Elizabeth Warren basically sums up why most Republicans are idiots/hypocrites...

[Young]

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.
You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along."

Why did it take so long for someone to say this...?

[tony286]

I love that lady. She should run for president and push obama out.She's got balls.

[Minte]

I missed the part where she called republicans idiots and hypocrites. All I read was a reasonable assessment of what wealth in America should/could be.

[woj]

you forgot to paste the punchline...

[Dvae]

Originally Posted by Young

Why did it take so long for someone to say this...?

In this video she makes Little Timmy Geithner squirm like the worm tax cheat the he is.
Point is Obama had the chance to prosecute the Wallstreet firms for the wrong doing. Instead he got in bed with them, and takes millions of dollars to fund his reelection campaign.

Now who's the hypocrite?

[L-Pink]

Enough of this Republican/Democrat shit! The problem is both parties. Period.

.

[2MuchMark]

I love Elizabeth Warren. She's fucking smart and a real class act. Smart is sexy at any age too.

[raymor]

What she's implying but knows better than to actually say is that business owners such as you and I should hand over more than 60% of our income to Obama and the government.

The total amount of money earned in the country is $14 trillion. The state and local governments take $2.8 trillion of that and spend it for you. Obama proposes that he should take and spend $6.2 trillion. That leaves just 35% to the people who earn it.

For a $30 sale, the government already takes $19 through income tax, gas tax, etc., leaving you $11 of the $30. She's implying that the $11 you keep is too much.

How much does she think you should have to support yourself and your family? $5 of each $30 subscription?

[raymor]

PS yes I am counting the debt Obama proposes to saddle American families with.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Young

Why did it take so long for someone to say this...?

I have no idea who this chick is, but that's a stunning statement.

[Lucy - CSC]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Enough of this Republican/Democrat shit! The problem is both parties. Period.

.

Yeah the people who get to the top in these parties are exactly the same bought and paid for arseholes.

Sorry but Elizabeth Warren would actually do good for the American people and therefore the military industrial complex wont be letting her anywhere near the controls of America. Although they dont really let any president near them they just give the public the perspection that the President runs things.

[Young]

Originally Posted by Minte

I missed the part where she called republicans idiots and hypocrites. All I read was a reasonable assessment of what wealth in America should/could be.

I missed the part where I said that she literally called republicans "idiots and hypocrites". Check the title again...

I can draw from her statement that the majority of Republicans who scream "socialism" and taxes are "redistributing wealth" - enjoy and prosper from tax payer funded public services.

I'm guessing you can't.

[Young]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I have no idea who this chick is, but that's a stunning statement.

She's running against Scott Brown for the seat in Massachusetts. I'm from Boston. I think it's going to be a tough battle (crazy that I'm saying that about a Democrat) for her but this is a good start.

[Young]

Originally Posted by woj

you forgot to paste the punchline...

Stay out of this bot. There are adults talking here.

JK

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by raymor

What she's implying but knows better than to actually say is that business owners such as you and I should hand over more than 60% of our income to Obama and the government.

The total amount of money earned in the country is $14 trillion. The state and local governments take $2.8 trillion of that and spend it for you. Obama proposes that he should take and spend $6.2 trillion. That leaves just 35% to the people who earn it.

For a $30 sale, the government already takes $19 through income tax, gas tax, etc., leaving you $11 of the $30. She's implying that the $11 you keep is too much.

How much does she think you should have to support yourself and your family? $5 of each $30 subscription?

The Gov takes $19 of $30, so 63.3%? I've never paid the full corp tax rate, let alone double it, and I've never paid on gross either...

You may want to fire your CPA....

[Mutt]

It's a nice statement but raymor's posts are true. anybody who thinks we're not taxed enough already is a moron or a complete socialist. if you're a socialist just come out and say it. the solution to our problems are not higher and more taxes. that's the easy way out, and it never ends. figure out why the government can't pay the freight with the already heavy taxload it puts on its citizens - start there.

government is what got us into this trouble - do you honestly think giving them more money to waste and mismanage is a real solution? taxing the rich more won't make a dent - the upper, middle and lower middle class will be the ones who pay the price.

and in the end you have a socialist 'nanny state'. you give up most of what you earn in return for the government taking care of you cradle to grave. fuck that.

[Redrob]

Funny, I thought she was addressing the cult of corporate greed in this country's board rooms. From Wall Street to Big Energy to corporate mega-farms, the fat cats buy politicians to protect their subsidies, their bailouts, and their "free-trade" agreements.

I think she is really a very smart person and just stating the obvious.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by Mutt

It's a nice statement but raymor's posts are true. anybody who thinks we're not taxed enough already is a moron or a complete socialist. if you're a socialist just come out and say it. the solution to our problems are not higher and more taxes. that's the easy way out, and it never ends. figure out why the government can't pay the freight with the already heavy taxload it puts on its citizens - start there.

government is what got us into this trouble - do you honestly think giving them more money to waste and mismanage is a real solution? taxing the rich more won't make a dent - the upper, middle and lower middle class will be the ones who pay the price.

and in the end you have a socialist 'nanny state'. you give up most of what you earn in return for the government taking care of you cradle to grave. fuck that.

We are taxed enough... however at our current military spending, it's not enough to cover the bills, so technically, we aren't taxed enough.

It has nothing to do with a nanny state or social programs.

If you need more revenue, you can't tax the lower 50% more and do it, even if you took 100% of the money they have, it's not enough. I think you may under estimate how large the divide is. Someone is going to have to pay for this (it's already here!).... do you want it to be you or the guy that has a few hundred million or billion to spare?

[Redrob]

As far as my lifestyle goes, after the first couple of million, my lifestyle would be pretty much the same. After all, the biggest change in lifestyle comes between $0 and $1 million. The difference in lifestyle between having $100 million and $500 million would be pretty marginal in my book.

[Qbert]

Originally Posted by Redrob

As far as my lifestyle goes, after the first couple of million, my lifestyle would be pretty much the same. After all, the biggest change in lifestyle comes between $0 and $1 million. The difference in lifestyle between having $100 million and $500 million would be pretty marginal in my book.

The difference wouldn't be a matter of lifestyle, but a matter of power. Power to control and manipulate others.

[Redrob]

If power and control of others is what gets you off, you should consider a career in the military or law enforcement. It is much easier to accomplish and your jollies would be just as good.

Not to mention, you'd get a paycheck to boot.

[The Porn Nerd]

Republicans: Gov't doesn't work so stop paying taxes. Then we, the private sector, can provide those services and keep all that juicy income tax and everything will be better (for us, the rich).

Democrats: Well-funded gov't, run well, provides more stability and opportunities for economc growth for the majority of Americans (the "middle class") so we should pay enough taxes so people get basic necessaties in life.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

We are taxed enough... however at our current military spending, it's not enough to cover the bills, so technically, we aren't taxed enough.

It has nothing to do with a nanny state or social programs.

If you need more revenue, you can't tax the lower 50% more and do it, even if you took 100% of the money they have, it's not enough. I think you may under estimate how large the divide is. Someone is going to have to pay for this (it's already here!).... do you want it to be you or the guy that has a few hundred million or billion to spare?

sorry, but it has everything to do with nanny state & social programs.

There reaches a point in the tax rate that you spend half your life working for the government instead of for your family. It encroaches on the peoples ability to save & prosper. Acquired savings is a form of freedom, so making it harder for the public to save damages freedom.

If you are going to defend the spending, you will need to justify why spending cannot be cut & why americans should work more & more for these programs instead of for themselves.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by joshgirls

sorry, but it has everything to do with nanny state & social programs.

There reaches a point in the tax rate that you spend half your life working for the government instead of for your family. It encroaches on the peoples ability to save & prosper. Acquired savings is a form of freedom, so making it harder for the public to save damages freedom.

If you are going to defend the spending, you will need to justify why spending cannot be cut & why americans should work more & more for these programs instead of for themselves.

Social programs did not get us into this mess.

You can kill all social programs, that isn't going to get us out of the red.

If your tax rate is so high you spend half your life working for the gov, then it isn't over social programs.

Defend social spending? Okay, not everyone lives in your dream world and saves up or even makes enough to save up or ended up with enough to live on, some people may have to dip into for medical costs or other family costs and magically everyone has the money to pay for health costs that one single bill can bankrupt a family over. Or that a poor child some how can save money for his schooling.... or that an infant of a poor person should realize life is hard and get a job rather than living off the tit of the gov. I'm sure if you get to 70-80+ and for some dumb reason get screwed out of your money, you'll be singing a different story then... just like they ALL do.

Or should we let someone that worked hard, contributed to society, just die in the street, hungry, they have no family, their brain is rotted out from illness and they can't afford anymore drugs... that's fair?

[SuckOnThis]

Actually last time I checked a big majority was/is both social programs and defense, both pretty much split down the middle. Here's the thing, Bush cut taxes so there is less revenue. Less revenue means there is less money being recirculated which hurts the economy. Less revenue also leads to a bigger debt as long as spending stays the same, so it hurts us in two ways. So you either have to cut spending or you need more revenue, or both. To cut social programs in order to avoid taxing wealthy people at the rate they used to be taxed is immoral as far as I'm concerned, yet you never hear a Republican mention cutting defense spending. To the christian conservatives it is much more Jesus like to build bombs and invade countries, and Satan is behind the idea of wanting to feeding our own people. The whole thing is fucking disgusting.

[SuckOnThis]

Oh, and here is Limbaughs reaction to what Elizabeth Warren said....

Limbaugh said, ?How many people does it take? The taxes of how many people does it take to pay Elizabeth Warren? The tuition of how many students to pay Elizabeth Warren. I?d like to know how many pensions she has. At Harvard, Rutgers, time at the White House, time at TARP with Dingy Harry. If she?s elected to the Senate, how many pensions is this woman? Social Security, we pay a lot of money to Ms. Warren. She?s a parasite. She?s a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it. Roads, bridges, firefighters and policemen, nobody got rich because everybody has to use them and we all pay for that. Well who built the trucks? Who laid the concrete and the asphalt, as though government does all of this.?

Limbaugh then retold the story of The Little Red Hen, and said that somebody needs to read it to Warren. Later Limbaugh closed by driving home his message that Warren is as un-American as Obama, ?I cannot emphasize this enough, that this exactly the way Obama views this country in the rest of the world. This is the thinking behind Mao Zedong?s Cultural Revolution.?

http://www.politicususa.com/en/limba...izabeth-warren

[grumpy]

whats the max income tax in the USA? Here in Holland its 51%, if you make over 110k a year

[raymor]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

The Gov takes $19 of $30, so 63.3%? I've never paid the full corp tax rate, let alone double it, and I've never paid on gross either...

You may want to fire your CPA....

I've actually fired a few CPAs, but as explained in my post those are total numbers for the entire economy - government expenditures over GDP.
Let's say you paid 20% corporate tax. You now have 80 cents of your dollar. You're required to take a salary and pay FICA on that, twice, which is 15%. Say you have 75 cents left. You then pay federal income tax so now you have have 55 cents. . Don't forget unemployment, state and federal. You have 50 cents left. State income tax brings you to about 47 cents. If you use that to buy gas, for example, there's gas tax, so you've got 40 cents of your dollar now. Of course before you paid corporate income tax you first paid the franchise tax. Either of us flyleaf easily list a few more taxes and boom you've got 35 cents of your dollar left, while the government takes 65.

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by raymor

I've actually fired a few CPAs, but as explained in my post those are total numbers for the entire economy - government expenditures over GDP.
Let's say you paid 20% corporate tax. You now have 80 cents of your dollar. You're required to take a salary and pay FICA on that, twice, which is 15%. Say you have 75 cents left. You then pay federal income tax so now you have have 55 cents. . Don't forget unemployment, state and federal. You have 50 cents left. State income tax brings you to about 47 cents. If you use that to buy gas, for example, there's gas tax, so you've got 40 cents of your dollar now. Of course before you paid corporate income tax you first paid the franchise tax. Either of us flyleaf easily list a few more taxes and boom you've got 35 cents of your dollar left, while the government takes 65.

Bullshit. You don't pay a corporate tax on payroll, its an expense just like any other expense. But then again you should know that if you had a corporation.

[gideongallery]

Originally Posted by Young

Why did it take so long for someone to say this...?

interesting how she didn't mention any of those minimum wage jobs that are paid out at $20/ hour because they are government employees in her little example

except for a very small minority, most republicans don't have a problem with taxes covering essential services, it the waste and extra shit that democrats want they have a problem with.

[12clicks]

Another leftist idiot who's never owned a business or created a job explaining how those of us who have need to pay more. What a crock of shit.
What this leftist stooge forgets is that we Paid for all of those thing that she claims the "rest of us" paid for as well, then above and beyond that, we risked capital, created jobs, paid for healthcare, and paid many many times the amount of taxes as her "rest of us".
This is just more class warfare bullshit where she wants to rally the 50% of us who pay ZERO income tax (wonder just how much that zero paid for) and explain how those uf us paying 6, 7, and 8 figures a year are somehow not paying enough.

Lemmings are entirely replaceable by the very next person in line. Job creators are not so easily replaced. Ms. Warren would know that if she had ever owned a successful business.

[u-Bob]

"social contract"... time to go read "No Treason nr 6" again

[pornguy]

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Enough of this Republican/Democrat shit! The problem is both parties. Period.

.

Wonder why it took so long for someone to say this..

100% truth.


Put her in office and she will do the same as everyone else.

Gee wonder how she got her money and how much she payed forward for the next guy that came along.

Think she over paid in her taxes, think she built some public roads???

Hahahahhaa

[tony286]

You cant have two wars and lower taxes. That was said by the great socialist liberal John McCain. The two biggest parts of the deficit is the war and the bush tax cuts. http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//12-1...6-28-10-f1.jpg

[tony286]

Also why is it only class warfare when raising taxes by 4 percent on the rich. But cutting college loans,wic, heat for the elderly and other programs that hurt the lower classes isnt class warfare? Hmmm something to think about.

[u-Bob]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

....we risked capital,...

This is one important point people seem to miss (or deliberately leave out) in discussions like this: the fact that entrepreneurs cover the factors time and uncertainty ("take a risk") while employees get paid at the end of the month.

A week ago or so, I started a thread about how successful entrepreneurs/millionaires have failed several times before becoming successful. Starting a business means taking risks. Some people feel comfortable doing things other people consider to be too risky. Why do some people continue to take 'more risks' (and try again when they fail) than others? because of the possible rewards.

Taxing and burdening the entrepreneur with regulations reduces his potential rewards, resulting in less incentives to take risks, resulting in less entrepreneurs actually taking a risk and starting a business/developing new products...

Less entrepreneurs = less creation of wealth
Less entrepreneurs = decrease in supply of goods and services resulting in an increase of prices
Less entrepreneurs = less jobs

[TheSquealer]

Who does that idiot think took the risks and created the jobs and subsequently, the tax base to pay for fire departments, roads, police and so on?

If I owe society for the opportunity to make money, then society owes me a reimbursement if I fail.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by u-Bob

This is one important point people seem to miss (or deliberately leave out) in discussions like this: the fact that entrepreneurs cover the factors time and uncertainty ("take a risk") while employees get paid at the end of the month.

A week ago or so, I started a thread about how successful entrepreneurs/millionaires have failed several times before becoming successful. Starting a business means taking risks. Some people feel comfortable doing things other people consider to be too risky. Why do some people continue to take 'more risks' (and try again when they fail) than others? because of the possible rewards.

Taxing and burdening the entrepreneur with regulations reduces his potential rewards, resulting in less incentives to take risks, resulting in less entrepreneurs actually taking a risk and starting a business/developing new products...

Less entrepreneurs = less creation of wealth
Less entrepreneurs = decrease in supply of goods and services resulting in an increase of prices
Less entrepreneurs = less jobs

90 percent tax bracket the country boomed go figure. 95 percent of small business owners arent touched by the tax increases.

[nation-x]

I am a liberal.

Here is where I have common ground with conservatives.

The government is too big. It is so big that no President in two terms could fix it and it is very broken.

I don't think abortion should be used as a contraceptive. If you fuck... you should make sure you don't get pregnant.

That's about the extent of it.

There isn't a single millionaire who pay more taxes as a percentage of his/her income than a middle class person who pays personal income tax unless they are complete idiots. The average person earning more than $250k/year pays an effective tax rate of 17% to the IRS.

As many as 45% of corporations pay no taxes at all and many of the largest corporations receive money from the government and have no tax liability.

In an ideal world... we wouldn't pay any taxes at all... but that is fantasy land.

You can get over the Bush Tax Cuts... those will expire... it's a done deal and it was a done deal when they were enacted by the Republican controlled Congress and Bush. Obama extended them or they would have already expired. Stop acting like Obama or Democrats are imposing something new tax rate... they aren't.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony286

90 percent tax bracket the country boomed go figure.

this is often repeated by the bottom. When we had a 90% tax bracket, no one paid it. or anything close to it.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony286

Also why is it only class warfare when raising taxes by 4 percent on the rich. But cutting college loans,wic, heat for the elderly and other programs that hurt the lower classes isnt class warfare? Hmmm something to think about.

it might be something for the bottom to ponder but the successful already know the answer.
The rich already pay for just about everything. The pittance you pay is nothing more than a token so you can say "I pay taxes"
Singling out one segment of the population, pretending they don't pay enough when they actually pay far more than you, is classic class war fare.
When we as a whole, can't afford something, we as a whole, either go without it or we as a whole pay more for it. This nonsense that just because I worked harder than you and did better than you means I should be forced to pay more than you is exactly why we're in this mess.
If you were forced to pay the actual costs of your portion of the things you voted for, you would have voted for a lot less spending.

the end.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by nation-x

There isn't a single millionaire who pay more taxes as a percentage of his/her income than a middle class person who pays personal income tax unless they are complete idiots. The average person earning more than $250k/year pays an effective tax rate of 17% to the IRS.

this is another leftist fairy tale.
lets put it to rest right now. please note the date of the article as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d0iK_blog.html

When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes. Here?s the effective tax rate for all of the groups, according to the CBO:
Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent
Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent
Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent
Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent
Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent
Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent
Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

this is often repeated by the bottom. When we had a 90% tax bracket, no one paid it. or anything close to it.

True but it was alot more than they pay now.And I respect you are on the right but stop pretending you are one of the ultra rich. You arent near the class of the hedge fund guy who makes a 1 billion a year. Its not about welfare its about paying for the wars. And you owe a large chunk of your wealth to the gov. If it wasnt for gov funding, no net, no big bucks for the clickster:_)

[LuckyMax]

One of the main problem is a perception issue.

The vast majority of americans sees themselves as being over tax, but when you check with the rest of the world, they are among the less taxed in the industrial world.
(http://www.businessinsider.com/most-...e-world-2011-4)

As you can see, compare to the rest of the developed world, US is no way over taxed... In fact, several economist agrees that with a simple 4% sale tax on goods (only on things you buy, not on your income), US could completely trim down their current deficit to 0$ in less than 3 years...

As for the solution to the actual economy issues, for those who see Obama plan as a "stupid" plan, it's interesting to compare it to the recommendation of Stiglitz (Economy Nobel prize). I guess Stiglitz is another stupid facist-communist...
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily...120134116.html

Bottom line, US is in a really hard situation, the solution is not easy, sacrifice will need to be done and solely politically partisan actions (and inaction) like the ones of the Tea Party and some of the GOP will do nothing good for nobody beside their own selfish interests...

We are all in this with the great help of Bushy who took office with a well oil machine, cut the taxes, start two wars and unregulated the financial market while taking the most vacation days a president ever did and choking himself with a pretzel...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n3927378.shtml

But it's so much easy to blame the current situation on the black man...

[Relentless]

On a side note... Would you hit it?

I'd have to go with yes. She seems kinda scrappy ;)

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

this is another leftist fairy tale.
lets put it to rest right now. please note the date of the article as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d0iK_blog.html

When you add up all of the various taxes, and look at the effective tax rates, it is clear the tax system is already pretty progressive. Everyone pays some tax, even those who pay no federal income taxes, and the wealthiest pay a larger percentage share of taxes. Here?s the effective tax rate for all of the groups, according to the CBO:
Lowest quintile (23.4 million taxpayers), zero to $18,900: 4.3 percent
Second lowest quintile (22.4 million), $18,900-$32,100: 10.2 percent
Middle quintile (22.9 million), $32,100-$47,400: 14.2 percent
Fourth quintile (23 million), $47,400-$71,200: 17.6 percent
Highest quintile (23.6 million), above $71,200: 25.8 percent
Top 10 percent (12 million), minimum income of $98,100: 27.5 percent
Top 5 percent (5.9 million), minimum income of $134,400: 29 percent
Top 1 percent (1.1 million), minimum income of $332,300: 31.2 percent

So the top1% guy get's the tax benefits of the lowest, second, middle, fourth, highest, top 10 and top 5, then he gets hit with the 31.2%... so really, it's not 31.2% at all, it's more like 20% for the top 1% and slowly goes down as your income does.

The top 1% get the same tax benefits of everyone else... they don't get taxed 31.2% on the first $20k, it's 100% equal with the poor on that income level.

Best part is, we don't really have to raise taxes, just undo the tax cut Bush did... put it back to how it was, "before you bitched about it" and our spending to income ratio flips back around.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by tony286

True but it was alot more than they pay now.And I respect you are on the right but stop pretending you are one of the ultra rich. You arent near the class of the hedge fund guy who makes a 1 billion a year. Its not about welfare its about paying for the wars. And you owe a large chunk of your wealth to the gov. If it wasnt for gov funding, no net, no big bucks for the clickster:_)

Sorry to burst your bubble, tubby but I'm in the top 1%. higher than that actually but they don't break it down further than that. Compared to YOU, I AM ultra rich. You need to pay for the wars too.
And trust me son, just as you'd be a lemming in any industry, I'd be an owner in any industry, Internet or no.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by TheDoc

So the top1% guy get's the tax benefits of the lowest, second, middle, fourth, highest, top 10 and top 5, then he gets hit with the 31.2%... so really, it's not 31.2% at all, it's more like 20% for the top 1% and slowly goes down as your income does.

The top 1% get the same tax benefits of everyone else... they don't get taxed 31.2% on the first $20k, it's 100% equal with the poor on that income level.

Best part is, we don't really have to raise taxes, just undo the tax cut Bush did... put it back to how it was, "before you bitched about it" and our spending to income ratio flips back around.

Someone needs a dictionary to understand what "effective tax rate" means.

And hey, if you're for letting ALL of the bush tax cuts expire, you'd have a position worthy of an American but I'm betting that's not what you're for.

[TheDoc]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Someone needs a dictionary to understand what "effective tax rate" means.

And hey, if you're for letting ALL of the bush tax cuts expire, you'd have a position worthy of an American but I'm betting that's not what you're for.

So why does it confuse you so much then? You seem to think it's unfair... thing is, you're not in the top 1% and no matter how much you pay in taxes, it means someone else also paid your way, far more than you did.

Yet you're so stuck on the bottom 50% that you don't realize it happens at every tax bracket below the top 1%, and each scale down it repeats.

So how does it taste to suck off the tit of the ultra rich? It really makes no difference if you pay in or if you're even in the top 1% - the super rich pay that much more than you do at that - they've been doing it longer, for generations at times.... everything you have is because of someone richer than you, clearly being that the poor never paid for anything.

[tony286]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Sorry to burst your bubble, tubby but I'm in the top 1%. higher than that actually but they don't break it down further than that. Compared to YOU, I AM ultra rich. You need to pay for the wars too.
And trust me son, just as you'd be a lemming in any industry, I'd be an owner in any industry, Internet or no.

Guess you arent up on current events. Ive lost over 190 lbs so far. Im worker , a hard worker I take no shame in that. And I dont think you have would been as successful without the net. You can kid yourself all you want.I pay taxes every year no free ride here. Now insulting me doesnt make you more right.