehicle Board * California Nursing Home Administrator Program * California Occupational Safety and Health Appeals Board * California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board * California Ocean Resources Management Program * California Office of Administrative Hearings * California Office of Administrative Law * California Office of AIDS * California Office of Binational Border Health * California Office of Child Abuse Prevention * California Office of Deaf Access * California Office of Emergency Services (OES) * California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment * California Office of Fiscal Services * California Office of Fleet Administration * California Office of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Implementation (CalOHI) * California Office of Historic Preservation * California Office of Homeland Security * California Office of Human Resources * California Office of Legal Services * California Office of Legislation * California Office of Lieutenant Governor * California Office of Military and Aerospace Support * California Office of Mine Reclamation * California Office of Natural Resource Education * California Office of Privacy Protection * California Office of Public School Construction * California Office of Real Estate Appraisers * California Office of Risk and Insurance Management * California Office of Services to the Blind * California Office of Spill Prevention and Response * California Office of State Publishing (OSP) * California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development * California Office of Systems Integration * California Office of the Inspector General * California Office of the Ombudsman * California Office of the Patient Advocate * California Office of the President * California Office of the Secretary for Education * California Office of the State Fire Marshal * California Office of the State Public Defender * California Office of Traffic Safety * California Office of Vital Records * California Online Directory * California Operations Control Office * California Opinion Unit * California Outreach and Technical Assistance Network (OTAN) * California Park and Recreation Commission * California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) * California Performance Review (CPR) * California Permit Information for Business (CalGOLD) * California Physical Therapy Board * California Physician Assistant Committee * California Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services * California Policy and Evaluation Division * California Political Reform Division * California Pollution Control Financing Authority * California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo * California Postsecondary Education Commission * California Prevention Services * California Primary Care and Family Health * California Prison Industry Authority * California Procurement Division * California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) * California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) * California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) * California Real Estate Services Division * California Refugee Programs Branch * California Regional Water Quality Control Boards * California Registered Veterinary Technician Committee * California Registrar of Charitable Trusts * California Republican Caucus * California Research and Development Division * California Research Bureau * California Resources Agency * California Respiratory Care Board * California Rivers Assessment * California Rural Health Policy Council * California Safe Schools * California San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission * California San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy * California San Joaquin River Conservancy * California School to Career * California Science Center * California Scripps Institution of Oceanography * California Secretary of State Business Portal * California Secretary of State * California Seismic Safety Commission * California Self Insurance Plans (SIP) * California Senate Office of Research * California Small Business and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise Certification Program * California Small Business Development Center Program * California Smart Growth Caucus * California Smog Check Information Center * California Spatial Information Library * California Special Education Division * California Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology Board * California Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) * California Standards and Assessment Division * California State Administrative Manual (SAM) * California State Allocation Board * California State and Consumer Services Agency * California State Architect * California State Archives * California State Assembly * California State Association of Counties (CSAC) * California State Board of Education * California State Board of Food and Agriculture *California Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) * California State Children's Trust Fund * California State Compensation Insurance Fund * California State Contracts Register Program * California State Contracts Register * California State Controller * California State Council on Developmental Disabilities (SCDD) * California State Disability Insurance (SDI) * California State Fair (Cal Expo) * California State Jobs Employment Information * California State Lands Commission * California State Legislative Portal * California State Legislature * California State Library Catalog * California State Library Services Bureau * California State Library * California State Lottery * California State Mediation and Conciliation Service * California State Mining and Geology Board * California State Park and Recreation Commission * California State Parks * California State Personnel Board * California State Polytechnic University, Pomona * California State Railroad Museum * California State Science Fair * California State Senate * California State Summer School for Mathematics and Science (COSMOS) * California State Summer School for the Arts * California State Superintendent of Public Instruction * California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) * California State Treasurer * California State University Center for Distributed Learning * California State University, Bakersfield * California State University, Channel Islands * California State University, Chico * California State University, Dominguez Hills * California State University, East Bay * California State University, Fresno * California State University, Fullerton * California State University, Long Beach * California State University, Los Angeles * California State University, Monterey Bay * California State University, Northridge * California State University, Sacramento * California State University, San Bernardino * California State University, San Marcos * California State University, Stanislaus * California State University (CSU) * California State Water Project Analysis Office * California State Water Project * California State Water Resources Control Board * California Structural Pest Control Board * California Student Aid Commission * California Superintendent of Public Instruction * California Superior Courts * California Tahoe Conservancy * California Task Force on Culturally and Linguistically Competent Physicians and Dentists * California Tax Information Center * California Technology and Administration Branch Finance * California Telecommunications Division * California Telephone Medical Advice Services (TAMS) * California Transportation Commission * California Travel and Transportation Agency * California Unclaimed Property Program * California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board * California Unemployment Insurance Program * California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission * California Veterans Board * California Veterans Memorial * California Veterinary Medical Board and Registered Veterinary Technician Examining Committee * California Veterinary Medical Board * California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board * California Volunteers * California Voter Registration * California Water Commission * California Water Environment Association (COWPEA) * California Water Resources Control Board * California Welfare to Work Division * California Wetlands Information System * California Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch * California Wildlife Conservation Board * California Wildlife Programs Branch * California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) * California Workers Compensation Appeals Board * California Workforce and Labor Development Agency * California Workforce Investment Board * California Youth Authority (CYA) * Central Valley Flood Protection Board * Center for California Studies * Colorado River Board of California * Counting California * Dental Board of California * Health Insurance Plan of California (PacAdvantage) * Humboldt State University * Jobs with the State of California * Judicial Council of California * Learn California * Library of California * Lieutenant Governors Commission for One California * Little Hoover Commission (on California State Government Organization and Economy) * Medical Board of California * Medi-Cal * Osteopathic Medical Board of California * Physical Therapy Board of California * Regents of the University of California * San Diego State University * San Francisco State University * San Jose State University * Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy * State Bar of California * Supreme Court of California * Teach California * University of California * University of California, Berkeley * University of California, Davis * University of California, Hastings College of the Law * University of California, Irvine * University of California, Los Angeles * University of California, Merced * University of California, Riverside * University of California, San Diego * University of California, San Francisco * University of California, Santa Barbara * University of California, Santa Cruz * Veterans Home of California


Apparently they only know how to spell fire, police and schools when it comes to cutting down. I notice there is a 'Library of California' up there. Good thing since they closed this town's only 2 Libraries a few years ago.

I realize we are wasting our time because you're like a broken record playing the same song over and over even though everythings broken and failed. I guess you weren't programed to admit failure or demand change. Truly a waste.
 
felicie
Normally I enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with them.

But I have to say that your last post is ridiculous, What was the point of your giant post?

You showed nothing but a long list of names of state agencies... How in the world does that prove anything??

Why not show me how much real money the Liberals cut from school spending in California? You know an actual dollar figgure... Maybe because you can't. ;)

If you want to see what lies ahead for us if the Republicans get their way... Just take a look at the UK and their Austerity program they started up a year ago... The British economy is now crashing because of the Republican like cuts to their economy... Now Britain is in as bad a shape as Ireland and Greece.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Then take a look at Germany, their Economy is booming... but they did not cut programs like the Repugs want, they actually spent MORE money to shore up their economy and it worked...
Same thing with China, they didn't cut spending, they spent MORE and look how their economy is kicking our ass.
Now argue with that.

So we have an example of what happens when you follow a Republican like plan for the economy... After the Republicans have their way, our Economy will crash even worse than it is now... And thats what you Republicans want???

I see no Republican can answer the questions I put up...
All I get are these very strange arguments that don't make any sense, kinda like the Republican Budget.

Come on answer my questions...

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?
BTW - When you reduce funding, your "CUTTING" your not stopping waste... The waste will continue with less money, because the Republicans are not stopping waste, they are only CUTTING funding.
 
felicie
Normally I enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with them.

But I have to say that your last post is ridiculous, What was the point of your giant post?

You showed nothing but a long list of names of state agencies... How in the world does that prove anything??

Why not show me how much real money the Liberals cut from school spending in California? You know an actual dollar figgure... Maybe because you can't. ;)

If you want to see what lies ahead for us if the Republicans get their way... Just take a look at the UK and their Austerity program they started up a year ago... The British economy is now crashing because of the Republican like cuts to their economy... Now Britain is in as bad a shape as Ireland and Greece.
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


Then take a look at Germany, their Economy is booming... but they did not cut programs like the Repugs want, they actually spent MORE money to shore up their economy and it worked...
Same thing with China, they didn't cut spending, they spent MORE and look how their economy is kicking our ass.
Now argue with that.

So we have an example of what happens when you follow a Republican like plan for the economy... After the Republicans have their way, our Economy will crash even worse than it is now... And thats what you Republicans want???

I see no Republican can answer the questions I put up...
All I get are these very strange arguments that don't make any sense, kinda like the Republican Budget.

Come on answer my questions...

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?
BTW - When you reduce funding, your "CUTTING" your not stopping waste... The waste will continue with less money, because the Republicans are not stopping waste, they are only CUTTING funding.

If you don't think your questions were answered then you didn't read the posts or didn't comprehend them. Surely you must be able to comprehend that the middle class COMBINED along with the lower class pays less in taxes than just the top 1%. They are already paying more than they should. It is SPENDING that needs to decrease, not taxation that needs to increase. Surely you must be able to comprehend that rather than ignore it and keep asking the same wrong question. You ask why do we want the top 1% to pay less... that is absurd. They already pay much more than they should.


commons sense alert: The UK is cutting because it realizes that if it doesn't then it is on a non sustainable course and they will crash like the crazy spending Greece did. They are trying to save themselves from that fate. Can you name a country in the history of civilization that has taxed and spent itself into prosperity? No you cannot cuz it never has happened. Those countries ultimately fail because it is a short term dream that cannot possibly work.
Answer a question for yourself, how did America become a world economic superpower without all of this nanny state, social spending? Why has the American economic system been on the decline since these social programs and bloated govt spending scams? It is simple. When the govt gets involved and starts confiscating private property and redistributing other people's money then it is doomed to failure. Read up on it throughout history.
You have taken an extremely short time frame and thought of it as an entirety. Free market solutions in the long run always out perform govt. solutions, which only impede and complicate matters. if all of the social spending would go away so too would the debt and deficit and unemployment issues that the govt has plagued us with. You see this as a solution to the problem, what you failed to recognize is that IT IS the problem that you seek to fix.
 
the income tax rates from 1913 to present.

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


in the 1960's it was 20% up to $4k
and the top rate was 91% $400K+

Kennedy and then Reagan lowered the rates -
income taxes are not high but there are many undocumented (hidden) taxes, like gas, cigs and the crap we see on the telephone bill to name a few.
 
That chart is good, but it does not include the "tax deductions" that only the Richest 1% are able to claim.

Funny that when we were taxing the richest at 80+% our Nation was growing and expanding faster than any nation in history...

Only when we dropped the tax rate on the Richest have we seen a decline in the economy.

Amazing what you can learn from a chart... lol
 
Big sigh.....I posted that long list of pork as an example, to show you the many programs that could be cut instead of the usual; school funding, police, fire and maybe even funding for problem gamblers. I can give you a figure on how much the demos have cut programs. 0 zip nada - For every program cut by the repubs, the dems add 10 more to waste our money on.

Lots0 perhaps if I'd taken an economics course at Berkley I'd understand your thinking but I didn't and thank God for that. I am only looking at the situation as a tax paying homeowner in a very liberal and expensive state. The state is bankrupt and the country it is part of is bankrupt. And yet they still keep spending more and more with no end in sight.

If any of us carried on this way with our own checking accounts it wouldn't last very long depending on ones credit and that darn negativity surrounding bounced checks.:rolleyes: And if like our government, we were doing the above with other people's money, we'd be in prison. So who the hell do they think they are taking our money and blowing it to hell, ruining a country's credit, and on top of that, tells it's citizens, who gave them the money to run this country in a reasonable and accountable way, that WE need to suffer, give up and sacrifice to lower the debt? Are you fricking kidding me?:eek: The mere fact that YOU can defend this total ripping off of the American people makes something very clear and that is you are likely one of the millions making some kind of a living off all these wonderful social programs provided by our generous government (yes on sarcasm) and you would therefore, say anything to keep it going. Theres one other possible reason you might defend such criminal behavior; you're a nutjob trying to set me off.? :nod:
Peace
 
felicie you don't need to take a class on economics.
Just look around the world...

Britain cut social programs one year ago - just like the Republicans want to do here now... Britain's economy is now crashing.

Germany did not cut social programs like the British did, even though their ecomomies were in the same bad place a year ago ( the Germans actually increased spending) and now their economy is BOOMING.

China increased social spending over 500% in the last 10 years and their Economy is kicking our butt.

If real life actual examples don't prove anything, I don't know what will... Do you have to see America as third world country before you will believe?
 
Have you been in the United States lots0? It is crashing. what goes up must come down. I'm sorry I don't know what else to say here. It's just common sense to me and you'll never change my thinking because of that. I'll have to let the guys with 'figures' take over if they want but you're a brick wall and I don't want a headache. Let's do this again next year and see what the pudding looks like.
:cheers:
 
Defense spending cuts would do wonders...but will never happen. Period.
(And please don't say we need our defense budget to protect America, we all know how inflated the THAT budget really is. Sadly the actual soldiers don't see much of it, even though they are the ones who should have a larger cut of it).

BTW- For all the back and forth that goes on between the parties, and the bullshit that media feeds us all day long, I read this article today and found it amazingly dead on-

Colbert vs. Kyl and spread of 'misinformation'
By John P. Avlon, CNN Contributor
April 15, 2011 1:40 p.m. EDT

New York (CNN) -- "Not intended to be a factual statement."


This was the sound of the curtain coming back on what passes for political debate too often these days.

The now-infamous statement from Sen. Jon Kyl's office was released after he said on the floor of the U.S. Senate that abortions represent "over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."

It turns out that the actual number is 3%, a mere rounding error of 87%. But it was presented to the American people and enshrined in the Senate Record as a means of arguing that Planned Parenthood should be entirely defunded in the current budget.

This has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility and everything to do with the disproportionate influence of social conservative activists.

Their most compelling argument is that the American people don't support federal taxpayer money paying for abortions, which is true -- and why federal funding of abortion has been banned since 1976.

But the facts are inconvenient, and so they are ignored. Instead, talking points taken from talk radio are repeated until they take on a life of their own and eventually get the validation of a U.S. senator.

The news wasn't that Kyl made a mistake; it was his staff essentially acknowledging that in the current hyper-partisan environment, facts are a secondary concern, even on the floor of the U.S. Senate, even when they are paraded as statistics. The important thing is to scare the hell out of people so that they remember your political point and pass it on.

Like the mirror image of some hippies of old, emotional truth is more important than literal truth. It creates a political tower of Babel.

In this absurd spin cycle, there's one dependable place to look for sanity: satire. And on cue came Stephen Colbert, who took Kyl's statement as a challenge and dialed it up to 11. Using the Twitter hashtag #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement, Colbert unleashed a steady stream of Jon Kyl mistruths with the requisite denial. Among my favorites:

• Jon Kyl developed his own line of hair care products just so he could test them on bunnies.

• Jon Kyl can unhinge his jaw like a python to swallow small rodents whole.

• Every Halloween Jon Kyl dresses up as a sexy Mitch Daniels.

• Jon Kyl sponsored S.410, which would ban happiness.

• Jon Kyl let a game-winning ground ball roll through his legs in Game 6 of the '86 World Series.

• Jon Kyl once ate a badger he hit with his car.

You get the idea. But the problem is much bigger than Jon Kyl. Colbert is going to have to get a bigger hashtag. Because we're heading to a strange place where Daniel Patrick Moynihan's truism "everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts" no longer applies.

Exhibit B this week: Donald Trump's re-enflaming of the thoroughly discredited birther conspiracy theory. When he repeats this falsehood in interviews, he is too often treated as a man with an unorthodox opinion, not someone repeating a lie on national television.

As a result, more people are duped and the country more divided, not on the many rational reasons to oppose President Obama's policy agenda but on paranoid fantasies cut out of whole cloth.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a man responsible for pushing the birther myth -- and a reported recent Trump adviser -- Joe Farah of the fringe website World Net Daily freely admitted to Salon.com this week that his site publishes "some misinformation."

"Misinformation" is a fancy word for lying with an ideological agenda in mind. It has become more acceptable and more influential with the rise of partisan media. It preys on the gullible and the stupid and the ditto-head alike.

The cycle of incitement that afflicts our politics ensures that this dynamic bleeds into both sides of the aisle. For example, the liberal Campaign for America's Future recently declared that "Congressman Eric Cantor wants to eliminate Social Security," a flat-out "pants on fire" lie, as described by indispensable PolitiFact.

A little-noticed local example of this strangeness caught my eye this week, courtesy of the website ThinkProgress. It seems that Texas state Rep. Leo Berman put forward a bill to ban sharia law in the Lone Star State.

When he was asked why such a step was necessary, he cited the city of Dearborn, Michigan, six times in testimony: "It's being done in Dearborn, Michigan ... because of a large population of Middle Easterners. The judges in Dearborn are using and allowing to be used sharia law."

This would indeed be troubling (and unconstitutional) if true, but when Berman was pressed about the source of his facts, here's what he told J. Patrick Pepper of the Press and Guide in Dearborn: "I heard it on a radio station here on my way in to the Capitol one day. ... I don't know Dearborn, Michigan, but I heard it on the radio. Isn't that true?"

No, it's not, as Dearborn Mayor Jack O'Reilly has been forced to make abundantly clear, stating that "these people know nothing of Dearborn, and they just seek to provoke and enflame their base for political gain."

But the misinformation percolating around the fringes of hyper-partisan media is creeping into state capitals and the U.S. Congress. Ignorance and incitement begin to blur, compounded by the civic laziness of speakers who don't care to fact-check.

"Not intended to be a factual statement" is an instant dark classic, a triumph of cynicism, capturing the essence of Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe in Washington: when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

No wonder "people are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke," as Will Rogers once said and Colbert increasingly embodies. But we can't keep depending on comedians to be the voices of sanity.

And don't be fooled. There are real costs to this careless courtship of the lowest common denominator. Without fact-based debates, politics can quickly give way to paranoia and hate. Our democracy gets degraded.

Americans deserve better, and we should demand better, especially from our elected representatives. Empowering ignorance for political gain is unacceptable.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John P. Avlon.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 
Have you been in the United States lots0? It is crashing. what goes up must come down. I'm sorry I don't know what else to say here. It's just common sense to me and you'll never change my thinking because of that. I'll have to let the guys with 'figures' take over if they want but you're a brick wall and I don't want a headache. Let's do this again next year and see what the pudding looks like.
:cheers:

I used to keep a political blog and this is what wrote. Notice the date.

Friday, November 12, 2004
Fasten your Boots

Fasten your boots, the ride is just beginning.

With the working population growing at 150k a month, the American Capital System is in jeopardy. Gone are many of the manufacturing jobs that supported working class famlies for so long. It's a new dawn in the job market these days.

With a large pool of workers, corporation no longer need to offer benefit packages to attract qualified candidates. This is why there has been a large rise in temporary workers the past decade and a half.

Bush stated in the third debate that the country is moving towards an "ownership society" and in a recent Gallop poll and "greed and materialism" was the number one moral issue.

Ultimately, this will further divide our country into have and have nots.
Further evidence is that home ownership is at a record high, but also are the number of bankruptcies and the number of people entering poverty. This is a bubble ready to burst.

When a computer hangs, the user presses the reset button. The capital system is in much need of a reset. Similar to the stock market crash of 1929. Although, the human suffering would be widespread, it is the best thing that could happen to this country in the long run as greed is out of control.
 
That chart is good, but it does not include the "tax deductions" that only the Richest 1% are able to claim.

Funny that when we were taxing the richest at 80+% our Nation was growing and expanding faster than any nation in history...

Only when we dropped the tax rate on the Richest have we seen a decline in the economy.

Amazing what you can learn from a chart... lol

Well if there is a tax deduction who gets it? Probably the guy paying the taxes. Probably NOT the guy that isn't paying taxes. Just a bit of commons sense is needed here from you.

Rich guys get the tax deductions? Really? How short sited can a thinking pattern be? How come guys that make over 175k cannot open up a roth IRA? Cannot claim their children via the child tax credit no matter how many he has? Cannot claim passive income loss (rental property,investments...et al)? Pays MORE of his earnings in % than the middle class or poor? pays as much as 100 to 300 of his fellow citizens COMBINED? Sounds like it is the Rich guy who gets the shaft, not gets the breaks. If he got the breaks he wouldn't pay the majority of taxes here.
Also, if you think that anyone who makes a success of themselves should have their money confiscated and given to the likes of you then that tells me you will never be one of those sucessful people. That simply just means you are a socialist at best and likely a communist at heart.


Realize this fact. People are NOT conservative because they are wealthy and successful. They are successful and wealthy because they are conservative. In other words, it is how their minds work that makes them successful and wealthy, not the other way around....Don't get that twisted.
 
felicie you don't need to take a class on economics.
Just look around the world...

Britain cut social programs one year ago - just like the Republicans want to do here now... Britain's economy is now crashing.

Germany did not cut social programs like the British did, even though their ecomomies were in the same bad place a year ago ( the Germans actually increased spending) and now their economy is BOOMING.

China increased social spending over 500% in the last 10 years and their Economy is kicking our butt.

If real life actual examples don't prove anything, I don't know what will... Do you have to see America as third world country before you will believe?

How did that "not cutting social spending" thing work out for Greece? Ireland? they kept spending amid warnings to stop and they went belly up.

What you are saying is so intellectually void it is frightening. UK is not going broke because they quit spending. They quit spending because they are going broke in doing so.
Can you not comprehend that??


Use your head. How the hell do you get better financially by spending more then go broke by stopping spending? That has to make no sense even to you.
The reps here are trying to halt the spiral that super spending takes you on. So too is the UK in some ways.
It is just an unbelievable ideology you are displaying. It must be just to get people riled up, it cannot really be what you think because if you think you know it cannot be correct.
 
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, you are waiting for the fall of capitalism. I sure enjoyed the fall of communism. :thumbsup:
When did China fall? Last I heard they were as Commie as they come and kicking our ass at our own game... lol



Facts are facts... cutting spending causes an economy to crash it's been proven.. several times now(see previous examples).

And it is a fact that countries that increased spending.. pulled their economies out of the recession. You don't have to understand it... just know it is a FACT.

And if we allow the Repugs to continue to cut social spending and investments in our future we are sunk...
 
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.
 
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.

For the love of Pete, Lots0!!! Can you not even take 10 seconds on google before you spew wrong stuff all over the forum? Your embarrassing yourself again with misinformation. It has got to be embarrassing at some point, no?


It is so sad that you take the time to comment on things that you don't take the time to understand or learn....


if you make 175k you are in the top 5% of wage earners.
If you make 250k you are in the top 2% of wage earners.
If you make 350k you are in the top 1% of income in the U.S.


No, you are not middle class if you make 175k. NO. you don't have to make 10s of billions to be in the top 1% (if you don't know 1% is one out of 100.... do you think every 100 people you see one of them has 10s of billions? Really?) There are only 403 Billionaires in the US. That is not TENS of billions, that is even if you have ONE billion. Only 403 out of about 308 Million people.


It is no wonder you think as you do. You have all the wrong "info and don't bother to search for the facts.
 
When did China fall? Last I heard they were as Commie as they come and kicking our ass at our own game... lol



Facts are facts... cutting spending causes an economy to crash it's been proven.. several times now(see previous examples).

And it is a fact that countries that increased spending.. pulled their economies out of the recession. You don't have to understand it... just know it is a FACT.

And if we allow the Repugs to continue to cut social spending and investments in our future we are sunk...

Wrong. Purely wrong.

otherwise all of the failed social states would have just spent their way into prosperity rather than crashed and burned.

Greece would not have just went belly up.

You are in the US so lets look at California as an example. They continue to spend more than they can afford. They are going bankrupt if they don't stop. Your theory is that if they DO stop they will go bankrupt. It is NOT stopping that will bankrupt them not the stopping of it.
In your personal life if you continue to spend more than you can afford and borrow the max on your mortgage and max out your credit cards and keep spending it is not the sudden lack of spending that will have made you bankrupt (once you get no more credit from lenders) it is the spending that you did that made you bankrupt. you are looking at it backwards. The SPENDING bankrupts. Not the stopping of the spending. The stopping of the spending is the attempt NOT TO GO BANKRUPT.

Regarding China.... they WERE communistic in fiscal policy. They still are a communist GOVT but they have started implementing capitalism and that is what is fueling their surge. That example is actually proof against what you are trying to say.
 
I gave up replying to Democrat comments, its useless. That lack the ability to grasp actual facts and numbers that support the truth regarding taxes. Republicans, including me don't support the millionaires and billionaires not paying their share of "ordinary income taxes", i.e. taxes on income you earned by doing a job. The majority of the millionaires and billionaires earnings are Captial Gains and taxed as such. They keep their ordinary income low(won't go into the details of how) and basically live off of capital gains therby paying the lower tax rate.

Bush cut taxes on all brackets and created a 10% bracket(previous lowest bracket was 15%.

We are dealing with trillions. Does LOTSO know what that means? 1000X1 billion equals 1 trillion.

And the Democrats are belly aching over 2011 budget cuts? Less than 100 billion.

As far as Education goes, I graduated H.S. in 1973 college in 1977. Before the creation of the Department of Education. The Federal Government has destroyed public education with all of their regulations, carrot sticks to the States and "cook-book" curriculums they have forced on public schools.
 
I gave up replying to Democrat comments, its useless. That lack the ability to grasp actual facts and numbers that support the truth regarding taxes. Republicans, including me don't support the millionaires and billionaires not paying their share of "ordinary income taxes", i.e. taxes on income you earned by doing a job. The majority of the millionaires and billionaires earnings are Captial Gains and taxed as such. They keep their ordinary income low(won't go into the details of how) and basically live off of capital gains therby paying the lower tax rate.

Bush cut taxes on all brackets and created a 10% bracket(previous lowest bracket was 15%.

We are dealing with trillions. Does LOTSO know what that means? 1000X1 billion equals 1 trillion.

And the Democrats are belly aching over 2011 budget cuts? Less than 100 billion.

As far as Education goes, I graduated H.S. in 1973 college in 1977. Before the creation of the Department of Education. The Federal Government has destroyed public education with all of their regulations, carrot sticks to the States and "cook-book" curriculums they have forced on public schools.


And don't forget the union! :thumbsup:
 
This thread is full of a lot of pretty inaccurate oversimplifications by people of both parties, tbh. You can't really make a blanket assertion that Germany and China have improving economies strictly as a result of investing more in the economy, there are a ton of potential correlated reasons as to why they are improving, and similarly its silly to say that people are wealthy because they are conservative, etc. Clearly the conservative viewpoint on taxes is a more favorable one to the wealthy so they are more apt to take it. That's fairly understandable I suppose, but I do think Ryan's budget essentially amounts to class warfare, and the ultimate problem is that it perpetuates the Republicans biggest issue in government, which is basically that as much as they'd like to slam Dems for not reducing the government, the reality is, they'd like to keep it exactly the same size, they just want to privatize it, which is a pretty failed business model when you start talking about introducing programs that put public health in direct opposition to shareholder profit (ie, subsidizing seniors to take private healthcare and eliminating traditional medicare).

Similarly it seems silly to talk about the top 1% and what share of taxes they pay without recognizing the amount of income and distribution of wealth they have, as well as the fact that their income grows at a rate of almost 3 times the income growth of any other demographic. In other words, to quote a common convention the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (and at a faster and faster rate) and this is why we see the declining middle class in the United States, because we essentially got sold a load of bs during the Reagan administration that by giving the wealthiest individuals and corporations huge tax breaks that prosperity would eventually "trickle down". Mostly we just got peed on. In 2001 conservative institutes like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute were actually claiming that the Bush tax cuts would ELIMINATE the deficit (lol). 10 years later they continue to be one of the biggest contributors to it, and we have a tax rate lower than at any point in the Reagan administration with a soaring deficit which is just pathetic.

Finally, this whole slap fight over discretionary spending is a complete and total joke. It's like going out to a steak dinner and arguing over whether or not you are going to order a cup of coffee or not. We could cut literally 100% of non-entitlement or defense discretionary spending and still run at a deficit, so until something major happens with reductions in national defense spending, medicare/medicaid and social security, we'll be stuck in a pretty ugly spot deficit wise.

Frankly, I don't want to get into another argument about rich vs poor, but I will say that although no politician will admit this because its not politically expedient ever to raise taxes, ALL of the Bush tax cuts need to expire, wealthy, poor, all of it. It was an irresponsible tax cut in the first place considering we were already in the middle of massive deficit spending to fund the Iraq War and was the first tax cut given during a time of war, for good reason, we can't afford to spend the billions we did while simultaneously losing revenue. Expiring the wealthiest cuts is better than nothing since pretty much no one is going to agree to expire all of the cuts again since it would be so politically unpopular, but 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.
 
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...
 
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:
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

Accredited Casinos

Read about our rating system and how it's done.
Back
Top