1,470 paid no taxes

[highway234]

What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?

It must be disillusioning.

exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.

 

[highway234]

What's more pathetic than rich people whining about all the risk they're taking?

i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.

I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.

some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.

 

[Warrior102]

i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.

I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.

some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.

Speaking of easily fooled, ignorant fools - were you one of the 63.7 million idiots who voted for Obama ?

Of course you were, asswipe.

Now, run along and pay your taxes.

 

[Jarhead]

What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?

It must be disillusioning.

exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.

But you see...spending cuts is a no brainer.
Raising taxes during a recession or recession recovery is dangerous.


And raising taxes on onbly those that make 250K or more may not affect the millionaires...but it could have a very serious affefct on those making 250K in major markets....250K sounds like a lot...but many people ONLY make that becuiase they are in high cowst of living areas...and live no more luxurious a life than someone makinghalf that in a low cost of living area....

That in itself is why you can not simply say "on folks making x amount or more"

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i opened up last year's 1040 instructions and you start paying income tax at 5 grand of income. standard deduction is 5,500. now obviously with marriage exemptions etc. results may vary, but if you're making anywhere in the vicinity of 10 grand a year, yeah, i'd say poor is the word. as to whether 47 percent of the people in america are making only around that much, i only hear this 47 percent figure from cons, who lie as easily as they tell the truth, so i dunno. i have to take the cons' word for it. but since we've shifted from manufacturing to a service-based economy and decimated the unions, and service jobs tend to pay around 10 bucks an hour, give or take, yeah, maybe you're right. maybe 47 percent of the country IS poor. but when you say 47 percent of the country pays no income tax, YOU'RE saying almost half the country is poor. that's what YOUR con ass is saying, not me.

You sure do a lot of guessing.

Annual median equivalised disposable household income in the US is $31,000. Hardly poor.

i don't know what YOU make, but for someone living in a place with a high cost of living and is trying to raise kids and save for retirement, yeah, that sounds pretty poor to me. obviously not homeless poor, but you're not sitting pretty at 31K, not by a long shot.

If you're living above your means then you are stupid.

You chose to have a family while making a meager salary and that's a choice you must live with. Why should I have to pay higher taxes because of your poor choices?

 

[highway234]

Now, run along and pay your taxes.

well, somebody's gotta. i'm not like the cons, constantly whining about taxes. you have to pay some taxes to live in a decent country. it's called patriotism, REAL patriotism, and the cons should ditch the flag-waving fetishism and look into it.

 

[Warrior102]

Now, run along and pay your taxes.

well, somebody's gotta. i'm not like the cons, constantly whining about taxes. you have to pay some taxes to live in a decent country. it's called patriotism, REAL patriotism, and the cons should ditch the flag-waving fetishism and look into it.

I paid more in taxes in 2010 than you've probably earned in your entire pathetic life, asswipe. You want to pay more - whose stopping you. Man up and stroke a ******* check.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?

It must be disillusioning.

exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.

What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Obama's major contribution to deficits has been a record spending spree. In 2007, before the recession, federal expenditures reached $2.73 trillion. By 2009 expenditures had climbed to $3.52 trillion. In 2009 alone, overall federal spending rose 18%, or $536 billion. Throw in a $65 billion reduction in debt service costs due to low interest rates, and the overall spending increase was 22%.

In one year.

CBO confirms that Democrats have taken federal spending to a new and higher plateau: 24.7% of GDP in 2009, 24.1% this year, and back to an estimated 24.3% in 2011. The modern historical average is about 20.5%, and less than that if you exclude the Reagan defense buildup of the 1980s that helped to win the Cold War and let Bill Clinton reduce defense spending to 3% of GDP in the 1990s.

This means that one of every four dollars produced by the sweat of American private labor is now taxed and redistributed by 535 men and women in Congress.

 

[highway234]

But you see...spending cuts is a no brainer.
Raising taxes during a recession or recession recovery is dangerous.

not if taxes are too low, it's not. and especially if the wealthy are sitting on income rather than spending it. that's part of what drive me crazy about cons, they're always making these absolutist statements about taxes. raising taxes during a recession is ALWAYS dangerous? do the legacy tax rates matter at all? what if you're in a recession because tax rates are 5%?

 

[highway234]

Now, run along and pay your taxes.

well, somebody's gotta. i'm not like the cons, constantly whining about taxes. you have to pay some taxes to live in a decent country. it's called patriotism, REAL patriotism, and the cons should ditch the flag-waving fetishism and look into it.

I paid more in taxes in 2010 than you've probably earned in your entire pathetic life, asswipe.

sure you did, champ. there's nothing sadder than someone bragging on the internet. no one can verify what you say, so who cares. i stormed the beach at normandy. whatever, con. you're noise.

 

[highway234]

[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.

 

[Warrior102]

[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.

Obama didn't inherit Jack Shit, asswipe. He applied for the job and gleefully accepted.
How's that hopey changey thing working out.
Not so hot.

 

[Oddball]

[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.

 

[highway234]

Obama didn't inherit Jack Shit, asswipe. He applied for the job and gleefully accepted.
How's that hopey changey thing working out.
Not so hot.

look! more insightful commentary from the board's resident millionaire!

naw, you're all right, man. you're funny.

 

[highway234]

"somehow"? i think i explained it pretty well. but hey, if obama's doing something substantially different from bush, why don't you explain to me what. i know, i know, obamacare is nazi hitler etc., but isn't that basically the same thing as bush did with medicare part D? also, it's deficit-neutral.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

[What you fail to understand is we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

boy have i ever heard this before. what exactly is obama spending on? well, he's spending on the wars, he's propping up bush's tax cuts, and he's bailing out the banks. all policies he's inherited from the previous administration and inexplicably failed to alter. it's not like there's been an explosion of spending on social programs, or if there has been an increase in social spending, i certainly can't find a con who can cite 1.5 trillion a year's worth. the lion's share of the deficit is the wars, which is the same reason the economy tanked in the 70s: i mean, there were other causes but vietnam DEVASTATED the US economy. a big part of it, too, is lower GDP because of the recession, and that means less revenue. cutting spending is going to do nothing to increase demand, and without increased demand, the recession will never end. technically, incidentally, we're not in a recession. this isn't a cyclical downturn the way a recession is, this is a structural problem. this country just is not being run well. the problem i have is pinning it on obama. he's only guilty of these structural problems to the extent he hasn't deviated from the absurd path the previous administration put us on.

You are really ignorant aren't you. The government has grown 25 percent under Obama, that cost money. Largest ever federal payroll in US history. Extending unemployment. Libya. Obamacare. The list goes on!

 

[Jarhead]

i'll tell you what: non-rich people whining about the risk the rich are taking, which i'll bet you nine out of ten cons on this board are non-rich. there's this weird thing with them to claim that they're millionaire business owners when they're really just working stiffs like the rest of us. it's very odd. i don't know why they do it. but on the internet you can claim anything about yourself, of course.

I doubt anyone cares what you believe or don't believe. The facts are the facts, something you idiots on the left have a hard time admitting.

some people care. cons tend not to like me, though. i'm all right with that. i think by and large, cons are ignorant, easily fooled, selfish, disgusting people. as a great man once said, i embrace their hatred.

As a conservative I do not NOT like you. I dont agree with you, but I do not dislike you. I feel you are somewhat naive to the true "disagreements" that exist between the left and the right...but I dont blame you...you are a victim of spin.

Me? I dont see the left as a group that wants the people to depend on governemnt in an effort to preserve the democratic party....I do not see Obama as a socialist or a marxist. I do not see the left as ignorant, or "idiots" or nuts.....names I have heard the left call the right over and over on here.

I respect the left for the beliefs and I understand why they believe what they beleive...I just disagree with them.

A conservative is not selfish..at all. A conservative believes in personal responsiobility...and I have always lived by the following:

I will do for myself what I need to do. Please do for yourself. I will help you if I can, but dont demand that I do. I will not ask you for help if I need, but I may not turn it down if you offer.
I will not interfere in your life, please do not interfere in mine. But this does not mean that we can noit live together and prosper off of each others work.

As a conservative, I believe it is not my place to interefere if you want to abort a child...but I still see it as murder.
I do not believe it is my place to say you can not marry if you are gay...but I will always believe that marriage is between a man and a woman...

As a result?

When I was homeless and penniless, I used my ideology to drag myself out of it.

I have since started a business...sold it...and now own two more.

I have employed many...I donate to charity. My wife and my two boys have spent many a thnaksgiving handing out dinners...a community effort..

I have coached soccer, football and baseball. I was military for a few years.

That makes me selfish? Disgusting? Ignorant? Hateful?

 

[Big Fitz]

IRS: 1,470 millionaires paid no income tax in '09 - On Deadline - USATODAY.com


That merans they are not helping their country at a time of need.

What kind of American doesnt help their country in a time of great need?

1. If you didn't play social engineer through offering tax breaks for things, and made everyone pay a single bracket flat tax with no deductions, this wouldn't be a problem. Even the poor would be paying THEIR Fair Share.

2. Why aren't you helping your nation in need by paying extra? There's a line to allow you put pay the entirity of your earnings after expenses to the government so you can be a good patriotic American and turn over your profiteering from work to those who need it more than you.

 

[Avorysuds]

What is it like to support a group of people that play on your gullibility?

It must be disillusioning.

exactly what group do you think i'm supporting? look, we're running a deficit, we need to raise taxes. the real question is, who do we raise them on? i disagree with you that you appear to think the rich shouldn't bear part of that burden. but thinking we're going to solve that deficit solely through spending cuts is lunacy. and if you think i'm carrying the water for the democrats, it's not like they're increasing taxes either.

You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.

 

[highway234]

You want more taxes as a way to "fix" the deficit yet how much more taxes and how much of an impact will it have on the deficit is the question.... More or less you offer a way to help fix 1/20th of the problem but you're solution comes with a price, meaning in time that revenue pool will shrink because people will invest less or avoid the tax.

how much more taxes? i said before i think the clinton rates might be a good start. i can't give you an exact figure because i'm not an economist. but i find this assertion that tax figures inevitably lead to capital flight to be befuddling. i mean, is this always true, regardless of the legacy tax level? the wealthy are sitting on income and not spending it. that's not always true, but it's true at the moment. meanwhile, the middle class is tapped out and we're running enormous deficits. i keep hearing spending cuts, spending cuts, but spending cuts suppress demand and don't do anything to create jobs. the bush tax cuts were supposed to sunset several years ago. do we just keep those cuts going indefinitely, and do nothing to increase demand? i honestly don't get what you guys are prescribing to fix this problem.