-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Jon Stewart
- Thread starter The Wiz
- Start date
- Status
Yeah... I know. Those evil wealthy people. You know just because they're wealthy that means there's no possible way they could have worked hard to get there. And geez, never mind the fact that they already pay a disproportionately HUGE amount of taxes compared to those in the lower brackets. They're rich, and we're not, so they must be wrong.
There are two political parties: Republicans and those who have never taken an economics class.
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
0-6k = 10%
172k - 307k = 40%
You pay greater in % and in dollar value the more money you make.
The most recent tax break was a 400$ increase in the child benefit, do only rich people have kids? Statistically the more money you have the less children you have.
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
0-6k = 10%
172k - 307k = 40%
You pay greater in % and in dollar value the more money you make.
The most recent tax break was a 400$ increase in the child benefit, do only rich people have kids? Statistically the more money you have the less children you have.
Republican fiction.
Most taxes are regressive (the less you make the more you pay).
State and federal sales taxes.
Tariffs.
Payroll taxes. You pay these taxes on the first dime you make and they are capped at $87.5k.
Most CEOs get paid in stocks and other incentives. In fact, CEOs pay a larger percentage of their total income in the Bush economy than they did in the Clinton economy.
Dividend income tax rate = 15%
Long term capital gains tax rate = 20%
Are the rich evil? I don't believe that. But when the father of the richest man in America (Bill Gates) takes out a full page ad in the country's largest newspapers protesting the Bush tax cuts, and the second richest man (Warren Buffet) publicly gripes about how LITTLE taxes he is paying, makes me wonder how irresponsible Republicans really are.
As far the child tax credit, that's a joke. A large number of working poor, including a lot of serviceman, didn't get the tax credit because "they don't pay income taxes so they don't deserve it anyway."
Thanks for proving my point.
"they don't pay income taxes so they don't deserve it anyway."
The child tax credit was not a gift from the govt, it was earned by the people who received it, if you don't pay income tax (i don't know what that is) then you already have your money, the govt merely returned it.
Also CASH IS KING, would you rather have 100% of 100$ or 1% of 1000000$? I'd rather have the 1%. Rich people pay more money in taxes period. I am not rich so that might give some prespective, I can't afford PRK right now, it's just that I have a few brain cells to rub together. You pay tax on every dollar you make, there is no cap. You pay the flat fee and a % over the last bracket amount.
So you say taxes are regressive, the less you make the more you pay? 10 % of 6k is 600$ you're saying 600$ is greater than 87,000$ somehow (+ 40% of anything over 300k?)
"they don't pay income taxes so they don't deserve it anyway."
The child tax credit was not a gift from the govt, it was earned by the people who received it, if you don't pay income tax (i don't know what that is) then you already have your money, the govt merely returned it.
Also CASH IS KING, would you rather have 100% of 100$ or 1% of 1000000$? I'd rather have the 1%. Rich people pay more money in taxes period. I am not rich so that might give some prespective, I can't afford PRK right now, it's just that I have a few brain cells to rub together. You pay tax on every dollar you make, there is no cap. You pay the flat fee and a % over the last bracket amount.
So you say taxes are regressive, the less you make the more you pay? 10 % of 6k is 600$ you're saying 600$ is greater than 87,000$ somehow (+ 40% of anything over 300k?)
Plus stocks are double taxed, stocks are included as taxable income, and then they get capital gains tax. Also if they get 'paid in stock' it's an option which means they only get paid if the stock goes up, preformance based, aka they earn it. Begining to see the picture?
deep breath - begin diatribe - NOW -
okay, number one, who was the genius who assailed hollywood celebs for being underqualified to speak on foreign affairs, then extolled the virtues of o'reilly, that luminary intellectual who dwarfs socrates, rousseau, and thoreau in his brilliant, visionary, wholly honest political philosophies? the best that i can say about the lug is he's not, as franken claims, a lying liar; he's just a good, old fashioned neo-fascist boob who exults in the insulating comfort of hating all things not like himself. do yourself a favor, turn the tube off, read foreign newspapers AND your preferred local rags, THEN make up your own minds. the last thing this country and navy needs is another generation of dittoheads, liberal or conservative.
second, let's not seriously get into the "who's smarter and therefore best qualified to be the philosopher king of america" debate, cuz everybody inside the beltway today, and most of us good folks, will fail that litmus test. we have a track record of electing, not geniuses, but simpleton father figures who will assure us that everything's okay, even when it's not. and that history transcends party affiliations.
third, the difference between keynesian (in your vernacular, "liberal") and friedman/supply-side ("conservative", apparently the preferred paradigm here) economics - and all the other economic theories that you folks so summarily dismiss in your party stumping - is NOT that one is right and one is wrong, but that each takes as fundamental certain, very different, assumptions about rational human behavior. empirical trials have, at times, vindicated AND disproven each theory in certain situations. but people tend to stick with the one that harmonizes with their own intuitions about themselves and others, be it the "invisible hand" of smith or the "inter-imperialist contradictions" of marx. so don't patronize the skeptics here by accusing us of a failure to understand "simple" economics - a monolithic construction which in itself is absurd, counterproductive, and elitist. i've got an ivy degree and a recommendation from a nobel laureate economist that say i'm NOT a moron, thank you very much.
point is, for every competing notion of justice - and youze guys prove there's a lot of 'em out there in this great nation - there's an order of magnitude's worth of economic and foreign policy paradigms. the proper point of the american democratic tradition is, rather than dismissing the people you disagree with as idiots incapable of reason - and leaving violence and force as the only real means of persuading them to follow your lead - you try to include them in a dialogue, find a minimal common ground with them and build on it, agreeing on some points and allowing disagreement on others. so try, for once, listening to the ideas you find unappealing, then arguing with them on their own terms and assumptions, not just calling their proponents ig-ner-ant and pushing for a (nonexistent) 'no-spin' zone. this country is getting too crowded and dangerous, inside and out, to let y'all slide into the smug, self-righteous luxury of calling everyone who doesn't see your particular light "irrational" or "ignorant".
whew! that felt good. lemme get a witness. republicans hug the dems. now socialists, shake the libertarians' hands. good, now let's ALL go scorch some pakistani caves, dammit!
okay, number one, who was the genius who assailed hollywood celebs for being underqualified to speak on foreign affairs, then extolled the virtues of o'reilly, that luminary intellectual who dwarfs socrates, rousseau, and thoreau in his brilliant, visionary, wholly honest political philosophies? the best that i can say about the lug is he's not, as franken claims, a lying liar; he's just a good, old fashioned neo-fascist boob who exults in the insulating comfort of hating all things not like himself. do yourself a favor, turn the tube off, read foreign newspapers AND your preferred local rags, THEN make up your own minds. the last thing this country and navy needs is another generation of dittoheads, liberal or conservative.
second, let's not seriously get into the "who's smarter and therefore best qualified to be the philosopher king of america" debate, cuz everybody inside the beltway today, and most of us good folks, will fail that litmus test. we have a track record of electing, not geniuses, but simpleton father figures who will assure us that everything's okay, even when it's not. and that history transcends party affiliations.
third, the difference between keynesian (in your vernacular, "liberal") and friedman/supply-side ("conservative", apparently the preferred paradigm here) economics - and all the other economic theories that you folks so summarily dismiss in your party stumping - is NOT that one is right and one is wrong, but that each takes as fundamental certain, very different, assumptions about rational human behavior. empirical trials have, at times, vindicated AND disproven each theory in certain situations. but people tend to stick with the one that harmonizes with their own intuitions about themselves and others, be it the "invisible hand" of smith or the "inter-imperialist contradictions" of marx. so don't patronize the skeptics here by accusing us of a failure to understand "simple" economics - a monolithic construction which in itself is absurd, counterproductive, and elitist. i've got an ivy degree and a recommendation from a nobel laureate economist that say i'm NOT a moron, thank you very much.
point is, for every competing notion of justice - and youze guys prove there's a lot of 'em out there in this great nation - there's an order of magnitude's worth of economic and foreign policy paradigms. the proper point of the american democratic tradition is, rather than dismissing the people you disagree with as idiots incapable of reason - and leaving violence and force as the only real means of persuading them to follow your lead - you try to include them in a dialogue, find a minimal common ground with them and build on it, agreeing on some points and allowing disagreement on others. so try, for once, listening to the ideas you find unappealing, then arguing with them on their own terms and assumptions, not just calling their proponents ig-ner-ant and pushing for a (nonexistent) 'no-spin' zone. this country is getting too crowded and dangerous, inside and out, to let y'all slide into the smug, self-righteous luxury of calling everyone who doesn't see your particular light "irrational" or "ignorant".
whew! that felt good. lemme get a witness. republicans hug the dems. now socialists, shake the libertarians' hands. good, now let's ALL go scorch some pakistani caves, dammit!
All i'm saying is that Kimphil is a cheese eating surrender monkey, and that Republicans are better, because of a more fundamental understanding of how things work.
Room 5047:'i've got an ivy degree and a recommendation from a Nobel laureate economist that say i'm NOT a moron, thank you very much.' Well my daddy can beat up your daddy(nice how you define yourself by others opinions, and your ivyness). Ivy degrees aren't always what they are cracked up to be, Einstein couldn't talk until he was 3, or was it 4, Bill Gates dropped out of Ivy league, and I didn't gather you said anything else in your long winded fluff.
You can be sincere and still be wrong, you assume one party cannot be better than another (for what reason I don't know) Capitalism works and communism does not for example. (I’m not saying that republicans or democrats are communists)
I believe your carrier is in sea trials; there appears to be not much on the deck, they list the boats to test their limits.
Room 5047:'i've got an ivy degree and a recommendation from a Nobel laureate economist that say i'm NOT a moron, thank you very much.' Well my daddy can beat up your daddy(nice how you define yourself by others opinions, and your ivyness). Ivy degrees aren't always what they are cracked up to be, Einstein couldn't talk until he was 3, or was it 4, Bill Gates dropped out of Ivy league, and I didn't gather you said anything else in your long winded fluff.
You can be sincere and still be wrong, you assume one party cannot be better than another (for what reason I don't know) Capitalism works and communism does not for example. (I’m not saying that republicans or democrats are communists)
I believe your carrier is in sea trials; there appears to be not much on the deck, they list the boats to test their limits.
- Status