None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[yidnar]

Sure.

A racist, a tool, an idiot AND a liar.

Randi = fail on all levels and at all times.

i'll pay you a million dollars to eat my shit !!

I believe you've been told to go **** yourself, you useless piece of shit.

Now, go.

Attend to that.

OK I understand !!................I'll pay you 2million dollars !!

 

[bucs90]

Not so.

Obama's tax increase proposal calls for progressive rates depending on varying income levels. The rate of increase on a $200k income will not be anywhere near that imposed on $1,000,000, or $1,000,000,000.

What is more important to understand is a 2% increase on a $50k income will take food off the table. But a 10% increase on a $1,000,000 income will barely be felt, if at all.

the tax rate of a mill is about 33% so that leaves 666k add another 10% and that leaves you with 600k...

not that we care because they are rich but what was that person going to spend that 60k on ...

oddly enough people live beyond their means even the rich.....

so i would guess not having 60k would put a dent in something...i would guess the maid gardener pool boy and dog walker would all lose their jobs....not buy a new car? ...not go on vacation?...not invested?....that will hurt someone somewhere....

but eff it ... they are rich ... take their money and let the government spend it ...

And maybe the govt will spend on paying people to do jobs, too....shrug...

But why include the middle man (government)? The rich have money, and the worker needs the money. So, work for the rich guy and get it.

Instead, the left wants the rich to give the money to the government. Then the government pays itself for it's middle men. THEN the leftover gets sent to the workers, who woulda gotten it from the rich without the middle man.

So the government confiscates money and property NOT out of societal need, but for the survival of it's own existence.

I applaud myself for that brilliant analysis.

 

[BDBoop]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

STFU and get a job.

You are a nothing but a stupid shit-slinger who never has anything constructive to say. I should have put you on Ignore long ago, so that's where you're going now.

Does he mean I should get another job? I rather like the one I'm already at.

 

[The T]

Flat tax or fair tax.

Resolves most of this mess and frees up lots of our governmental spending, too, since we won't need an army of revenoooooers.

Yes indeed! Repeal the 16th.

 

[Liability]

i'll pay you a million dollars to eat my shit !!

I believe you've been told to go **** yourself, you useless piece of shit.

Now, go.

Attend to that.

OK I understand !!................I'll pay you 2million dollars !!

Stop lying. Morons like you can't understand anything.

Now, go **** yourself into the ground and STFU, piss-ant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Class Warfare!!!!!

Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.

It started before the Bush Tax cuts for billionaires.

It started before business and the Chamber of Commerce began giving to Republicans 9 to 1 over Democrats.

It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.

Class Warfare began before medical bills became the number one cause of bankruptcy.

It was before corporations, with Republican help, moved millions of jobs to China.

It was before Republicans practiced voter suppression in Midwestern state.

I think it's been around for awhile.

Amazing ain't it?

Yes amazingly stupid.

 

[yidnar]

I believe you've been told to go **** yourself, you useless piece of shit.

Now, go.

Attend to that.

OK I understand !!................I'll pay you 2million dollars !!

Stop lying. Morons like you can't understand anything.

Now, go **** yourself into the ground and STFU, piss-ant.

Ok !!.......... final offer 2.5 million but you have to eat it on national television !!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

Just because congress voted it into law does not mean it isn't stealing. Income taxes are a form of legal theft.

 

[MikeK]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

It is stealing when people who don't contribute to society band together to vote more benefits for themselves from the people who do contribute to society. You're taking something that someone else earned. What's "fair" about that?

You seem to believe the percentage of those who contribute nothing to society is sufficient to significantly influence an election. Is that true? If so, (approximately) what percentage do you believe that to be?

I expect your numbers will not include the current percentage of Americans who are unproductive through no fault of their own, such as exported jobs, cheap foreign imports, cheap foreign labor, etc.

 

[Paulie]

I love how this little peon assumes I'm not rich. I ******* light my cubans with $100 bills, poor boy.

 

[The T]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

Just because congress voted it into law does not mean it isn't stealing. Income taxes are a form of legal theft.

Especially when it is given to those that refuse to lift a finger to try to work, and are squirting out babies to increase the size of thier theft in the form of a gubmint check with the Statist politicians enabling them to do it for a vote.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love how this little peon assumes I'm not rich. I ******* light my cubans with $100 bills, poor boy.

Buffett is rich but he doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, as a matter of fact he owes one billion dollars in back taxes.

 

[The T]

I love how this little peon assumes I'm not rich. I ******* light my cubans with $100 bills, poor boy.

Buffett is rich but he doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, as a matter of fact he owes one million dollars in back taxes.

I thought it was a billion...whatever...the guy is a cheat like Timmy Geitner.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love how this little peon assumes I'm not rich. I ******* light my cubans with $100 bills, poor boy.

Buffett is rich but he doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, as a matter of fact he owes one million dollars in back taxes.

I thought it was a billion...whatever...the guy is a cheat like Timmy Geitner.

My bad it is a billion good catch.

 

[The T]

You're really clueless. You don't raise taxes in a recession. That's Economics 101. Your guy Obama wants to raise them on people making over $200,000. If he got his way this already weak economic recovery would grind to an immediate halt.

You've got it backward.

The correct formula is one does not reduce taxes in tandem with launching a major military engagement, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation, which is what Bush did. By restoring the tax rate of Bush's "base" of super-rich cronies Obama will be correcting what in fact was a deliberate and very bad mistake.

The effect of raising taxes on the rich will be a redistribution of hoarded wealth, via a jobs program, into the hands of those who will re-circulate-- which is what the stagnant U.S. economy desperately needs.

Hoarded wealth?
Are you serious?

Is a person that saved $10k somehow evil because he saved money (also known as "hoarding wealth")? Or does the distinction change from "saving money" to "hoarding wealth" at your chosen number of dollars in the bank account of said person?[/QUOTE]Part of the problem is that this country, it's citizens, and it's government went on an unsustainable spending spree and didn't save for austere times as where we are now.

Something has to give...the government is refusing to cease spending (as evidenced by the King's speech today), and the same king means to take more of what the citizens don't have.

It is the Government that has to cut back.

 

[alan1]

You've got it backward.

The correct formula is one does not reduce taxes in tandem with launching a major military engagement, such as the Iraq invasion and occupation, which is what Bush did. By restoring the tax rate of Bush's "base" of super-rich cronies Obama will be correcting what in fact was a deliberate and very bad mistake.

The effect of raising taxes on the rich will be a redistribution of hoarded wealth, via a jobs program, into the hands of those who will re-circulate-- which is what the stagnant U.S. economy desperately needs.

Hoarded wealth?
Are you serious?

If a person saves $10k, do you call that "hoarded wealth" or "savings"?
Or does your definition depend upon the income of the person and the amount they've saved?

Edit:
Post deleted and edited after a bad quote syndrome occurred.

 

[logical4u]

Oh, Emm Gee.

It is not "stealing" to expect someone to pay their fair share of the taxes. It's just not.

Then let "everyone" pay taxes.

 

[logical4u]

I love how this little peon assumes I'm not rich. I ******* light my cubans with $100 bills, poor boy.

Buffett is rich but he doesn't pay his fair share in taxes, as a matter of fact he owes one billion dollars in back taxes.

Yes, if he truly believed what he was saying, he could pay Uncle Sam extra. There is a place on the tax form where you can give extra. Why is it that those (Obamas, Buffets, Gates, Soros) don't lead by example? Why aren't they giving "their" money to the gov't? It would only be "fair".

 

[Moonglow]

Liberals vote for benefits, not conservatives, we vote for freedom for eveyone.

that's a good one, except you want to invade their country

 

[logical4u]

I heard a man (don't know name) say that his father told him: when the "wealthy" are punished, the "poor" suffer. I thought it was a valid point. Evidence: Europe and the current USA.