RE: Its not mAth, its mYth

RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Moonhead -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 4:38:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Man Sarah Palin is DEFINITELY THE NORM CROSBY of the right wing... got fox on in the background and she's stumbling through shit calling the voters "Electors" (maybe she means 'the electorate' )... What a shitbag annoyance she must be to you guys by now... It would be like running for office and having Andy Kaufman following you around Any Kaufman was funny though. I don't think that can be claimed for caribous Barbie, can it?

Sanity -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 6:33:31 AM)
This is STILL the most popular news article on Yahoo News, a full day later http://news.yahoo.com/most-popular/ quote: 1 [image]http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/VXjHY3YbiiJuIn15c.06hw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTcwO3E9ODU7dz03MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/ad99bab018773815f90e6a7067003f88.jpg[/image] FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? AP - 16 hrs agoPresident Barack Obama makes it sound as if there are millionaires all over America paying taxes at lower rates than their secretaries. More »

Aylee -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 7:08:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/09/on-average-the-ap-is-useless.html quote: To respond, as the AP does, that most millionaires (or the average millionaire) is in compliance with that higher-taxes principal is not relevant. Obama wants to reform the tax code so that all high-earners meet that rule. (The AP does eventually nod to the caital gains differential in their eighth paragraph). Here is another take. Just so ya all aren't accused of partisanship. What? Not intelligent enough to come up with your own talking points? You need to parrot someone else's crap? The AP's material isn't about being partisan. They are reporting on known information as it relates to things previous spoken/written by the President and Mr. Buffett. Why not read the actual material from the AP? After that, create a real arguement with supporting material as to why you take issue with what either the President or Mr. Buffett said. I cannot even imagine where your anger is coming from in this.

Sanity -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 7:09:55 AM)
Could be its neither mAth nor mYth Maybe its mEth quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/09/on-average-the-ap-is-useless.html quote: To respond, as the AP does, that most millionaires (or the average millionaire) is in compliance with that higher-taxes principal is not relevant. Obama wants to reform the tax code so that all high-earners meet that rule. (The AP does eventually nod to the caital gains differential in their eighth paragraph). Here is another take. Just so ya all aren't accused of partisanship. What? Not intelligent enough to come up with your own talking points? You need to parrot someone else's crap? The AP's material isn't about being partisan. They are reporting on known information as it relates to things previous spoken/written by the President and Mr. Buffett. Why not read the actual material from the AP? After that, create a real arguement with supporting material as to why you take issue with what either the President or Mr. Buffett said. I cannot even imagine where your anger is coming from in this.

Aylee -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 7:20:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Could be its neither mAth nor mYth Maybe its mEth Must be. Actually that was how I read the thread title the first time. [:)] I could have understood being called a "Pollyanna," for posting that link. It is a much more positive viewpoint. But to actually enrage someone over it. . . wow.

thompsonx -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 7:26:16 AM)
quote: When Buffet first made his claim I posted that he was simply lying about what his secretary pays in taxes, or was paying her $x (and well below a million, not worth searching for my post). And of course for all of his rhetoric, Buffet makes the choice to take all of his compensation in the form of capital gains, not salary. Very few of the filers with over a million in income have that much flexibility. http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/new-buffett-manager-gets-higher-taxes-and-less-pay-by-choice/ quote: New Buffett Manager Gets Less Pay and Higher Taxes, by Choice Ted Weschler is a highly successful hedge fund manager tapped by Warren E. Buffett to help invest Berkshire Hathaway's billions of dollars. It's a wildly coveted position - only he'll take a salary cut and pay more in taxes. And he's OK with that, Andrew Ross Sorkin writes in his latest DealBook column. As the Obama administration moves to raise taxes for the wealthiest Americans, it will find no disagreement from the new Berkshire employee. "When you have enough money to live the lifestyle you want," Mr. Weschler says, money and taxes are less of a consideration than "who you want to work with."

thompsonx -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 7:31:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: Five percent of the people own 95% of the pie and You want the 95% who get 5% of the pie to pay for the crumbs?This from a guy who claims he makes less than 30k per year. Which one of these dopes told you that????? Willbeurdaddy said that he could make more money than he is making now by being a butcher. According to the labor dept. butchers make a little less than $15/hr. that is about $30k per year.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 8:15:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Could be its neither mAth nor mYth Maybe its mEth Must be. Actually that was how I read the thread title the first time. [:)] I could have understood being called a "Pollyanna," for posting that link. It is a much more positive viewpoint. But to actually enrage someone over it. . . wow. He's an internet blowhard who feels empowered because he has a klatch of liberals cut from the same cloth. He has particular venom for me because I destroyed several of his early posts here.

thompsonx -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 8:26:21 AM)
quote: He has particular venom for me because I destroyed several of his early posts here. [8\|]

Moonhead -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 8:31:42 AM)
The inside of Willbur's head is not like other places. Surely you'd noticed that by now?

kalikshama -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 8:56:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: To respond, as the AP does, that most millionaires (or the average millionaire) is in compliance with that higher-taxes principal is not relevant. Obama wants to reform the tax code so that all high-earners meet that rule. (The AP does eventually nod to the caital gains differential in their eighth paragraph). Here is another take. Just so ya all aren't accused of partisanship. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/09/on-average-the-ap-is-useless.html None of that is surprising, and none of it addresses the point being made by Obama. His point was not that most, or all high-earners pay a low tax rate; his point was that some high-earners do pay a low tax rate, and need to have it socked to them. Let's cut to the White House website for a clarification: Finally, the President calls on the Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform and lays out five key principles. Reform should:... 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay. Put another way, if Obama announced a Chappaquiddick Plan to reduce drunk driving, it would hardly be responsive to note that 99% of Americans drive sober.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 9:19:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama His point was not that most, or all high-earners pay a low tax rate; his point was that some high-earners do pay a low tax rate, and need to have it socked to them. Let's cut to the White House website for a clarification: If that was his point and it was honestly presented it would be fine...it would also not have been made because of its lack of greater implications. Other than his cheerleaders on MSNBC and you, nobody is even attempting to claim that his statement was limited. His rhetoric has constantly been to imply that the majority of the middle class pays higher rates than the majority of the wealthy. Ie class warfare.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 1:22:32 PM)
*quote:* "...explain why somebody who's making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying a higher rate." --Baroccoli OLiar - Sep 20, 2011 Answer: Because Baroccoli OLiar is falsely comparing taxes on WAGES with taxes on INVESTMENTS -- i.e., income that an individual has received, already been taxed on, and then is taxed AGAIN at a lower rate in the event of any Capital Gains realized from an investment. Thus, the Idiot-In-Chief is either (i) too stupid to know the difference between taxes on Wages vs. taxes on Captial Gains, (ii) a fucking liar who intentionally misleads for the purpose of class warefare, or more likely (iii) both... a stupid, failed, fucking liar that's using class warfare to try and save his own job. AP Fact-Check Findings (AP's Website): (Souce: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TAXES_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) * The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes... pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office. * In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million. * This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. * Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes. * Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. * Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent. * In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS. * Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. * Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent. * The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. * The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150. * The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low and medium income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. [image]local://upfiles/687741/6682D4B96F7141F094A6BA3794871301.jpg[/image]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 2:08:04 PM)
quote: Answer: Because Baroccoli OLiar is falsely comparing taxes on WAGES with taxes on INVESTMENTS -- i.e., income that an individual has received, already been taxed on, and then is taxed AGAIN at a lower rate in the event of any Capital Gains realized from an investment. Thus, the Idiot-In-Chief is either (i) too stupid to know the difference between taxes on Wages vs. taxes on Captial Gains, (ii) a fucking liar who intentionally misleads for the purpose of class warefare, or more likely (iii) both... a stupid, failed, fucking liar that's using class warfare to try and save his own job. You left out the limited ability to deduct losses on those risky investments. I vote for ii. I think he knows the difference, he just doesnt understand the consequences of the differences.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 2:50:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: Answer: Because Baroccoli OLiar is falsely comparing taxes on WAGES with taxes on INVESTMENTS -- i.e., income that an individual has received, already been taxed on, and then is taxed AGAIN at a lower rate in the event of any Capital Gains realized from an investment. Thus, the Idiot-In-Chief is either (i) too stupid to know the difference between taxes on Wages vs. taxes on Captial Gains, (ii) a fucking liar who intentionally misleads for the purpose of class warefare, or more likely (iii) both... a stupid, failed, fucking liar that's using class warfare to try and save his own job. You left out the limited ability to deduct losses on those risky investments. That's true... make a $10,000 Capital Gain on an investment, and the Government what's their $1,500 (15%) in the SAME year -- but realize a $10,000 LOSS and you can only write off $3,000 per year. So the Gov. get their money right away, but you have to wait FOUR YEARS. And the idiot wants to raise the Capital Gans tax... yeah, like that's going to encourage investment?!! Baroccoli OLiar is the biggest fucking moron to ever occupy the Oval Office.

tazzygirl -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 3:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kalikshama quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: To respond, as the AP does, that most millionaires (or the average millionaire) is in compliance with that higher-taxes principal is not relevant. Obama wants to reform the tax code so that all high-earners meet that rule. (The AP does eventually nod to the caital gains differential in their eighth paragraph). Here is another take. Just so ya all aren't accused of partisanship. http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/09/on-average-the-ap-is-useless.html None of that is surprising, and none of it addresses the point being made by Obama. His point was not that most, or all high-earners pay a low tax rate; his point was that some high-earners do pay a low tax rate, and need to have it socked to them. Let's cut to the White House website for a clarification: Finally, the President calls on the Committee to undertake comprehensive tax reform and lays out five key principles. Reform should:... 5) comport with the “Buffett Rule” that people making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay. Put another way, if Obama announced a Chappaquiddick Plan to reduce drunk driving, it would hardly be responsive to note that 99% of Americans drive sober. Something from the AP article that sums it all up.... Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was pressed at a White House briefing on the number of millionaires who pay taxes at a lower rate than middle-income families. He demurred, saying that people who make most of their money in wages pay taxes at a higher rate, while those who get most of their income from investments pay at lower rates. "So it really depends on what is your profession, where's the source of your income, what's the specific circumstances you face, and the averages won't really capture that," Geithner said. Any income should be taxed as a flat rate.

Masta808 -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/21/2011 4:58:07 PM)
Exactly, like evolution, math is just a theory. So i dont know why your throwing out numbers there. Of course the Rich pay more in taxes, capital gain is the same thing as income.

Moonhead -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/22/2011 5:49:30 AM)
I really hope that was sarcasm: if mathematics was "just a theory" your pc wouldn't work.

thompsonx -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/22/2011 7:32:54 AM)
quote: Put another way, if Obama announced a Chappaquiddick Plan to reduce drunk driving, it would hardly be responsive to note that 99% of Americans drive sober. I remain unconvinced that 99% of americans drive sober as I remain unconvinced that the implication that 99% of those making more than a million dollars a year pay any where near the 29% rate.

thompsonx -> RE: Its not mAth, its mYth (9/22/2011 7:44:51 AM)
quote: Answer: Because Baroccoli OLiar is falsely comparing taxes on WAGES with taxes on INVESTMENTS -- i.e., income that an individual has received, already been taxed on, and then is taxed AGAIN at a lower rate in the event of any Capital Gains realized from an investment. Someone earns x dollars from wages and they are taxed on that That someone then takes some of what is left and invests it and makes x dollars from that investment. The profit is what is taxed. That profit has not been previously taxed so how can you characterize it as double taxation? Counter example: Someone earns x dollars from wages and they are taxed on that. That someone then takes some of what is left and buys better tools to do their job with and now makes more than they did before. The profit that person has made by having more efficient tools is taxed since that money has not been taxed before. false premis = false conclusion....your premis that the money is taxed twice is a false premise which has led you to your false conclusion.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875