#301
Posted: 9/19/12 at 7:09am
Mikey and Jim clearly have pudding for brains.
Barack Obama campaign lies and flip-flops — Page 13
#302
Posted: 9/19/12 at 8:46am
Taxes are redistribution. Is Mikey suggesting we completely eliminate all taxes for everyone? How are your paving skills, Mikey?
The President is correct..."some redistribution...at least at a certain level" is necessary unless you want to give up military protection, roads, air traffic control, police, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid...
The President is correct..."some redistribution...at least at a certain level" is necessary unless you want to give up military protection, roads, air traffic control, police, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid...
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#303
Posted: 9/19/12 at 4:16pm
"The President is correct..."some redistribution...at least at a certain level" is necessary unless you want to give up military protection, roads, air traffic control, police, the Internet, the broadcast airwaves, our public education system, our power grid.."
Hmm, it doesn't seem that you understand the concept of "redistribution". Nor does it seem you have a firm understanding of the taxing powers of the federal government as enumerated in the US Constitution. Some of the items you have listed are legitimate CONSTITUTIONAL functions of the federal government; military protection, roads. However police, education, etc. are not functions of the federal government. Let me correct myself; are not SUPPOSED to be functions of the federal government. The federal government is allowed to tax the American citizenry in order to fund those functions of the federal government enumerated in the US Constitution. REDISTRIBUTION is specifically taxing Person A in order to give that money to Person B, with person A having no obligation to give money to Person B (Person B did not do a job for Person A nor did he do anything to qualify Person A to have been in his debt.) In other words money is redistributed with NO ORIGIN OF DEBT being defined and no CONTRACT being entered into.
Hmm, it doesn't seem that you understand the concept of "redistribution". Nor does it seem you have a firm understanding of the taxing powers of the federal government as enumerated in the US Constitution. Some of the items you have listed are legitimate CONSTITUTIONAL functions of the federal government; military protection, roads. However police, education, etc. are not functions of the federal government. Let me correct myself; are not SUPPOSED to be functions of the federal government. The federal government is allowed to tax the American citizenry in order to fund those functions of the federal government enumerated in the US Constitution. REDISTRIBUTION is specifically taxing Person A in order to give that money to Person B, with person A having no obligation to give money to Person B (Person B did not do a job for Person A nor did he do anything to qualify Person A to have been in his debt.) In other words money is redistributed with NO ORIGIN OF DEBT being defined and no CONTRACT being entered into.
#304
Posted: 9/19/12 at 4:38pm
No, I'm not talking about the constitutionality of taxation. And I'm not differentiating between state and federal.
I'm saying that taxes, of any kind, are redistribution. If I work at Starbucks and make minimum wage, and pay little to no taxes, I still get to drive on the same shiny roads and bridges that Mr Moneybags enjoys, even though he paid much more towards them than I did. That's redistribution...and necessary if we want those roads and bridges to be the way they are.
If, on the other hand, Mr Moneybags is willing to ride on dirt roads and raft his car across the creek because he thinks he should only pay what the Starbucks clerks pays in taxes, and the country then cant afford decent roads on that little, that's another way to go. But Mr Moneybags doesn't want to have to do that. So he agrees to have some of his wealth redistributed to the benefit of others. Taxation is, unless it's a flat tax, is redistribution at a certain level.
I'm saying that taxes, of any kind, are redistribution. If I work at Starbucks and make minimum wage, and pay little to no taxes, I still get to drive on the same shiny roads and bridges that Mr Moneybags enjoys, even though he paid much more towards them than I did. That's redistribution...and necessary if we want those roads and bridges to be the way they are.
If, on the other hand, Mr Moneybags is willing to ride on dirt roads and raft his car across the creek because he thinks he should only pay what the Starbucks clerks pays in taxes, and the country then cant afford decent roads on that little, that's another way to go. But Mr Moneybags doesn't want to have to do that. So he agrees to have some of his wealth redistributed to the benefit of others. Taxation is, unless it's a flat tax, is redistribution at a certain level.
Art has a double face, of expression and illusion.
#305
Posted: 9/19/12 at 9:59pm
You obviously have a lot of anger and resentment for "Mr. Moneybags" and I don't understand why that is. And I am a teacher, so I am in no way a "Mr. Moneybags". But I still have no resentment or anger towards those who are making more money than I. I wonder why that is. My anger and resentment is aimed at "Mr. Government-man" who is collecting those taxes and pissing them away on crap! I know that raising taxes on rich people is not going to help me one bit, nor is it going to change the spending habits of Congress.
Also, not differentiating between state and federal taxes is a HUGE problem, as they are two COMPLETELY different things.
Mr. Moneybags pays more in taxes because he MAKES more; 20% of $200,000,000 is obviously going to be more money than 20% of $50,000. As for the prgressive income tax system, I am sure you recognise that as being completely unconsitutional ("Fair and equal treatment under the law") and communistic. The "Mr. Government-man" uses this to bring in more money to his coffers thus extending his power, and to manipulate those who are easily manipulated to assure he gets their vote next time around.
Also, not differentiating between state and federal taxes is a HUGE problem, as they are two COMPLETELY different things.
Mr. Moneybags pays more in taxes because he MAKES more; 20% of $200,000,000 is obviously going to be more money than 20% of $50,000. As for the prgressive income tax system, I am sure you recognise that as being completely unconsitutional ("Fair and equal treatment under the law") and communistic. The "Mr. Government-man" uses this to bring in more money to his coffers thus extending his power, and to manipulate those who are easily manipulated to assure he gets their vote next time around.
#306
Posted: 9/19/12 at 10:19pm
That would be nice if Mr MoneyBags and everyone making $50K and above were all held to the 20% However Teach, they are not. !3% of 150 Mil, may be a lot more then 33% of $80,000 but it doesn't quite take the same bite out a person's earnings, Now hide some of that 150 Mil in off shore accounts and Mr Moneybags is paying a lot less then his fair share. The system is rigged to favor the rich.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#307
Posted: 9/19/12 at 11:01pm
Who in the USA pays an income tax of 3% ?? (Or is it 13% you meant?)
Either way, I don't think there is anyone in the USA whose income tax rate is 13% .
However, if THAT were the rate it needs to be the same for EVERYONE. A progressive income tax (where the more you make the higher your rate) is unconstitutional and communistic.
But at least you are agreeing that a 20% income tax rate for everybody is desirable.
Either way, I don't think there is anyone in the USA whose income tax rate is 13% .
However, if THAT were the rate it needs to be the same for EVERYONE. A progressive income tax (where the more you make the higher your rate) is unconstitutional and communistic.
But at least you are agreeing that a 20% income tax rate for everybody is desirable.
#308
Posted: 9/19/12 at 11:14pm
I typed 13% and Romney HIMSELF has come out and said he paid taxes at that rate TEACH! Damned you are an idiot! I am sorry for your students!
eta: we will never know, will we Mikey? Why do you THINK Romney will Not release his tax returns?
Oh and linky Teach... Read and freaking educate yourself before you speak! Though the stupid never do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/romney-says-he-paid-at-least-13-percent-in-income-taxes.html
Key words: At least!
eta: we will never know, will we Mikey? Why do you THINK Romney will Not release his tax returns?
Oh and linky Teach... Read and freaking educate yourself before you speak! Though the stupid never do.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/romney-says-he-paid-at-least-13-percent-in-income-taxes.html
Key words: At least!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 9/19/12 at 11:14 PM
#309
Posted: 9/19/12 at 11:30pm
Oh dear. Are you sure that I am the idiot?? Because me fears it is YOU who will end up with egg on your face.
Let me ask this very specifically; are you saying that Mitt Romney (and other rich "Mr. Moneybags" types) are paying only 13% rate on their income?? What evidence do you have to support this. I will say POINT BLANK that you are dead WRONG.
Let me ask this very specifically; are you saying that Mitt Romney (and other rich "Mr. Moneybags" types) are paying only 13% rate on their income?? What evidence do you have to support this. I will say POINT BLANK that you are dead WRONG.
#310
Posted: 9/20/12 at 12:07am
It must suck to be you, mikey.
Mitt as admitted to only pay 13% himself
Mitt Romney paid taxes at a rate of at least 13 percent. And hes proud to say so.
Mitt as admitted to only pay 13% himself
Mitt Romney paid taxes at a rate of at least 13 percent. And hes proud to say so.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#311
Posted: 9/20/12 at 12:10am
"I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past ten years. I never paid less than 13%," he said on the campaign trail in Greer, S.C. "I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that. I paid taxes every single year. "
And there's this...
And there's this...
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#312
Posted: 9/20/12 at 7:35am
Diva "POINT BLANK we are DEAD wrong!" Seems Teach has a reading comprehension problem.
He has got us though, we really can't prove it until Romney shows us his tax returns. Wonder why he won't?
He has got us though, we really can't prove it until Romney shows us his tax returns. Wonder why he won't?
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#313
Posted: 9/20/12 at 5:21pm
Sorry folks, but your IGNORANCE is showing!! That 13% rate that Romney is paying is NOT an INCOME tax. That is the rate on his capital gains. And those rates are established by the US Congress. Romney earns money from INVESTING the money he already earned (and already paid a higher income tax on) in the market. Cap. gain tax rates are lower in order to encourage people to put their money at risk by investing.
So you see, you were wrong.
So you see, you were wrong.
#314
Posted: 9/20/12 at 5:25pm
Unless you have proof to back up your statement, then you are the one that's still wrong.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
#315
Posted: 9/20/12 at 5:30pm
You know this how Mikey? You see his returns? If so, what percentage did he pay? I know for a fact I paid 30% federal income tax. One year 33%.
Yes and Rmoney invests his capital gains in an offshore account where it risks ummmmmnothing.
Reading comprehension is EVERYTHING TEACH!
“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent,” he said, referring to his effective federal income tax rate, which is a higher effective rate than most people pay.
Yes and Rmoney invests his capital gains in an offshore account where it risks ummmmmnothing.
Reading comprehension is EVERYTHING TEACH!
“Every year, I’ve paid at least 13 percent,” he said, referring to his effective federal income tax rate, which is a higher effective rate than most people pay.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 9/20/12 at 05:30 PM
#316
Posted: 9/20/12 at 5:38pm
And the fact that capital gains are taxed less than labor is part of the problem! It makes absolutely no sense.
#317
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:37pm
"Unless you have proof to back up your statement, then you are the one that's still wrong."
Ok then; What is Mitt Romney's "job"?? How does he acquire "income"?
Ok then; What is Mitt Romney's "job"?? How does he acquire "income"?
#318
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:40pm
Obviously from Bain Capital. If not then he too is one of the 47% he so depises.
Here's a shovel sweety, dig deeper!
ETA: My bad, he "RETROACTIVELY" changed that!
Here's a shovel sweety, dig deeper!
ETA: My bad, he "RETROACTIVELY" changed that!
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 9/20/12 at 08:40 PM
#319
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:44pm
"Every year, Ive paid at least 13 percent, he said, referring to his effective federal income tax rate, which is a higher effective rate than most people pay."
Prove that he was referring to his "federal income tax rate". What is his "job"?
"And the fact that capital gains are taxed less than labor is part of the problem! It makes absolutely no sense."
Then your problem is not with Mitt Romney, it is with the US Congress; they are the ones who set these rates.
What is the rate that Pres. Obama pays? Is he paying MORE than what he is supposed to? If not, then you must criticize him as well. You can't have an expectation that Mitt Romney is somehow obligated to pay more taxes than he is liable for, but Pres. Obama only needs to pay that which he owes based on the rate set by the US Congress.
You liberals prove over and over that you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about!
Prove that he was referring to his "federal income tax rate". What is his "job"?
"And the fact that capital gains are taxed less than labor is part of the problem! It makes absolutely no sense."
Then your problem is not with Mitt Romney, it is with the US Congress; they are the ones who set these rates.
What is the rate that Pres. Obama pays? Is he paying MORE than what he is supposed to? If not, then you must criticize him as well. You can't have an expectation that Mitt Romney is somehow obligated to pay more taxes than he is liable for, but Pres. Obama only needs to pay that which he owes based on the rate set by the US Congress.
You liberals prove over and over that you have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about!
#320
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:47pm
"I know for a fact I paid 30% federal income tax. One year 33%"
You are comparing the federal INCOME TAX rate to the CAPITAL GAINS TAX rate; they are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
You are comparing the federal INCOME TAX rate to the CAPITAL GAINS TAX rate; they are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS!!!
#321
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:48pm
Wait Mikey, I can look on line and find out what rate Obama pays and have paid. But being a part of "YOU PEOPLE" I am not privilaged to see that of Mitt.
I mourn for your "students!"
I mourn for your "students!"
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
#322
Posted: 9/20/12 at 8:55pm
"I can look on line and find out what rate Obama pays and have paid."
Good, then you can answer my question: DOES Pres. Obama pay MORE in taxes than he is legally obligated to?
Good, then you can answer my question: DOES Pres. Obama pay MORE in taxes than he is legally obligated to?
#323
Posted: 9/20/12 at 9:02pm
"Obviously from Bain Capital."
Mitt Romney DOES NOT WORK FOR BAIN CAPITAL! He has not worked at Bain for over ten years!
Mitt Romney DOES NOT WORK FOR BAIN CAPITAL! He has not worked at Bain for over ten years!
#324
Posted: 9/20/12 at 9:21pm
YES, HE RETROACTIVELY WENT BACK AND CHANGED THAT!
Why do we NOT see his tax returns?!? OH WAIT perhaps THAT is the reason!.
Edited to add. Mikey, Ihave lost IQ points taliking to you! Sorry dude, you really are an inbecile and I really look forward to your future racist Youtubes you use to back up your stances!.
Why do we NOT see his tax returns?!? OH WAIT perhaps THAT is the reason!.
Edited to add. Mikey, Ihave lost IQ points taliking to you! Sorry dude, you really are an inbecile and I really look forward to your future racist Youtubes you use to back up your stances!.
Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!
Updated On: 9/20/12 at 09:21 PM
#325
Posted: 9/20/12 at 10:14pm
Here is what it sounds like when someone LOSES a debate:
"Mikey, Ihave lost IQ points taliking to you! Sorry dude, you really are an inbecile and I really look forward to your future racist Youtubes you use to back up your stances!."
In other words. YOU'VE GOT NOTHING!!!
"Mikey, Ihave lost IQ points taliking to you! Sorry dude, you really are an inbecile and I really look forward to your future racist Youtubes you use to back up your stances!."
In other words. YOU'VE GOT NOTHING!!!
Tickets From $70
Tickets From $77
Tickets From $106
Tickets From $75