$100K-Plus Earners Pay 72% of Federal Income Taxes

[ClosedCaption]

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

Page 31

Just because people still argue that man and dinosaurs lived together doesnt mean its valid. He killed it on page one and now the wackoos are arguing about wackoo shit

Who the hell are you hanging around with that thinks men and dinosaurs coexisted?

Your family members

Seriously, just because someone argues something ******* retarded doesnt mean there is a "debate". Its always some wack jobs out there and I'm not going to consider a crazy persons argument out of some warped idea of "fairness"

 

[bendog]

Do you like your iPhone more than you like the Big Dig? You paid for both.

Making municipal bonds taxable makes it more difficult for state and local government to build and repair roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools because it increases the cost of borrowing and thus local taxes. As in the past, when states can not raise funds for municipal projects, they turn to the federal government. Thus the tax revenues from municipal bonds will start flowing back to the states along with federal decision making replacing local.

Making them tax free also frees local governments up to have an unfair advantage on boondoggles too though. Look at Detroit. They are flat broke but can somehow afford to contribute $240 Million to a new Hockey Stadium.

DDA approves contractor for new $450 million Detroit Red Wings arena | MLive.com

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

 

[dcraelin]

Making municipal bonds taxable makes it more difficult for state and local government to build and repair roads, bridges, hospitals, and schools because it increases the cost of borrowing and thus local taxes. As in the past, when states can not raise funds for municipal projects, they turn to the federal government. Thus the tax revenues from municipal bonds will start flowing back to the states along with federal decision making replacing local.

Making them tax free also frees local governments up to have an unfair advantage on boondoggles too though. Look at Detroit. They are flat broke but can somehow afford to contribute $240 Million to a new Hockey Stadium.

DDA approves contractor for new $450 million Detroit Red Wings arena | MLive.com

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

 

[bendog]

Making them tax free also frees local governments up to have an unfair advantage on boondoggles too though. Look at Detroit. They are flat broke but can somehow afford to contribute $240 Million to a new Hockey Stadium.

DDA approves contractor for new $450 million Detroit Red Wings arena | MLive.com

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

Let them move then, this deal will hurt the people of Detroit. I very much doubt if the Subsidy would win at the ballot box. If so it is a shame. Perhaps this kind of hi-jacking should be outlawed on the federal level then. If your Bankrupt....you dont subsidize a Leech like Illitch

 

[RKMBrown]

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

Let them move then, this deal will hurt the people of Detroit. I very much doubt if the Subsidy would win at the ballot box. If so it is a shame. Perhaps this kind of hi-jacking should be outlawed on the federal level then. If your Bankrupt....you dont subsidize a Leech like Illitch

Normally when an entity is bankrupt they go through bankruptcy procedures. However, when democrats are in control they typically get bonuses and bailout money instead.

 

[bendog]

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

Let them move then, this deal will hurt the people of Detroit. I very much doubt if the Subsidy would win at the ballot box. If so it is a shame. Perhaps this kind of hi-jacking should be outlawed on the federal level then. If your Bankrupt....you dont subsidize a Leech like Illitch

one more time. The city isn't on the hook. And if you doubt Detroit would vote to keep the redwings, you're on crack.

Ilitches to get all revenues from new publicly financed Red Wings arena | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Actually, it makes sense. The new development links mid town to down town, both of which still have econ viability, and should help create new demand for private biz, and the old Joe will be razed and should be some decent value real estate.

 

[dcraelin]

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

Let them move then, this deal will hurt the people of Detroit. I very much doubt if the Subsidy would win at the ballot box. If so it is a shame. Perhaps this kind of hi-jacking should be outlawed on the federal level then. If your Bankrupt....you dont subsidize a Leech like Illitch

one more time. The city isn't on the hook. And if you doubt Detroit would vote to keep the redwings, you're on crack.

Ilitches to get all revenues from new publicly financed Red Wings arena | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Actually, it makes sense. The new development links mid town to down town, both of which still have econ viability, and should help create new demand for private biz, and the old Joe will be razed and should be some decent value real estate.

READ YOUR OWN LINK! It says the City loses 7 million in fees etc. alone.

It makes no sense..The "help create demand" line is the same tired old bullshit these parasite owners always spew.

 

[bendog]

Let them move then, this deal will hurt the people of Detroit. I very much doubt if the Subsidy would win at the ballot box. If so it is a shame. Perhaps this kind of hi-jacking should be outlawed on the federal level then. If your Bankrupt....you dont subsidize a Leech like Illitch

one more time. The city isn't on the hook. And if you doubt Detroit would vote to keep the redwings, you're on crack.

Ilitches to get all revenues from new publicly financed Red Wings arena | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Actually, it makes sense. The new development links mid town to down town, both of which still have econ viability, and should help create new demand for private biz, and the old Joe will be razed and should be some decent value real estate.

READ YOUR OWN LINK! It says the City loses 7 million in fees etc. alone.

It makes no sense..The "help create demand" line is the same tired old bullshit these parasite owners always spew.

yeah, read the link:

The 30-year bonds would be partially paid off through annual payments of between $12.8 million and $15 million from money the development authority captures from school property taxes. The state would then reimburse any shortfall to Detroit’s per-pupil funding as a result of the redirected property taxes — an obligation that will put state taxpayers on the hook for the majority of the arena project’s public investment.

The Ilitches’ Olympia would contribute $11.5 million a year to paying off the bonds. It is also responsible for any cost overruns during construction, as well as maintenance, repairs and security at the new arena

 

[Flopper]

You dont know thats true....it is very unlikely given the debt Our Federal government is already carrying. The feds are trying to push more things to the states...eliminating the tax-exemption will help make sure the locals dont waste more money on pork-barrel spending.

Every heard of earmarks. McConnell got 2.9 billion for a dam in his state last year. When state and local government can't get the money for projects, they ask congress for help. It's not that much of a problem now but when 50 states and every municipality is faced with higher cost for local projects, they'll turn to Congress, just as they have done in the past.

However, for most projects municipal interest will make little difference in getting approval of voters. Whether a bond issue for a new school is 10 million or 12 million will make little difference to voters. It's whether the school is needed that will be the issue. In places where there are millage caps, it will be big problem.

Yet they say they've had earmark reform...., pressure from voters is heavy to do away with all earmarks.

Voters on the local level should be more aware of project costs. These bloated projects need to be cut down in size or this nation is heading down a rat-hole.....The tax-exemption on municipal bonds must be eliminated . It might even allow for more local folks investing in the projects in their area as the bonds will make more sense for lower income folks without the tax-exemption.

70% of the municipal bonds are revenue bonds which are used to finance construction of toll roads, hospitals, airports, utilities, public transportation, secondary education, sports stadiums, or other projects that generate a revenue stream. Since the revenue pays for the bonds, there is little or no effect on taxes and voter have little interest in the cost of the project. Even general obligation bonds, used to build schools, roads, and public facilities are rarely challenge on the cost. Just like projects financed by revenue bonds, most voters focus on the the need for the project not the cost; whether there's a 10 mill increase in property taxes or a 12 mill increase will make no difference to voters.

One thing is for sure, people will pay higher fees and taxes locally if municipal bonds are taxed and the feds will have more tax dollars to play with.

 

[Flopper]

Making them tax free also frees local governments up to have an unfair advantage on boondoggles too though. Look at Detroit. They are flat broke but can somehow afford to contribute $240 Million to a new Hockey Stadium.

DDA approves contractor for new $450 million Detroit Red Wings arena | MLive.com

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Sports stadiums could be a good investment for the local community. However, too often promoters are able to convince government officials to take too many risks with tax payer money. Keeping the home team or attracting a major league team puts huge pressures on public officials to buy into bad deals.

 

[jillian]

Wealthy is relative, since most folks living on welfare alone don't make 100k, the families that actually work for a living and bring home 100k or so are evil rich folk.

wealth isn't relative. wealth is wealth. and I personally don't think the wealthy are inherently evil. why would I?

that doesn't excuse them not paying their fair share because of the efforts over the past three decades to make sure that almost the entire tax burden falls on the middle class.

saying the wealthy are "evil" seems to be more of a right wing meme.... but that misses the point and is entirely an effort to avoid discussing the fact that the disparity in wealth in this country has so shifted over the last three decades that if we don't stop it, we are going to be a banana republic where anyone of wealth is at risk of kidnapping and has to live behind barbed wire. have you ever been to that kind of place [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]? It isn't pretty and it isn't how we should live in this country.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wealthy is relative, since most folks living on welfare alone don't make 100k, the families that actually work for a living and bring home 100k or so are evil rich folk.

wealth isn't relative. wealth is wealth. and I personally don't think the wealthy are inherently evil. why would I?

that doesn't excuse them not paying their fair share because of the efforts over the past three decades to make sure that almost the entire tax burden falls on the middle class.

saying the wealthy are "evil" seems to be more of a right wing meme.... but that misses the point and is entirely an effort to avoid discussing the fact that the disparity in wealth in this country has so shifted over the last three decades that if we don't stop it, we are going to be a banana republic where anyone of wealth is at risk of kidnapping and has to live behind barbed wire. have you ever been to that kind of place [MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]? It isn't pretty and it isn't how we should live in this country.

Wrong. Wealth is relative. One person with a billion dollars in assets could earn a dollar one year and still have more wealth than the next guy who has no assets and earns six figures. Yet another person could earn 25k carving wood for a living and live better than the other two cause he doesn't have any debts and lives like a king in the garden of eden.

The point about the wealthy being evil, is a sarcastic jibe at the democrat party platform.

No matter how hard you try, paying people to not work is not gonna make them get up off their asses to earn a red dime.

The disparity of wealth in this country is due to many things, but mainly it is due to 1) Welfare roles keeping people poor. 2) a dispartity in talent, merit, and effort 3) a disparity in initial assets to be able to invest 4) random luck 5) govco won't do it's job. 5a) Govco won't break up monopolies & oligopolies. 5b) govco won't protect american jobs by defending the citizens from predatory labor markets, and instead gives companies rewards for sending our jobs to predatory labor markets. 5c) govo won't prosecute bankruptcies in bankruptcy court, and instead gives them tax dollars as reward for going bankrupt.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Sports stadiums could be a good investment for the local community. However, too often promoters are able to convince government officials to take too many risks with tax payer money. Keeping the home team or attracting a major league team puts huge pressures on public officials to buy into bad deals.

I agree with most of this,except Stadiums are almost never a good "investment". It violates our system of free markets to subsidize a business that should be able to stand on its own. pro-sports stadiums should NEVER recieve one damn dime of taxpayer money...or free land...or an interest subsidy

Every heard of earmarks. McConnell got 2.9 billion for a dam in his state last year. When state and local government can't get the money for projects, they ask congress for help. It's not that much of a problem now but when 50 states and every municipality is faced with higher cost for local projects, they'll turn to Congress, just as they have done in the past.

However, for most projects municipal interest will make little difference in getting approval of voters. Whether a bond issue for a new school is 10 million or 12 million will make little difference to voters. It's whether the school is needed that will be the issue. In places where there are millage caps, it will be big problem.

Yet they say they've had earmark reform...., pressure from voters is heavy to do away with all earmarks.

Voters on the local level should be more aware of project costs. These bloated projects need to be cut down in size or this nation is heading down a rat-hole.....The tax-exemption on municipal bonds must be eliminated . It might even allow for more local folks investing in the projects in their area as the bonds will make more sense for lower income folks without the tax-exemption.

70% of the municipal bonds are revenue bonds which are used to finance construction of toll roads, hospitals, airports, utilities, public transportation, secondary education, sports stadiums, or other projects that generate a revenue stream. Since the revenue pays for the bonds, there is little or no effect on taxes and voter have little interest in the cost of the project. Even general obligation bonds, used to build schools, roads, and public facilities are rarely challenge on the cost. Just like projects financed by revenue bonds, most voters focus on the the need for the project not the cost; whether there's a 10 mill increase in property taxes or a 12 mill increase will make no difference to voters.

One thing is for sure, people will pay higher fees and taxes locally if municipal bonds are taxed and the feds will have more tax dollars to play with.

'

their portion of the national debt would decrease more than their local costs would rise according to most calculations. Because of what I said before...the effect on lower income investors the increase in interests cost would probably be lower than what would be expected from simple math. Private investment might also increase rather than government spending....

one more time. The city isn't on the hook. And if you doubt Detroit would vote to keep the redwings, you're on crack.

Ilitches to get all revenues from new publicly financed Red Wings arena | Detroit Free Press | freep.com

Actually, it makes sense. The new development links mid town to down town, both of which still have econ viability, and should help create new demand for private biz, and the old Joe will be razed and should be some decent value real estate.

READ YOUR OWN LINK! It says the City loses 7 million in fees etc. alone.

It makes no sense..The "help create demand" line is the same tired old bullshit these parasite owners always spew.

yeah, read the link:

The 30-year bonds would be partially paid off through annual payments of between $12.8 million and $15 million from money the development authority captures from school property taxes. The state would then reimburse any shortfall to Detroit’s per-pupil funding as a result of the redirected property taxes — an obligation that will put state taxpayers on the hook for the majority of the arena project’s public investment.

The Ilitches’ Olympia would contribute $11.5 million a year to paying off the bonds. It is also responsible for any cost overruns during construction, as well as maintenance, repairs and security at the new arena

These deals are always a rip-off.....in this case maybe less on the City than on the state taxpayer....but city citizens are state citizens also are they not? ....also as I read it numerous fees amounting to $7 million a year will be taken away from the city of Detroit.

Regardless.....none of these type of deals should be subsidized by even one DIME of taxpayer money...let these crooks ....run their "business" like real businesspeople who are NOT subsidized by the taxpayers.

 

[Jarlaxle]

[MENTION=25032]ClosedCaption[/MENTION]

Page 31

Just because people still argue that man and dinosaurs lived together doesnt mean its valid. He killed it on page one and now the wackoos are arguing about wackoo shit

Who the hell are you hanging around with that thinks men and dinosaurs coexisted?

One of the voices in his head?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not sure what you mean by unfair advantage. It's not exactly a bidding war to replace an arena that was build back in the 1970s.

Its unfair to the taxpayers is what it is. The damn Redwings owners should fund their own damn stadium like any other business would have to fund its infrastructure. Taxpayers shouldn't give one damn dime to the project.

Ah, but the reality is that the Redwings would have moved in the 70s without the Joe Louis arena. The Illichs are paying for over half, Detroit itself is actually not on the hook for anything beyond new property taxes, and the state is footing part of the bill. And the state seems glad to get the deal because it thinks there will spin off new biz.

So, 'the taxpayers' can take it to the ballot box, but those who support the deal will win in an election.

Then let them move. news flash: Detroit is FLAT ******* BROKE!

 

[Chuckt]

It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

I have a job. I wanted to start a business but my wife already works as a contractor and by her already doing her taxes, she tells me that I would have to work all the time to make a profit and that I would never be around.

Why should I start a business to pay taxes which benefits you if the government is going to take it all?

In contrast, what taxes do the rich pay when they take the jobs overseas?

Wouldn't it make more sense to structure the taxes differently and to keep jobs here instead of giving large companies tax breaks to build companies here which use more in city services than they pay in taxes?

Is it cheaper to pay welfare for not training Americans to work than to take the jobs from overseas and make companies work here?

 

[Care4all]

It is an "income" tax

Those who have the most "income" pay the most tax

I have a job. I wanted to start a business but my wife already works as a contractor and by her already doing her taxes, she tells me that I would have to work all the time to make a profit and that I would never be around.

Why should I start a business to pay taxes which benefits you if the government is going to take it all?

In contrast, what taxes do the rich pay when they take the jobs overseas?

Wouldn't it make more sense to structure the taxes differently and to keep jobs here instead of giving large companies tax breaks to build companies here which use more in city services than they pay in taxes?

Is it cheaper to pay welfare for not training Americans to work than to take the jobs from overseas and make companies work here?

When you open your own new start up business, you work 24hours a day 7 days a week and many do not show a profit for 5 YEARS.....

IF YOU DO NOT SHOW A PROFIT/ A GAIN, then you do not OWE any taxes....the government takes nada in income taxes from you/your company unless you show a profit/gain.

So, unless you have it in you, to bust your butt 24/7 for as much as 5 years before turning a profit, I would suggest you not do it....REGARDLESS of what taxes you may owe a half decade from now when you do show a profit.....

 

[zeke]

[SIZE="3"]People don't need to go to college nor do they need a car.[/SIZE]

I know plenty of people who never went to college and are are doing better than those who did. And I know plenty of people who live in various cities that do not own cars but rather rent one on the occasion they need a vehicle.

Don't confuse optional activity with necessity

Really? Who in the **** do you think you are to tell people what they "need"? Are you some all controlling fascist or something?

I know plenty of people who did go to college and are doing much better than the people I know who went to high school. Well except for those in a union. They are still holding on.
So what the **** does that tell you?

Hey and don't confuse survival with prosperity. Ok? There is a difference if you don't know that.

Funny I hear idiots like you telling people they don't need weapons all the time.

And anyone can experience prosperity but few actually are willing to do what it takes to achieve it.

See if I got this correct. People use their education to get a job and they use a car to get to their place of employment.

But you say they don't "need" either one of those.

But people do need a gun.

Just what kind of work do you do that education and a car are not needed but a gun is needed? You a robber or what? Assassin? Or just weird in your thought process.

 

[Politico]

The argument isn't about idiots arguing whether they need guns. It's about idiots telling people they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Now that we have that cleared up the thread is about taxes.