Obama's 'Cliff' Proposal: $1.6 Trillion in Tax Increases - Page 10 - GoFuckYourself.com

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

you are unable to discuss the points in question, and simply revert to attempting to attacking my character to the extent your imagination will allow

which, isn't far.

I haven't attacked your character. I've attacked your intelligence.

MaDalton · 12-05-2012, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

someone brought up earlier that 47% don't pay any federal income taxes....

so let me guess, the solution is to squeeze more $$ out of the 53% that do pay taxes?
and better yet, the more productive someone is, the more taxes we should squeeze out of them?

corporate taxes, "top 1%", "high income earners", etc, is all just a misdirection, it all comes down to trying to squeeze more $$ out of those that actually produce in our society, no?

where did i say that?

and btw - i do have a company, i do have employees and i do pay corporate and personal income tax

how about you?

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I haven't attacked your character. I've attacked your intelligence.

Relentless · 12-05-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I accidentally dragged you into "workers will not be needed in the future" discussion, but what does that really have to do with anything? It's an interesting topic, but you aren't prepared to offer any evidence to support your viewpoint, besides the obvious fact that some jobs are disappearing (while others are getting created), and you aren't prepared to offer any solutions.... so lets say you are right, so what's the bottom line? What action do we need to take? is the 1.6B tax increase good or bad if what you are saying is true?

Put simply... things like a national sales tax, true single payer healthcare, a tax code that is 3 pages long with virtually no loopholes or deductions other than poverty abatement, a four day work week, a post office that ships twice per week, an internationally funded strengthening of NATO and reduction in the role of America as world police.... those are the answers. But any one of them is pointless on its own and none of them are even being discussed by those paid to do the bidding of a handful of billionaires thanks to Citizens United.

The 'fiscal cliff' discussion is much less important than most people think. 2 or 3 points of taxation will have zero impact on the way most companies operate. Bush lowering the rate didn't create jobs and Obama raising the rate won't solve the deficit. On the revenue side of the equation, the main problem is globalization and the rise of corporate interests superseding the financial health of the nation. What should be done is a complete overhaul of the entire tax code... no marginal rate change matters when only some people are actually paying the stated rates. The buffet rule is a good start. Doing away with carried interest would be a smart move. Taxing capital gains as ordinary income makes sense... but these specifics ONLY work as part of a much larger policy change.

The much bigger issues are on the spending side of the equation because we have allowed necessities to be rationed out by private industries. True single payer health care that provides basic medical coverage for every citizen would have a profoundly positive impact on the financial situation we are in... but it requires people to accept the notion that some people will 'get' more than they 'put in' to the system. Real single payer health care with supplemental private insurance and cash doctors available for anyone who wants to opt out if it is the only logical way to revamp medicare and social security. It would allow data mining, create opportunities of much greater efficiency and reduce total costs over time dramatically if implemented properly.

If you see the implications we face in the future as I have illustrated in our discussion as the eventual outcome... NOW is the time to start making some of the very big gradual changes that need to be made. Instead of dicking around with a few hundred million of cuts or mentally masturbating over the importance of 2-3 points on fictional marginal rates that many people do not pay... we ought to be having real discussions about actually fixing things.

You could cut marginal rates dramatically (some think tanks estimate a top rate of 15%) if you also instituted a national sales tax. A national sales tax would allow the government to properly tax internet commerce, would tax people on what they buy not on what they earn and would hit those most able to pay taxes (by virtue of their decision to spend) rather than hitting those who are earning income with an eye toward saving for a productive use.

JP-pornshooter · 12-05-2012, 12:47 PM

here is an easy fix:
1. Tax the value of employer paid healthcare. (why should employees not pay tax of this benefit? Those who dont get this benefit from their employer should be very upset)
2. Outsource services (ie medicare could be done by Kaiser) The US government is not good at managing their business - outsourcing could reduce the cost significantly (government waste is eliminated)
3. Audit 25% of all tax filings by individuals (most people cheat a little in taxes)

there you have it..
back in the black.

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The much bigger issues are on the spending side of the equation because we have allowed necessities to be rationed out by private industries.

nonsense.

crockett · 12-05-2012, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

if that were the argument, we'd be discussing the 47% who pay no income tax, not the 2% who pay most of it.

That 47% that you right wingers love to spew about fails to notice that they do pay federal income tax as well as state & sales taxes. The reason it's said they pay no taxes is because they "owe" nothing at the end of the year.

I know you wont read it as I've already posted it once in this topic.. However if hell happened to freeze over and you are looking to actually educate yourself rather than vomit your typical hate filled nonsense then by all means have a read.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Also it's quite funny that Reagan is the GOP's hero but they never seem to listen to what he said. This shows how far to the extremes the Republican party has moved in the last 20 years.

Reagan would probably be ashamed if he saw what the Right wing has turned into today.

woj · 12-05-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

where did i say that?

and btw - i do have a company, i do have employees and i do pay corporate and personal income tax

how about you?

you didn't say that, I jumped to conclusions...
so please clarify... what solution/policy are you proposing or are in favor of?

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

That 47% that you right wingers love to spew about fails to notice that they do pay federal income tax as well as state & sales taxes. The reason it's said they pay no taxes is because they "owe" nothing at the end of the year.

I know you wont read it as I've already posted it once in this topic.. However if hell happened to freeze over and you are looking to actually educate yourself rather than vomit your typical hate filled nonsense then by all means have a read.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

Also it's quite funny that Reagan is the GOP's hero but they never seem to listen to what he said. It's funny how far to the extremes the Republican party has moved in the last 20 years.

Reagan would probably be ashamed if he saw what the Right wing has turned into today.

dear idiot. we're having a conversation about income taxes. my info on income taxes and the FACT that 47% do not pay income tax is accurate.
You're not intelligent enough to understand what we're talking about.

MaDalton · 12-05-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

you didn't say that, I jumped to conclusions...
so please clarify to us... what solution/policy are you proposing or are in favor of?

i can agree to moderate tax rates for personal income and corporate tax.

let's say a flat 15-20% corporate tax. everywhere.

and a personal income tax with little to no tax for small incomes (unless you forbid companies to employ people for $2 per hour) and a maximum of 30% for people over 1 million $ a year.

and no loopholes or crazy deductions

no government can work without money and i have too many socialist ideas that need to be financed

like free kindergarten, school, university - education should not depend on the wealth of the parents and investing in education pays out later when those people earn money thanks to that.

or reasonable health care for everyone

and then of course lots of spending needs to be cut too - like subsidizing oil companies which make record profits (and then pay no taxes on it), insane military spending, huge overhead of government personnel etc.

but excuse me when i cant pull a bullet proof plan out of my sleeve in 5 minutes when no one else can with way much more time on their hands.

but i hope you get the idea.

crockett · 12-05-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

dear idiot. we're having a conversation about income taxes. my info on income taxes and the FACT that 47% do not pay income tax is accurate.
You're not intelligent enough to understand what we're talking about.

The only idiot is you because you are too stupid to actually read the facts when they are presented right in front of your face on a silver platter, but instead just spew typical uneducated right wing vomit of the mouth.

Tom_PM · 12-05-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

on the other hand, of course the poor people should be the ones deciding how much everyone should be taxed and how that tax revenues should be spent..

cause after all, the poor are usually the most educated, the best at managing money and they contribute the most themselves

Seems legit.

I suggest that instead of either group deciding for themselves that we cast votes and elect representatives to set rules of government that we all abide by.

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

The only idiot is you because you are too stupid to actually read the facts when they are presented right in front of your face on a silver platter, but instead just spew typical uneducated right wing vomit of the mouth.

No wonder you're one of life's losers.
You misunderstand the topic, run and find a link to something else entirely, and then spew your idiot logic at your betters.

Learn to enjoy your shitty life. It's not likely to improve.

woj · 12-05-2012, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

The only idiot is you because you are too stupid to actually read the facts when they are presented right in front of your face on a silver platter, but instead just spew typical uneducated right wing vomit of the mouth.

In the document you posted a link to:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

facts? one just needs to read the first sentence "Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax."... I don't see where in that report that fact is denied...

please spell out exactly where you think that fact is denied...

Tom_PM · 12-05-2012, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

people like yourself, who pay nothing, should have the least say. In that you're right.

for example, if you were an advocate for all Bush era tax cuts to end, you'd have a valid point of view. Pointing your finger at your betters and demanding more from only them because they were bold, intelligent, and industrious makes you a parasite.

I point my fingers at the more fortunate, who are mistaken thinking they're better than anyone else because they have money, and I say pay a fair share which the Bush tax cuts deprived them the pleasure of doing. Those poor suckers with lots of cash have to go find other things to contribute their wealth to. It's only fair to return them to the most prosperous times of our nation which was when they were paying more taxes.

Tom_PM · 12-05-2012, 02:27 PM

Now lets hear how they pay "more" meaning volume of dollars which is "less" when talking how the actual tax system works, which is by percentage. La dee da and round it goes again. I'll leave you all to it, lol.

BFT3K · 12-05-2012, 02:29 PM

https://youtube.com/watch?v=cwg4DB-EeEA

crockett · 12-05-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

In the document you posted a link to:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

facts? one just needs to read the first sentence "Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax."... I don't see where in that report that fact is denied...

please spell out exactly where you think that fact is denied...

Read the fucking article instead of the first sentence.

"These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items."

Don't be a freaking tool.. The 47% paying no taxes was just one federal tax and has been misrepresented to the American public as a way to push their agenda. The people that "OWE" no Federal Income Tax at the end of the year have already paid their fair share of Federal Payroll Tax.

The 47% is nothing more than a play of words by the right wing to misrepresent the facts. The people they claim don't pay taxes have already paid their taxes via the Fed Payroll tax and simply just do not owe anything at the end of the year after their taxes are filed.

woj · 12-05-2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Read the fucking article instead of the first sentence.

"These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items."

Don't be a freaking tool.. The 47% paying no taxes was just one federal tax and has been misrepresented to the American public as a way to push their agenda. The people that "OWE" no Federal Income Tax at the end of the year have already paid their fair share of Federal Payroll Tax.

The 47% is nothing more than a play of words by the right wing to misrepresent the facts. The people they claim don't pay taxes have already paid their taxes via the Fed Payroll tax and simply just do not owe anything at the end of the year after their taxes are filed.

great, except social security (payroll) "tax" is not really a "tax", it's a contribution to a "Social Security Trust Fund" so later when you retire you get back what you put in... (at least that's what they keep telling people

)... so a better way of looking at it, might be as a forced savings...

so it's not quite in the same category as "federal income tax", which gets taken away from you, is spent foolishly, never to be seen again...

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

I point my fingers at the more fortunate, who are mistaken thinking they're better than anyone else because they have money, and I say pay a fair share which the Bush tax cuts deprived them the pleasure of doing. Those poor suckers with lots of cash have to go find other things to contribute their wealth to. It's only fair to return them to the most prosperous times of our nation which was when they were paying more taxes.

Dear parasite, the Bush tax cuts lowered taxes for ALL taxpayers, not just the rich.
Your betters pay more by both % AND volume than you do.

12clicks · 12-05-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

In the document you posted a link to:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

facts? one just needs to read the first sentence "Close to half of U.S. households currently do not owe federal income tax."... I don't see where in that report that fact is denied...

please spell out exactly where you think that fact is denied...

Why waste the effort, dude. He's one of the truly stupid who doesn't understand the world around him.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

on the other hand, of course the poor people should be the ones deciding how much everyone should be taxed and how that tax revenues should be spent..

cause after all, the poor are usually the most educated, the best at managing money and they contribute the most themselves

Seems legit.

You are against democracy?

Mutt · 12-05-2012, 03:06 PM

LOL jesus woj has turned into Bill O'Reilly

woj · 12-05-2012, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

You are against democracy?

not against it, but it has some major flaws... one for example is that representatives often don't act in the best interest of those that elected them...

woj · 12-05-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

LOL jesus woj has turned into Bill O'Reilly

just wasting some time by bullshitting on gfy, but I guess when the king of all slackers is making fun of me on gfy, it's time to get back to work

Relentless · 12-05-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

not against it, but it has some major flaws... one for example is that representatives often don't act in the best interest of those that elected them...

Democracy doesn't have representatives for that reason. It works the way local referendums get passed. What we have is a Republic, not a Democracy... which made sense when counting votes from 300M people was nearly impossible... but these days a lot more should be decided by public referendum to avoid the corruption of a Republic getting between the will of the people and the result. Pure Democracies, Republics, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc never work. The only sensible eventuality is a blend of them all.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

not against it, but it has some major flaws... one for example is that representatives often don't act in the best interest of those that elected them...

you're not against democracy, but you have issues with 'poor people' deciding how the rich can handle their money?

any democracy that has more poor than rich is doing exactly that.

Do you have another governmental form that would do better?

Mutt · 12-05-2012, 03:23 PM

the Republic has endured almost 250 years, doesn't mean it will last forever, conditions change, the Constitution is just a document in the end. If things get out of hand one day you could see a military dictatorship take control. Won't be in my lifetime I doubt.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the Republic has endured almost 250 years, doesn't mean it will last forever, conditions change, the Constitution is just a document in the end. If things get out of hand one day you could see a military dictatorship take control. Won't be in my lifetime I doubt.

there is a quote i can't remember or find, but it basically says that in order to find out who is in charge, you have to find out who you're unable to speak against:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...lation-charges

MaDalton · 12-05-2012, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

just wasting some time by bullshitting on gfy, but I guess when the king of all slackers is making fun of me on gfy, it's time to get back to work

you didnt answer if you pay corporate tax and if you have employees btw

why do so many people in these discussions always avoid to answer certain questions?

epitome · 12-05-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Read the fucking article instead of the first sentence.

"These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes ? especially the payroll tax ? that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items."

Don't be a freaking tool.. The 47% paying no taxes was just one federal tax and has been misrepresented to the American public as a way to push their agenda. The people that "OWE" no Federal Income Tax at the end of the year have already paid their fair share of Federal Payroll Tax.

The 47% is nothing more than a play of words by the right wing to misrepresent the facts. The people they claim don't pay taxes have already paid their taxes via the Fed Payroll tax and simply just do not owe anything at the end of the year after their taxes are filed.

The funny thing is if we're going with the 47% (even though it's not an accurate number), it used to be 51% in 2009... so since Obama has been in office he's added more taxpayers to the base.

Funny since lots of people like to claim more people are relying on welfare and handouts since he's taken office. In reality, more were relying on welfare and handouts while not paying taxes when a Republican was president.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

The funny thing is if we're going with the 47% (even though it's not an accurate number), it used to be 51% in 2009... so since Obama has been in office he's added more taxpayers to the base.

Funny since lots of people like to claim more people are relying on welfare and handouts since he's taken office. In reality, more were relying on welfare and handouts while not paying taxes when a Republican was president.

what's funny is the states with the highest social spending are republicans

so frankly, if the republicans were to 'realize their dream', they'd be dead in the water 4 years later

woj · 12-05-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaDalton

you didnt answer if you pay corporate tax and if you have employees btw

why do so many people in these discussions always avoid to answer certain questions?

I haven't answered that question because it's not relevant to the discussion...
it's just a bait for "ad hominem" type arguments...

Relentless · 12-05-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutt

the Republic has endured almost 250 years, doesn't mean it will last forever, conditions change, the Constitution is just a document in the end. If things get out of hand one day you could see a military dictatorship take control. Won't be in my lifetime I doubt.

You won't see a military dictatorship. But now is the time to make serious structural changes to preserve the health of our nation. When 15 million people are on food stamps, having 6 of the top 400 earners paying 0 in federal income tax and goldman sachs paying 2% with a 'let them eat cake' attitude is not the way to go. The poorly organized and idiotically confused attempt of the '99%' to rally support is what happens when the bottom of the bucket in the country want to change things. The group of people in that position is now rising and includes much more competent dissidents - when it gets above the boiling point it becomes much more coherent and dangerous.

MaDalton · 12-05-2012, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

I haven't answered that question because it's not relevant to the discussion...
it's just a bait for "ad hominem" type arguments...

thank you, that was all i needed to know

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

Yes, now even the dumbest among us can look up information at any moment from anywhere. That doesn't mean they can recall the information from memory, but it does mean that countless hours of human research and interaction on every level of information comprehension or dissemination have been obviated.

You're confusing "dumb" with "ignorant". And in these days, nobody really has to be ignorant any more. "Research" can be done in a couple of clicks. Information is power, and average people are more empowered now than ever before in history.

BFT3K · 12-05-2012, 04:17 PM

Today...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bx-j_s3-Zjs

Relentless · 12-05-2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You're confusing "dumb" with "ignorant". And in these days, nobody really has to be ignorant any more. "Research" can be done in a couple of clicks. Information is power, and average people are more empowered now than ever before in history.

You are confusing access to information with ability to utilize information for a purpose. Dumb people and ignorant people tend to be the same people. All the information in the world doesn't change their predicament unfortunately. That's why they vote against their own interests and get abused by small bands of more competent people who lack the sense of nationalism necessary to move the nation forward.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

You won't see a military dictatorship. But now is the time to make serious structural changes to preserve the health of our nation. When 15 million people are on food stamps, having 6 of the top 400 earners paying 0 in federal income tax and goldman sachs paying 2% with a 'let them eat cake' attitude is not the way to go. The poorly organized and idiotically confused attempt of the '99%' to rally support is what happens when the bottom of the bucket in the country want to change things. The group of people in that position is now rising and includes much more competent dissidents - when it gets above the boiling point it becomes much more coherent and dangerous.

poorly organized?

how do you figure?

wasn't that group the first to get supplies to NEW YORK after Hurricane Sandy?

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i have never said that more money should be given to the government, i have said that it should be either taken away or redistributed.

Wow man...you're totally on a different page than me.
You want people's money "taken away or redistributed"

I can't agree with that at all. What incentive would be left for people to try to be successful if in the end they have their money "taken away or redistributed"?

Nope, we have just parted ways on this subject.

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

You are confusing access to information with ability to utilize information for a purpose. Dumb people and ignorant people tend to be the same people.

And you are coming across like you think you are so intelligent and above everyone that you can just look down from the mental heavens and make these decrees.

Not all "ignorant" people are dumb at all.

I'm completely ignorant on how to build the cameras that I use. But I'm well educated on how to use them.

Dumb would be someone unable to learn. Ignorant is just a condition of not having access or desire to learn certain subjects.

Don't forget, we are on a porn board. No matter how much info any of us read or try to understand about what the crooks in Washington D.C. are doing...we are still essentially ignorant of how things really work. We can only make "educated guesses"

So to make your statements as if they are fact and a starting point for the discussion is kinda...ignorant.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Wow man...you're totally on a different page than me.
You want people's money "taken away or redistributed"

I can't agree with that at all. What incentive would be left for people to try to be successful if in the end they have their money "taken away or redistributed"?

Nope, we have just parted ways on this subject.

no, i said the money that is already in the hands of the government should be taken away or redistributed.

you should really have a long think about why you read it the way you did

cause it's disturbing how often you go back to framing me as a communist.

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

no, i said the money that is already in the hands of the government should be taken away or redistributed.

you should really have a long think about why you read it the way you did

cause it's disturbing how often you go back to framing me as a communist.

Back the fuck up. You're reading what I said wrong. If I want to call you a "communist" I'd say it to your face in person.

I read what you said and quoted it. I was shocked by what I thought you were saying in that post.

The way it was written sounded like you meant to take people's money. You didn't explain yourself or communicate what you meant very well.

That doesn't mean you should attack me because I didn't catch the meaning of your post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

i have never said that more money should be given to the government, i have said that it should be either taken away or redistributed.

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Back the fuck up. You're reading what I said wrong. If I want to call you a "communist" I'd say it to your face in person.

I read what you said and quoted it. I was shocked by what I thought you were saying in that post.

The way it was written sounded like you meant to take people's money. You didn't explain yourself or communicate what you meant very well.

That doesn't mean you should attack me because I didn't catch the meaning of your post.

alright, backing the 'fuck' up..

we were talking about federal spending, what part of that sounds like i was meaning to take away peoples money?

what part of 'i don't want to raise taxes' sounds like i want to take away peoples money?

however, what part of your statements really sounds like you're making me out ot be some sort of "TAX ALL RICH PEOPLE"? all of them? even if i have continually, specifically, state the opposite?

have i backed up the 'fuck' enough for you? or should i continue

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

have i backed up the 'fuck' enough for you? or should i continue

Just keep backing up...slowly, and don't make any funny moves.

tony286 · 12-05-2012, 06:14 PM

Here is what Fred Smith says : On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular

Lets discredit him now like they do to Warren Buffet because he doesnt tow the bullshit line.

500 political masturbations

_Richard_ · 12-05-2012, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Just keep backing up...slowly, and don't make any funny moves.

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

Hey wait a minute...are you saying that the cat symbolizes the US taxpayer and the govt. should take all our money? I KNEW IT!!!!

Robbie · 12-05-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Here is what Fred Smith says : On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology."

I don't think it will. And then again I know that raising taxes on the rich won't create any jobs either. It's just "feeding the beast" in Washington.

Doesn't really matter how much revenue they take in, the govt won't use it to pay down the debt. They will just keep spending it like they are doing right now at 10 billion dollars per day.

Sly · 12-05-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony286

Here is what Fred Smith says : On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular

Lets discredit him now like they do to Warren Buffet because he doesnt tow the bullshit line.

500 political masturbations

He may have said and believe that. It may even be 100% true, I'm not an economist (even though there are many different schools of economic theory, so even that can be a crap shoot.)

But Tony, why would you point out one or two guys that say one thing when we both know damn well there are hundreds of other Fortune 500, Fortune 1000, Fortune 5000 CEOs that say the exact opposite. :-)

If we go on "voting numbers" alone, which many seem to champion when it comes to things like Mr. Obama's wonderful success, Fred Smith's opinion means jack.

12-05-2012, 12:47 PM	#455
JP-pornshooter Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: westcoast usa Posts: 4,007	here is an easy fix: 1. Tax the value of employer paid healthcare. (why should employees not pay tax of this benefit? Those who dont get this benefit from their employer should be very upset) 2. Outsource services (ie medicare could be done by Kaiser) The US government is not good at managing their business - outsourcing could reduce the cost significantly (government waste is eliminated) 3. Audit 25% of all tax filings by individuals (most people cheat a little in taxes) there you have it.. back in the black. __________________ "Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown

12-05-2012, 02:27 PM	#466
Tom_PM Porn Meister Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 16,443	Now lets hear how they pay "more" meaning volume of dollars which is "less" when talking how the actual tax system works, which is by percentage. La dee da and round it goes again. I'll leave you all to it, lol. __________________ 43-922-863 Shut up and play your guitar.

12-05-2012, 02:29 PM	#467
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	https://youtube.com/watch?v=cwg4DB-EeEA Last edited by BFT3K; 12-05-2012 at 02:31 PM..

12-05-2012, 03:06 PM	#473
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	LOL jesus woj has turned into Bill O'Reilly __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-05-2012, 03:23 PM	#478
Mutt Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 34,431	the Republic has endured almost 250 years, doesn't mean it will last forever, conditions change, the Constitution is just a document in the end. If things get out of hand one day you could see a military dictatorship take control. Won't be in my lifetime I doubt. __________________ I moved my sites to Vacares Hosting. I've saved money, my hair is thicker, lost some weight too! Thanks Sly!

12-05-2012, 04:17 PM	#487
BFT3K Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Narnia Posts: 10,764	Today... https://youtube.com/watch?v=Bx-j_s3-Zjs

12-05-2012, 06:14 PM	#496
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	Here is what Fred Smith says : On Tuesday, FedEx Chairman and CEO Fred Smith, an adviser to Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign, said that the notion that tax hikes on the richest Americans would kill jobs was simply "mythology." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...ef=mostpopular Lets discredit him now like they do to Warren Buffet because he doesnt tow the bullshit line. 500 political masturbations