Oh My...This IS Awkward - The Buffet Rule - The Prequel.

[8537]

I think the thread shelling is just out of whack from an earlier error, Jarhead.

 

[Jarhead]

something is wrong with the quoting function I think....

 

[Jarhead]

Wait what? Where have I said that exempting farm land from regular property tax rates is a bad idea?

Oh, wait - I haven't! You built that strawman yourself.

Are you really this stupid?[/QUOTE]

And an interesting exchange/debate is ruined.

Hate that type of crap.

If you read the post I was replying to, it ends with that quote. I simply left it hanging in my reply.

cant figure anythinjg out on here with the quoting all screwed up.

I would like to see where Rabbi said that balck men cant lead.....but until I do, I will give rabbi the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen him say anything even close.

Not that I doubt you 8537....but the way people spin things on here, I need to see how it was worded.

 

[mudwhistle]

And spending rose faster. Hence the recent and current deficits brought on by failing to collect enough tax revenue to pay for the costs of running the government.

Depends on what is necessary and what is simply political pay-offs. We don't need to send $1.d billion to fund the Muslim Brotherhood, do we???

What else is not necessary spending?

Continuing the Afghanistan war, defending Europe, defending Korea, defending Japan, for starters.

But bombiÑg Libya was good....and FYI....Afghanistan is your GD baby, not ours.

 

[8537]

Eh, no - that's not the race card. Rabbi's not a racist because we apparently disagree on who should claim the NJ farm exemption. He's a racist because he believes black people are incapable of leading.

I'd ask for proof but you get your ass kicked every time we have this discussion, which is really just a deflection from your posts. Which are just deflections from the main topic here.
Are you on Ritalin? You need to be.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3281965-post6.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/3282255-post21.html

It goes on...for anyone interested, just follow the thread. it's...emm...enlightening.

Not sure if you missed this post, Jarhead - give that thread a whirl. You'll notice how most conservatives discredited him, then fled...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Today's so called conservatives have turned St. Ronnie into a myth that conforms to their cherished dream to foist all tax burdens onto the working class.

Reagan wouldn't support much of what today's Randians so desire.

Reagan clearly understood that taxation was a necessary evil.

After all the man proposed AND GOT the largest single tax increase in US history.

When Reagan entered office top tax rate was 70% and 28% when he left....how is that an increase?

 

[NYcarbineer]

you are single by choice and have no dependants by choice.

And?

btw, I was simply clarifying my tax status.

All I was saying was that you choose to be who you are. If you chose to have children, you would have the exemption.

But again, I dont agree with that deduction. Someone like you pays a higher percentage and you likely use less government services. There is a contradiction there. No doubt.

Well, if I were defending child based tax breaks, I would argue it like this:

If you are a household of 4, for example, with a household income of 60,000, that's 4 people essentially making 15,000 each.

How much do you want to tax a person making 15,000 a year?

lol, see, I make better arguments even for things I don't like or necessarily agree with.

 

[SniperFire]

No, the top 10% pay 71% of all federal personal income taxes.

I think you meant to say, the top 10% pay 71% of all personal Federal income taxes.

Eh, that's Federal income taxes paid by individuals = federal personal income taxes. Of course, that excludes the fact that almost every person with a job pays 7.65% or more on their first 106,000 in labor income, a regressive tax.

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And?

btw, I was simply clarifying my tax status.

All I was saying was that you choose to be who you are. If you chose to have children, you would have the exemption.

But again, I dont agree with that deduction. Someone like you pays a higher percentage and you likely use less government services. There is a contradiction there. No doubt.

Well, if I were defending child based tax breaks, I would argue it like this:

If you are a household of 4, for example, with a household income of 60,000, that's 4 people essentially making 15,000 each.

How much do you want to tax a person making 15,000 a year?

lol, see, I make better arguments even for things I don't like or necessarily agree with.

Sorry but children don't "earn" anything.

People choose to have kids so they should pay for them. I should not have to subsidize the children of others with my money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I think you meant to say, the top 10% pay 71% of all personal Federal income taxes.

Eh, that's Federal income taxes paid by individuals = federal personal income taxes. Of course, that excludes the fact that almost every person with a job pays 7.65% or more on their first 106,000 in labor income, a regressive tax.

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

Not really.

The end user would benefit more from keeping and controlling the 15% of lifetime income taken to fund the SS slush fund.

 

[Jarhead]

I think you meant to say, the top 10% pay 71% of all personal Federal income taxes.

Eh, that's Federal income taxes paid by individuals = federal personal income taxes. Of course, that excludes the fact that almost every person with a job pays 7.65% or more on their first 106,000 in labor income, a regressive tax.

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

I believe he is referrig to FICA....not unemployument.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Can you people live in the Here and Now?

I've never seen people cheer for having OTHERS taxes raised...

what a sick country we have become

this before or after you guys stop comparing Obama too carter?

OH...thats different? Fuck you

Learn the difference between too and to

 

[Jarhead]

And?

btw, I was simply clarifying my tax status.

All I was saying was that you choose to be who you are. If you chose to have children, you would have the exemption.

But again, I dont agree with that deduction. Someone like you pays a higher percentage and you likely use less government services. There is a contradiction there. No doubt.

Well, if I were defending child based tax breaks, I would argue it like this:

If you are a household of 4, for example, with a household income of 60,000, that's 4 people essentially making 15,000 each.

How much do you want to tax a person making 15,000 a year?

lol, see, I make better arguments even for things I don't like or necessarily agree with.

well...

If I were a household of 8 and I was making 1.6 million a year, that would break down to 200K per person....and that is very taxable.

So your "argument" for something you dont agree with has quite a few holes.

The only arghument I could not argue was wehne I was in a debate where the opposition said the more children you have the more you use the services of others...the nmore you buy from merchants, etc....

But I still think it is a silly deduction. People dont have children for the tax break.

 

[8537]

I think you meant to say, the top 10% pay 71% of all personal Federal income taxes.

Eh, that's Federal income taxes paid by individuals = federal personal income taxes. Of course, that excludes the fact that almost every person with a job pays 7.65% or more on their first 106,000 in labor income, a regressive tax.

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron.

Regressive tax: a tax that is designed such that the marginal rate declines as incomes increase.

The payroll tax: the marginal rate declines after income reaches 106,000

You were saying something?

 

[SniperFire]

Eh, that's Federal income taxes paid by individuals = federal personal income taxes. Of course, that excludes the fact that almost every person with a job pays 7.65% or more on their first 106,000 in labor income, a regressive tax.

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

I believe he is referrig to FICA....not unemployument.

Yes. Federal Insurance Contribution Act. An insurance program.

 

[Jarhead]

Can you people live in the Here and Now?

I've never seen people cheer for having OTHERS taxes raised...

what a sick country we have become

this before or after you guys stop comparing Obama too carter?

OH...thats different? Fuck you

or after you on the left stop comparing Obama to Bush.

I mean....really?

Obama was supposed to be the greatest man we ever elected President and BUsh was supposed to be the worst President since the beginning of time..

Yet when Obama does something that people complain about...what do they say?

Bush did it to.

So the best you got is comparing the greatest man as no different that the worst man?

Lol....really?

 

[Jarhead]

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

I believe he is referrig to FICA....not unemployument.

Yes. Federal Insurance Contribution Act. An insurance program.

lol....that is a farce...insurance...

Insurance is supposed to be there when YOU need it....

SO what happens when you need it when you lost your job and your house at the age of 45?

You are not legally old enoiugh to get it.

 

[8537]

Payroll taxes are not 'regressive,' moron. They are insurance premiums directly benefiting the end user.

I believe he is referrig to FICA....not unemployument.

Yes. Federal Insurance Contribution Act. An insurance program.

How many insurance programs take your premiums at the point of a gun and have zero legal obligation to pay future claims?

it's not "premiums directly benefiting the end use". It's a tax that gets dumped into the rather fungible pot of government money just like other tax sources.

 

[whitehall]

Come on libs. Are we going to have to listen to a bunch of cherry picked Reagan policies instead of defending Obama? Black men are about 50% unemployed, NK is rattling atomic sabers again, Syria is murdering it's own people, Gas is around $7.00 in some places and ....lefties want to discuss Reagan and Jimmy Buffett or is it Warren Buffett. You almost gotta laugh.

 

[RDD_1210]

I would like to see where Rabbi said that balck men cant lead.....but until I do, I will give rabbi the benefit of the doubt. I have never seen him say anything even close.

Not that I doubt you 8537....but the way people spin things on here, I need to see how it was worded.

Oh he said it, and the proceeded to try and justify it throughout the thread. He's a racist to the core.

Rabbi's Racism

Ask Rabbi the following question, he won't answer because he knows it will only show off his racist views.

"Can black people be good leaders of governments?"

He likes to try and weasel out and say sure, they can be good leaders....of business. But if you make sure to say "government" or heads of state, etc....he won't answer. He's a weasel and a racist. It probably explains why he is mentally unstable. No rational clear headed person would say the things that he says.