Taxes: 101

[NYcarbineer]

That is what the progressive taxation is about -- the more income you earn, the larger share of it you have to pay in taxes. That how it works in every developed country.

And that is not unfair. We have to make it more progressive, not less.

First of all, progressive anything is an epic failure. It's just another bullshit way of saying Socialism/Marxism/Communism.

Second, a flat tax (say 10%) ensures that the wealthy do pay more (10% of a billion is a fuck load more than 10% of $30,000).

The fact that you want the wealthy, who already pay more on a percentage (that's why we use percentage) to also pay a higher percentage is sheer ugly, nasty, greed on your part.

Why is percentage of income 'fair', even if it's flat?

Should we price goods and services on a percentage basis? Would that be 'fair'? Should someone who earns 10 times what I earn pay 20.00 for a cup of coffee that I pay 2.00 for?

 

[NYcarbineer]

While we're teaching the idiot liberal dumbocrat about taxes, can we also add that there is NO SUCH THING AS THE "BUSH TAX CUTS"?

Bush created a new tax RATE. Now, as typical of the idiot liberal dumbocrat, Obama and the dumbocrats want to RAISE the RATE again.

To imply "Bush tax cuts" is to imply that their are standards, and that Bill Clinton created that standard. Bill Clinton raised RATES (and, among other things he did, destroyed our economy). Bush lowered RATES. Now, Obama wants to go back to the failed Clinton policies which destroyed our economy in the first place.

Bush signed temporary tax cuts. Bush signed tax cuts designed to expire. Bush is no longer president.

Clinton's taxes destroyed our economy??? How?

 

[ilia25]

That is what the progressive taxation is about -- the more income you earn, the larger share of it you have to pay in taxes. That how it works in every developed country.

And that is not unfair. We have to make it more progressive, not less.

First of all, progressive anything is an epic failure. It's just another bullshit way of saying Socialism/Marxism/Communism.

In this case, "progressive" is a mathematical concept, genius. It simply means that the tax rates rise with income.

 

[P@triot]

Who is the one with reading comprehension issue??? Where did I say you think only that the wealthy was born with their wealth?

Here, you idiot:
"you believe people are born into a situation and that's the end of the story. People born into extraordinarily privilege have died broke... And people born into extraordinary poverty have lived long, happy..."

You don't have the mental capacity to remember your own last comment.

you think success is solely "luck" and nothing more. It's such a stupid ideology, it defies logic.

And yet you cannot point out a flaw in my explanation -- all you can do is cursing me for exposing your stupidity.

You are pathetic.

Awww... the poor little dumbocrat is sooo upset that someone with brains is destroying them with facts in a debate...

Where do you see the word ONLY in my original quote? You said I accused you of believing that people with wealth got that way ONLY because they were born wealthy.

You're just pissed now because I humiliated you by pointing out your asinine comments. But keep crying "your pathetic" and "your an asshole" - it's funny as hell watching you communists who are afraid to compete and can't accept losing going out of your minds

 

[P@triot]

That is what the progressive taxation is about -- the more income you earn, the larger share of it you have to pay in taxes. That how it works in every developed country.

And that is not unfair. We have to make it more progressive, not less.

First of all, progressive anything is an epic failure. It's just another bullshit way of saying Socialism/Marxism/Communism.

In this case, "progressive" is a mathematical concept, genius. It simply means that the tax rates rise with income.

I know - and I'll restate since you are slow... progressive anything is an epic failure. Let me just show you a list of "progressive" idea's, people, etc.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's
Karl Marxx
Socialism
Communism
Marxism
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara

All of which were people and our concepts built on "FORWARD" (just like Obama's slogan). That the previous way of doing things didn't work, and we needed "new" concepts. Well, these concepts are over 100 years old now, and both them and the people were epic failures (not to mention criminals). Yet here you sit, the stupid jack-ass still screaming this is what we need

 

[P@triot]

In this case, "progressive" is a mathematical concept, genius. It simply means that the tax rates rise with income.

Would you do me one favor son? Would you ask your mom and dad to come into the room and explain percentages to you? It's obvious you're not in a grade which has covered percentages yet (not your fault).

See, we use PERCENTAGES in taxes because it ensures that the taxes you pay RISES (your word) with income. 20% of $100,000 is $20,000. 20% of $100,000,000 is $20,000,000. You see how the person with a hundred million pays way more than the person with a hundred thousand, even though both are paying 20%?

The fact that you want the wealthy to be punished by not only paying more, but doubling-down and also paying a HIGHER percentage just shows what an envious, hateful, little failure of a parasite you are. You hate those who have been more successful than you - and it's evident by the way you go off the deep end when I point it out

Don't worry - someday you'll cover percentages in school and with some help and tutoring, you might grasp it. When you do, come back and will discuss this further. You just don't understand that FAIR is EVERYONE losing 20% of their salary. It's FAIR and it ensures that the wealthy pay more and the poor pay less.

 

[P@triot]

Why is percentage of income 'fair', even if it's flat?

Should we price goods and services on a percentage basis? Would that be 'fair'? Should someone who earns 10 times what I earn pay 20.00 for a cup of coffee that I pay 2.00 for?

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

 

[P@triot]

While we're teaching the idiot liberal dumbocrat about taxes, can we also add that there is NO SUCH THING AS THE "BUSH TAX CUTS"?

Bush created a new tax RATE. Now, as typical of the idiot liberal dumbocrat, Obama and the dumbocrats want to RAISE the RATE again.

To imply "Bush tax cuts" is to imply that their are standards, and that Bill Clinton created that standard. Bill Clinton raised RATES (and, among other things he did, destroyed our economy). Bush lowered RATES. Now, Obama wants to go back to the failed Clinton policies which destroyed our economy in the first place.

Bush signed temporary tax cuts. Bush signed tax cuts designed to expire. Bush is no longer president.

Clinton's taxes destroyed our economy??? How?

No, Bush signed temporary tax RATES. If they expire, they expire. So be it. But to say CUTS implies that the federal government has tax level written in stone. They don't. They have rates, and those rates fluctuate based on a wide range of influences, from who is president, to who is in congress, to the state of the economy, and more.

Bush lowered the rate. Obama doesn't want to keep that rate - he wants to raise it. That is just a fact.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is percentage of income 'fair', even if it's flat?

Should we price goods and services on a percentage basis? Would that be 'fair'? Should someone who earns 10 times what I earn pay 20.00 for a cup of coffee that I pay 2.00 for?

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

 

[NYcarbineer]

First of all, progressive anything is an epic failure. It's just another bullshit way of saying Socialism/Marxism/Communism.

In this case, "progressive" is a mathematical concept, genius. It simply means that the tax rates rise with income.

I know - and I'll restate since you are slow... progressive anything is an epic failure. Let me just show you a list of "progressive" idea's, people, etc.

Adolf Hitler and the Nazi's
Karl Marxx
Socialism
Communism
Marxism
Fidel Castro
Che Guevara

All of which were people and our concepts built on "FORWARD" (just like Obama's slogan). That the previous way of doing things didn't work, and we needed "new" concepts. Well, these concepts are over 100 years old now, and both them and the people were epic failures (not to mention criminals). Yet here you sit, the stupid jack-ass still screaming this is what we need

Why did you leave out our Founding Fathers? Are you saying that they can't be categorized as people who believed that 'the previous way of doing things didn't work, and we need 'new' concepts', as you say above?

That doesn't apply to them?

That doesn't apply to the Abolitionists? To the women's suffrage movement? To the labor movement that ended child labor?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Given that long, well-publicized history, there isn't much news to be found in Buffett's latest Times op-ed this morning, calling once again for a minimum tax on millionaires. Except that Buffett opens this one with a rifle shot at Grover Norquist specifically, and supply-side economics generally:

Suppose that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

It's a catchy opener, attracting headlines and guffaws from the expected quarters. But I'm struck by his opener because I can think of at least one real-world example in which a rich investor nearly spiked a deal due to taxes: Warren Buffett himself, as recounted in Alice Schroeder's terrific biography, The Snowball (pages 230-232).

Early in his career, Buffett invested heavily—almost one third of his early fund's capital—in Sanborn Map, a company that mapped utility lines and such. But he soon grew frustrated with the company's leadership, which "operated more like a club than a business," and which refused to return greater dividends to investors. So Buffett amassed more and more stock, and with control of the company finally in hand he pressed the board of directors to split the company in two (one for the mapping business, and one to hold the company's other outsized investments).

Finally, the board capitulated. But with victory finally at hand, Buffett nearly scuttled the deal because of ... taxes. As Schroeder recounts, quoting Buffett, one director proposed that the company just cleanly break the company, despite the tax consequences—"let's just swallow the tax," he suggested.

To which Buffett replied (as he recounted to Schroeder):

And I said, 'Wait a minute. Let's -- "Let's" is a contraction. It means "let us." But who is this us? If everyone around the table wants to do it per capita, that's fine, but if you want to do it in a ratio of shares owned, and you get ten shares' worth of tax and I get twenty-four thousand shares' worth, forget it.'

Buffett was willing to walk away from a deal because the taxes would have taken too much of a bite out of it. Fortunately for him, the board gave in and allowed him to structure the deal that he liked, saving him from his own Norquistian response.

Hypocrisy... it is the cornerstone of the idiot liberal dumbocrat. As Andrew Wilkow so brilliantly stated: "Buffett wants to pull the ladder up behind him". He's made his billions, now he wants to pull the ladder up so that no one else can climb to the same level he did through business and personal wealth crushing taxes. It ensures his wealth and power for himself and future generations of his family.

Watch What Warren Buffett Does, Not What He Says | The Weekly Standard

When did he say he would prefer to sell all his shares and put the proceeds into a savings account?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

While we're teaching the idiot liberal dumbocrat about taxes, can we also add that there is NO SUCH THING AS THE "BUSH TAX CUTS"?

Bush created a new tax RATE. Now, as typical of the idiot liberal dumbocrat, Obama and the dumbocrats want to RAISE the RATE again.

To imply "Bush tax cuts" is to imply that their are standards, and that Bill Clinton created that standard. Bill Clinton raised RATES (and, among other things he did, destroyed our economy). Bush lowered RATES. Now, Obama wants to go back to the failed Clinton policies which destroyed our economy in the first place.

Bush signed temporary tax cuts. Bush signed tax cuts designed to expire. Bush is no longer president.

Clinton's taxes destroyed our economy??? How?

No, Bush signed temporary tax RATES. If they expire, they expire. So be it. But to say CUTS implies that the federal government has tax level written in stone. They don't. They have rates, and those rates fluctuate based on a wide range of influences, from who is president, to who is in congress, to the state of the economy, and more.

Bush lowered the rate. Obama doesn't want to keep that rate - he wants to raise it. That is just a fact.

Bush didn't want to keep the rate past 2010.

 

[P@triot]

Why is percentage of income 'fair', even if it's flat?

Should we price goods and services on a percentage basis? Would that be 'fair'? Should someone who earns 10 times what I earn pay 20.00 for a cup of coffee that I pay 2.00 for?

"Why is percentage of income 'fair'" Wow.... you seriously don't understand why that is fair? Let me ask you this:

Why is it 'fair' that everyone have to follow the same laws? Since the wealthy pay for the largest part of government, shouldn't they be exempt from speeding laws? Shouldn't they be exempt from lawsuits? Shouldn't they be allowed to rape your wife? I mean, what is 'fair' about everyone having to abide by the same law

If everyone lives in the U.S., enjoys the same freedom, enjoys the same protections, then everyone should carry the same burden of paying for it. A flat percentage (I say 10% and not a penny more) for everyone, from the wealthiest to the most destitute is FAIR (and let's be honest, you know it too - you're just desperate to hide your greed).

As far as coffee, products, goods, etc. again I ask, why should the wealthy be punished because they've been more successful than you? This is the exact same kind of profound stupidity that caused the former U.S.S.R. to collapse. If you're going to punish success and reward failure, everyone is going to avoid success and fail intentionally. That fact that you don't understand something this simple is scary

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

But you think that it is fair that the Rich pay more in taxes, which they would do with a flat tax,

so you've accepted the fairness of the Rich paying more...

...from this point on, the only debate is how much more?

No, you couldn't be more wrong. What I've accepted is that EVERYONE should carry a 10% burden. If that means you happen to pay more because you make more, so be it. But everyone should be forced to carry the SAME burden.

That is FAIR.

 

[P@triot]

Bush signed temporary tax cuts. Bush signed tax cuts designed to expire. Bush is no longer president.

Clinton's taxes destroyed our economy??? How?

No, Bush signed temporary tax RATES. If they expire, they expire. So be it. But to say CUTS implies that the federal government has tax level written in stone. They don't. They have rates, and those rates fluctuate based on a wide range of influences, from who is president, to who is in congress, to the state of the economy, and more.

Bush lowered the rate. Obama doesn't want to keep that rate - he wants to raise it. That is just a fact.

Bush didn't want to keep the rate past 2010.

Fine, then let it go up. I'm simply saying, call it what it is. The left is doing this dance to make it look like Obama is not RAISING taxes. He's just letting the "cut" expire. It's bullshit propaganda. There is no baseline rate established. There are only rates. Bush lowered it. Obama is looking to raise it.

Just call it for what it is...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, Bush signed temporary tax RATES. If they expire, they expire. So be it. But to say CUTS implies that the federal government has tax level written in stone. They don't. They have rates, and those rates fluctuate based on a wide range of influences, from who is president, to who is in congress, to the state of the economy, and more.

Bush lowered the rate. Obama doesn't want to keep that rate - he wants to raise it. That is just a fact.

Bush didn't want to keep the rate past 2010.

Fine, then let it go up. I'm simply saying, call it what it is. The left is doing this dance to make it look like Obama is not RAISING taxes. He's just letting the "cut" expire. It's bullshit propaganda. There is no baseline rate established. There are only rates. Bush lowered it. Obama is looking to raise it.

Just call it for what it is...

He isn't raising taxes. If taxes go up its because Congress failed to act. Obama cannot do anything to keep the taxes from going up unless Congress puts a bill on his desk saying otherwise.

You'd do good to watch this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxT7QjlvDqM]Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube[/ame]

 

[P@triot]

You missed the point. Paying a percentage of your income in taxes shouldn't be fair if paying a percentage of your income for a cup of coffee isn't fair.

Again, completely nonsensical by you. The reason, of course, is that you are not forced to purchase a cup of coffee. You are forced to pay taxes. Big difference.

As always with the left, you're trying to compare apples to oranges in a desperate attempt to defend the indefensible.

Optional coffee in the PRIVATE SECTOR is nothing like FORCED taxes in the PUBLIC SECTOR.

Now let me ask you again (since you keep asking questions, but avoiding mine), why should everyone enjoy all of the perks of government (what few there are left - like freedom of religion, speech, etc.) but not have the equal burden of paying for those perks?

In your analogy - why doesn't the wealthy man purchase ALL of the coffee that the less wealthy want for them?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now let me ask you again (since you keep asking questions, but avoiding mine), why should everyone enjoy all of the perks of government (what few there are left - like freedom of religion, speech, etc.) but not have the equal burden of paying for those perks?

In your analogy - why doesn't the wealthy man purchase ALL of the coffee that the less wealthy want for them?

Freedom of religion isn't a perk of government, its a natural right.

If the primary purpose of government is to protect property then its obvious those with the most wealth benefit more from protection of property.

 

[P@triot]

Bush didn't want to keep the rate past 2010.

Fine, then let it go up. I'm simply saying, call it what it is. The left is doing this dance to make it look like Obama is not RAISING taxes. He's just letting the "cut" expire. It's bullshit propaganda. There is no baseline rate established. There are only rates. Bush lowered it. Obama is looking to raise it.

Just call it for what it is...

He isn't raising taxes. If taxes go up its because Congress failed to act. Obama cannot do anything to keep the taxes from going up unless Congress puts a bill on his desk saying otherwise.

You'd do good to watch this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxT7QjlvDqM]Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube[/ame]

Nice try, but he's CALLING FOR TAXES TO BE RAISED. He's "taking his case to the American people" (quote) and he's demanding that Congress do it.

 

[P@triot]

Now let me ask you again (since you keep asking questions, but avoiding mine), why should everyone enjoy all of the perks of government (what few there are left - like freedom of religion, speech, etc.) but not have the equal burden of paying for those perks?

In your analogy - why doesn't the wealthy man purchase ALL of the coffee that the less wealthy want for them?

Freedom of religion isn't a perk of government, its a natural right.

If the primary purpose of government is to protect property then its obvious those with the most wealth benefit more from protection of property.

You are so desperate to make a point, you'll spin anything, no matter how pathetic an attempt it is.

Government PROTECTS are "natural right". If it didn't, you'd be praying to Allah right now under the rule of Osama Bin Laden, you stupid fuck.

Government's primary purpose is NOT "to protect property" and that is fact. See how desperate you are to blame the wealthy and pin everything on them? You just make shit up. The primary responsibility of the federal government, as outlined in the U.S. Constitution, is DEFENSE. Defending your freedom jack-ass, not your material items.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Fine, then let it go up. I'm simply saying, call it what it is. The left is doing this dance to make it look like Obama is not RAISING taxes. He's just letting the "cut" expire. It's bullshit propaganda. There is no baseline rate established. There are only rates. Bush lowered it. Obama is looking to raise it.

Just call it for what it is...

He isn't raising taxes. If taxes go up its because Congress failed to act. Obama cannot do anything to keep the taxes from going up unless Congress puts a bill on his desk saying otherwise.

You'd do good to watch this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxT7QjlvDqM]Schoolhouse Rock- How a Bill Becomes a Law - YouTube[/ame]

Nice try, but he's CALLING FOR TAXES TO BE RAISED. He's "taking his case to the American people" (quote) and he's demanding that Congress do it.

Congress has already decided taxes will go up in January.