| Author | Message | ||
     Drkside79 |
The rich got tax breaks for way to long. | ||
| Aesquire |
They paid for them. | ||
| Aesquire |
Since every person that gets rich selling stuff to more than one person is by definition an exploiter of the masses....... Have you even noticed WHO wants YOU to hate the "rich"? Sucker. | ||
| Aptbldr |
"They paid for them."  | ||
| Hootowl |
Those evil corporation and all those jobs they provide. They should be closed down and management shot. Only when there are no more companies providing jobs will the worker be truly free. What's wrong with giving a tax break to someone who pays 40% of their income in taxes? We should give it to people who pay 0% of their income in taxes? We do already. It's called EIC. NO ONE should have to pay more than 15% of their income in federal taxes and taxes should be cut until that is universally true. Spending should be cut to accommodate that. If you thought Gramm-Rudman was a bitch, you don't want to know what I'd do with a red pen and line item veto power. | ||
| Blake |
"Considering most (not ALL) of (the top 10% income earners) got rich exploiting that 50% (who don't pay any income tax) i don't feel much pity for them." That means at least 5 million people in America are exploiting others in order to achieve their success. That is nothing but ignorant nonsense. Why do you insist on spouting such stupendously inane provable falsehood? To be brutally honest, the repeated use of falsehood does nothing to further your point, it simply makes you into a liar for all to see; credibility goes down the toilet. People who got wealthy by exploiting others: Saddam Hussein: He was Iraqi. Hugo Chavez: He is Venezuelan. The ENRON guy and other criminals of his ilk: Yep. It's unreasonable to imagine more than a dozen fitting that description as they all end up being exposed sooner or later. Bill Gates: He built a corporation that leads the world, a state of the art industry, and employs a lot of very satisfied people. John Edwards and other trial lawyers of his ilk: Yep. He conned jurors into taking money on false pretenses. This is probably the one place where you can find a number of examples of wealthy people exploiting others. <sigh>As usual the Progressives are all over the map flitting from one diversion to another. Too tiresome for me. | ||
| Reindog |
I am grateful for the "evil" corporation that just gave me a job offer. I am going to use the best of my abilities to help them maximize their profits so that they continue "exploiting" the customers that purchase our products. Do you guys ever listen to the dribble that you sometimes spout? I mean, really? | ||
| B00stzx3 |
You now what's evil? Pants. Pants don't do anything for society. Lazy bums just sit there, covering up our God given baby making parts. I have talked to the President about a possible airstrike on the Pants base. Levis-Old Navy-Gap =axis of evil (Message edited by b00stzx3 on March 05, 2010) | ||
| Hootowl |
I'll go a step further. It isn't the pants. It's the pockets. You get a pocket, you have to put something in it. Pockets are the seeds of greed. | ||
| B00stzx3 |
+1. I mean, so much choice. Cell phone? Cigarettes? Switchblade? And these "decency laws". Who paid the politicans off for that law? the pants lobby? Or was it a conspiracy by the librul media? Either way, I'm fighting back. You will take my boxers from my cold, dead hands. | ||
| Blake |
We need pants to protect us from plumbers. You know what I'm talkin' 'bout! T | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about _bushs_tax_cuts.html | ||
| Sifo |
The rich got tax breaks for way to long. I know! It's amazing how little those rich bastards pay in taxes!  | ||
| Reindog |
The rich got tax breaks for way to long. Grammar alert. Let's start getting this stuff correct or people are going to start mistaking us for motorcyclists. "to" is a preposition...."too" is what you meant. | ||
| Marks3tbillet |
This reminds me of the interview of Michael Moore by Sean Hannity. Sean asked Michael how much we should be paying in taxes. Michael said double what we are paying now. Sean told him it was going to be difficult since in New York City he pays 60% tax. | ||
| Sifo |
Sean asked Michael how much we should be paying in taxes. Michael said double what we are paying now. Sean told him it was going to be difficult since in New York City he pays 60% tax. Seems fair. It the bottom end can pay less than 0% (earned income tax credit) then why shouldn't the top payers pay more than 100%? Why would it be any other way? | ||
| Sifo |
 BO should blow the curve for the entire class though. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Yay, another class warfare lemming!  | ||
| Aesquire |
Class warfare has proven an effective way to gain power. Look at Adolph in Germany, Barack in America, Robert in Zimbabwe, all people touting "Change" and hatred for the rich. In Robert's case, he turned a nation that exported food, and was one of the richest in Africa into a starvation filled hyperinflation economy thugocracy that sent it's most psychopathic city dwellers ( and supporters of the new regime ) out to the country to take over working farms and produce nothing. One of those places where complaining about the president for life gets you missing. Adolf, if you don't know the history, you are really ignorant, ( but probably can't read, so I don't care if I insult you. ) suffice to say he ruined the ancient Indian ( both India & American Native ) symbol of the swastika, and the progressive ideals of Eugenics. ( which still hold sway in some circles, under new names ) Barack? give him a chance, he'a only had a year, and has limited experience in actually working for a living. He's on track to deprivatizing 1/6 of the economy, establishing religious rule, and has children sing hymns to him, so, he's doing just fine. | ||
| Glitch |
 My misspent youth I used to wear this | ||
| Aesquire |
lunch pirate? | ||
| Glitch |
Late 70s early 80s, it stood for "Eat the Rich" Punk Rock, Anarchy, and the like. I'm ashamed to say that I put the punk in punk rock... | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/vanishing_a merican_air_superio.html Interesting read. one correction. The F6F Hellcat was not a product of experiments with captured Zero's. It was instead ordered as a backup to the prewar F4U Corsair in case it had problems in development. A lucky decision, as the F4U did have issues that took years to work out. Originally designed by Grumman as a successor to the 1930's F4F Wildcat, after an engine change & further development became the premier carrier fighter in the Pacific theater during the critical years between Guadalcanal and the battles to retake the Phillippines. Supplanted by the Corsair late in the war & postwar years due to the F4U's superior speed & load carrying capacity the Hellcat was relegated to training & drone use after the war. The F4U was produced into the 50's and used in service into the 60's. A star fighter bomber from WW2, Korea, and the Early years in Vietnam. Note that there is a substantial time lag between when you want a new military system & when it gets to the troops. Famous examples like the YP-80 from the (now famous..formerly top secret ) Lockheed Skunkworks may have had prototypes built in a hurry, but took much longer to get into service. In other words, if we have a war with, say, Argentina ( see our "neutral" stand on the current Falklands conflict ) and they are equipped with the latest in Russian gear, to get superior planes into service could take years after the war is over. Some decisions to cancel new hardware are understandable. The Paladin gun was dropped during the Bush admin. because, despite it's great potential and superior firepower, it was too heavy to cross most bridges outside Europe & America. ( one problem with designing a weapon system for one theater ) The B-1 was dropped during the Carter admin. to buy cruise missiles instead, but revived later in "improved" stealthier form later, and has served us well. The F-15's are getting older. The F-14's have been destroyed, to keep spare parts out of the mullah's hands in Iran, and the F-16, also long in the tooth, is no match for current Su-27 variants or even the Mig-29. The F-18's are carrier craft, and have a long time to wait before the F-35 naval variant comes on line. The old stuff may not be good enough much longer. This pattern has been repeated after all our wars. It always costs us lives and battles. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
C'mon, the "holy one" will just be able to "have a beer" with our enemies and they will immediately beat their swords into plow shares. We don't need air superiority. If he can make the US as worthless as every other European nation, no one will give a crap about attacking us. There's no sport in kicking a dead dog. | ||
| Hex |
Tell that to the RocketMan... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What, that to those wishing to foment Islamic jihad that his country isn't worth the effort? | ||
| Aesquire |
We don't need air superiority. Or a military. There is no need for conflict in todays world. all you have to do is submit. Of course, that didn't work all that well for the ethnic poles, romani, (Gypsys) gays, jehovahs witnesses, freemasons and jews in Europe, the teachers, doctors and educated in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Burma, the Carthaginians, and the conservatives in the tax wars of 2013, the first use of nuclear weapons by a private individual. ( see also: the Chicago Crater, the New Wastelands, and the trial of Sarah Palin. ) Ref. Wikipedia 2015 (Message edited by aesquire on March 06, 2010) | ||
| M2me |
BO should blow the curve for the entire class though. That chart is absolutely ridiculous. Well, it came the Heritage Foundation so that's to be expected. It claims it shows the average American's household tax burden but that's not what it's showing. It's showing the average Federal revenue per household. There is no way to know from the chart what the tax burden is. Joe makes $50,000 a year and pays $12,500 in taxes and Jim makes $200,000 a year and pays $50,000 in taxes. According to the chart, Jim has a higher "tax burden" than Joe. But he doesn't. In fact, Jim's tax burden is exactly the same as Joe's. They both pay a 25% tax rate. Tax burden is not a measure of how much in absolute dollars you pay in taxes. If your income rises than the amount you pay goes up, even if your tax rate remains the same or even goes down. What that Heritage chart really shows is economic growth, not tax burden. Economic growth was very good under Clinton and awful under Bush. Oh, and I thought that cutting taxes caused revenues to go up. Bush cut taxes and yet revenues went down. What happened to the trickle down theory? The tax burden has actually been going down for 50 years, especially for very high earners.  | ||
| Swampy |
Check this out: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100306/ap_on_bi_ge/eu _iceland_financial_crisis "The debt owed to Britain and the Netherlands is a small sum compared to the amounts spent to rescue other victims of the global meltdown — $182.5 billion was paid out to keep U.S. insurance giant American International Group Inc. alive — but many taxpayers in the country of just 320,000 say they can't afford to pay it. The deal would require each person to pay around $135 a month for eight years — the equivalent of a quarter of an average four-member family's salary." How much of this economic stimulus plan, bank bailout, GM/Chrysler buyout are we going to have to pay for? Just what will our monthly payment be? Will we get to vote on it? The Iceland collapse happened October 2008 and the birds are just coming home to roost. Sorry, I just can't seem to kick this funk... I just think we are in for alot more than we bargained for. I am old enough to know that you eventually have to pay for what you buy and nothing is free. | ||
| Blake |
John, You're easily confused. Your chart shows tax rates, not burden. Rate is the percentage of income that goes to pay taxes. It's a percentage, a ratio, not an amount of money. Burden is the amount of tax money paid. It is an amount of money that is well-known. Tax revenue is how much tax the fed gov collects. Tax burden is how much the folks pay. No difference if you are talking on a per household basis, which the Heritage Foundation chart is. If the tax rate stays the same but your income doubles, then the tax rate is unchanged, but your tax burden has doubled. |
