Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Oh my my ... that hurts ... NOT

For someone who has connections all the up to the White House and owns a fucking airplane you sure whine a lot about rich people. I'd be willing to bet that 99.999999999% of the poor people out there in the world would agree that you are a rich elitist who does not have a clue what life is like on main street.

Maybe, but I inherited none of what I have, went to state schools, grew up in a working class suburb, and I am glad that I had taxpayer funded opportunities and scholarships to get a good education 'cos there's no way my working class parents could have afforded it.

Unlike some of the hypocrites who post here, I haven't forgotten that I was enabled to become a "rich elitist" (in your opinion) by taxpayer funded education, and I don't WHINE about the taxes we pay to live in the best country in the world..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

What's the problem here? There are numerous avenues for people to reduce their taxes. If the problem is that governments are addicted to taxation when the sources of tax revenues are drying up, might I suggest the best way for governments to handle this issue is to look for ways to control their out of control spending?

Wait, we went from defining what/who gets taxed - to - tax loopholes - to - reduce spending in 1 paragraph. Let's bring it back:

Money (income) gets taxed, not people. As the money gets concentrated in one place, a person, a corporation, etc, the tax that that money gets nailed at increases at a disproportionate rate. The money gets taxed, not any given individual; it's not a conspiracy or a takedown.

Quote

Yes this includes military spending. Or is that too much for the Leftists / Marxists of the USA to accept?

No way, that faction accepts it, it's the RW maggoted nazis who have a hard time with that one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>Sure, let's cut the military by 50%. That gives us about three quarters of
>a million servicemembers and several million MORE people from the
>various manufacturers and services that support the military and the jobs
>lost in the base communities, all on unemployment and food stamps.

Interesting. An argument that increasing the number of people on the government payroll (or more accurately not reducing them) will help support the economy. Sounds like a good argument against all those smaller-government types.

Why am I not surprised that you see it in that light?

Why do you constantly run from issues?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure, let's cut the military by 50%. That gives us about three quarters of a million servicemembers and several million MORE people from the various manufacturers and services that support the military and the jobs lost in the base communities, all on unemployment and food stamps.

We can't afford to maintain the most expensive socialist organization in the country, especially where the main benefit is national pride.

I recognize that doing away with socialism may be impractical in this modern world, although when downsizing to what we need for defense we could put former military members to work doing something productive using less expensive capital ($4.5B for an aircraft carrier, $2.1B per new bomber built, $112M per new fighter), like infrastructure repair or Obama care.

You attributed that quote to Mike, it's Bill's quote.

How does the military play into military pride? Just because you think it does doesn't mean it does. A well-run military does, but an oppressive one that practices torture and violates Geneva at every turn does not.....but that's just me.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

One more time kids: Money is taxed, not people. If a millionaire makes no money in a given year, he pays no taxes. If a homeless guy wins the lottery, he pays massive taxes perhaps for the 1st time in his life. MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

and this is incorrect. income is taxed.

Yes, the money to whoch I refered was the income money, is it really neccessary to be that semantic? Or is it just in leiu of an actual argument against:

MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Mike's problem is that he subscribes to the old GOP double standard. It took Saint Ronald Reagan 22 months to get out of the "Carter" recession. From a high of 10.8% in December 1982 (already a whole year after St. Ron's election), unemployment gradually improved until it fell to 7.2% in Nov 1984. Yet Mike criticizes Obama for what is a clearly faster, superior performance.

Whether you accept that part of not, there's not doubt about the amount of red ink it took to get that result. Reagan would be envious.

There's no comparison to fascist Ronny's inherited economy and Obama's inheroted economy. Unemp was 7.5% and stable as FR took office, it was 7.7% and screaming as Obama took office. The banking industry wasn't about to fold, Wall Street wasn't about to fold, the GDP was bla but not on death's door.

1/2 the bailout money was appropriated under GWB, all the payback, some 300B+ (ish) was realized under Obama as he wouldn't let the CEO's take massive bonuses unless they paid it back, somethiong GWB didn't require.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh my my ... that hurts ... NOT

For someone who has connections all the up to the White House and owns a fucking airplane you sure whine a lot about rich people. I'd be willing to bet that 99.999999999% of the poor people out there in the world would agree that you are a rich elitist who does not have a clue what life is like on main street. Say Hi to Michelle Obama for the rest of us low life slugs when you go the opera the next time.

Can't you get it? There are liberal people who earn good money and don't subscribe to the elitist, maggotted inhumane BS. I guess you could call them the reverse-Uncle Tom's. Go watch Schindler's list and figure it out. The Nazi'z are played by modern-day Republicans. Sorry, some might find it has a sad ending, in a metaphorical sense.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Oh my my ... that hurts ... NOT

For someone who has connections all the up to the White House and owns a fucking airplane you sure whine a lot about rich people. I'd be willing to bet that 99.999999999% of the poor people out there in the world would agree that you are a rich elitist who does not have a clue what life is like on main street. Say Hi to Michelle Obama for the rest of us low life slugs when you go the opera the next time.

Best yet, Hoover grew up poor, he was an elitist maggot. FDR grew up rich, he was humane and compassionate. Don't wait around for Hoover on money, he may be issued right after GWB. The garbage has a way of getting forgotten.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

There's no comparison to fascist Ronny's inherited economy and Obama's inheroted economy.

You're right, sort of. Reagan created 3T in new debt, while Obama is on track to do 10 if he gets reelected.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, let's cut the military by 50%. That gives us about three quarters of a million servicemembers and several million MORE people from the various manufacturers and services that support the military and the jobs lost in the base communities, all on unemployment and food stamps.

We can't afford to maintain the most expensive socialist organization in the country, especially where the main benefit is national pride.

I recognize that doing away with socialism may be impractical in this modern world, although when downsizing to what we need for defense we could put former military members to work doing something productive using less expensive capital ($4.5B for an aircraft carrier, $2.1B per new bomber built, $112M per new fighter), like infrastructure repair or Obama care.

You attributed that quote to Mike, it's Bill's quote.

How does the military play into military pride? Just because you think it does doesn't mean it does. A well-run military does, but an oppressive one that practices torture and violates Geneva at every turn does not.....but that's just me.

Other countries our size (Canada, Eh?) spend $20B a year to defend their countries while we spend $700B which is as much as the rest of the world put together. As long as we're not in the empire building business the excess is only about providing employment and having a bigger dick than the rest of the world. That's pride. And it's not worth $600B.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

There's no comparison to fascist Ronny's inherited economy and Obama's inheroted economy.

You're right, sort of. Reagan created 3T in new debt, while Obama is on track to do 10 if he gets reelected.

Reagan created 3T in new debt????? OK, so history isn't your stromg suit. Reagan basically trippled the debt of 900B as he took office to that of 2.7B as he left, he created what was a hair under 2T.

The debt has incr 2T under Obama, about 1/2 of that is due to the virtual record low receipts, others are stimulus and war spending.

Answer this w/o runing or misdirecting:

Do you blame Obama for the debt increase?

If so, what would you have done differently?

You do know that even w/o the stimulus that the debt would have grown based upon what he inherited due to insanely low tax receipts?

The mess Clinton inherited was at least stable with the pig out of control for 4 years, GHWB had the mess turned around, but not profitable yet. Clinton got it profitable. The mess Obama inherited was in full freefall, but you think it's intelligent to blame Obama huh?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, let's cut the military by 50%. That gives us about three quarters of a million servicemembers and several million MORE people from the various manufacturers and services that support the military and the jobs lost in the base communities, all on unemployment and food stamps.

We can't afford to maintain the most expensive socialist organization in the country, especially where the main benefit is national pride.

I recognize that doing away with socialism may be impractical in this modern world, although when downsizing to what we need for defense we could put former military members to work doing something productive using less expensive capital ($4.5B for an aircraft carrier, $2.1B per new bomber built, $112M per new fighter), like infrastructure repair or Obama care.

You attributed that quote to Mike, it's Bill's quote.

How does the military play into military pride? Just because you think it does doesn't mean it does. A well-run military does, but an oppressive one that practices torture and violates Geneva at every turn does not.....but that's just me.

Other countries our size (Canada, Eh?) spend $20B a year to defend their countries while we spend $700B which is as much as the rest of the world put together. As long as we're not in the empire building business the excess is only about providing employment and having a bigger dick than the rest of the world. That's pride. And it's not worth $600B.

You've had a paradigm shift, I agree with you, there is no enemy present and if there is in ref to the M.E. then the problem is not a military issue, it's more dimplomatic and homeland security-based.

I fully agree with you and your data is correct. Again, what caused the paradigm shift?

[billvon 2,436]

>I'd be willing to bet that 99.999999999% of the poor people out there in
>the world would agree that you are a rich elitist who does not have a clue
>what life is like on main street.

Ah yes, the old "successful people have no clue" meme. If only everyone could be undereducated and poor, the world would be a better, more real, more relevant place.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

What you think I have an issue with someone who is rich? How many times in this thread have I mentioned I could careless how much money someone has. I just find it hilarious when a rich person whines about other rich people.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you blame Obama for the debt increase?

If he leads over a 10T increase, which is his own rosy estimates, you bet.

Health care and cash for cars are two examples.

[champu 1]

Quote

MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

I know what you're trying to say, but literally speaking you're incorrect. If money is taxed and not me then why, if I were to work two jobs, is the tax different than if I worked each of the jobs individually? Or, more simply, why is the last $50 I earn in a year taxed differently than the last $50 someone else earns? To argue that the tax the money underwent was somehow affected by other money I made but that I have nothing to do with it is absurd.

Also, I've never heard of money being charged with tax evasion.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you blame Obama for the debt increase?

If he leads over a 10T increase, which is his own rosy estimates, you bet.

Health care and cash for cars are two examples.

C4C was 3B of a 787B stimulus + a 700B bank bailout; can you keep it relevant? Seriously, make a real argument. WHat is that, 2% of the sum total of both? Become relevant.

HC isn't paid for yet, hasn't become part of the US infrastructure, tax structure, etc. Again, CAN YOU BE RELEVANT WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS?

And if he leads to over a 10T increase. Fuck all the IF's in the world. If Obama runs the debt 5T he will be a hero, he will have averted the 2nd coming of the GD, took the 2nd worst economy ever and spun it around, brought jobs back, HC to 30M people, etc. Let's contrast that with the job of your hero you are in denail of, GWB took the end of the longest growth period and ran the fucker into the ground, got involved in 2 wars w/o cause and in general watched as the country went to fuck chanting, 'tax cuts, my friends.' So it may cost Obama 5T to spin it around, but don't fear, the pathetic American public will elect another Republican turd who will bring us back to the GWB glory years.

ONE MORE TIME, you avvoided the questions, here's the post again; I'll even enumerate the questions:

Reagan created 3T in new debt????? OK, so history isn't your stromg suit. Reagan basically trippled the debt of 900B as he took office to that of 2.7B as he left, he created what was a hair under 2T.

The debt has incr 2T under Obama, about 1/2 of that is due to the virtual record low receipts, others are stimulus and war spending.

Answer this w/o runing or misdirecting:

1) Do you blame Obama for the debt increase?

1A) If so, what would you have done differently?

2) You do know that even w/o the stimulus that the debt would have grown based upon what he inherited due to insanely low tax receipts?

3) The mess Clinton inherited was at least stable with the pig out of control for 4 years, GHWB had the mess turned around, but not profitable yet. Clinton got it profitable. The mess Obama inherited was in full freefall, but you think it's intelligent to blame Obama huh?

If you need clarification, I would be glad.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

One more time kids: Money is taxed, not people. If a millionaire makes no money in a given year, he pays no taxes. If a homeless guy wins the lottery, he pays massive taxes perhaps for the 1st time in his life. MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

and this is incorrect. income is taxed.

Yes, the money to whoch I refered was the income money, is it really neccessary to be that semantic? Or is it just in leiu of an actual argument against:

MONEY IS TAXED, NOT PEOPLE.

if you want to be semanticly specific (which you appear in bold caps to be insisting on) then money, is the method by which we declare some value to items and transactions. Those items and transactions, when they are income, are taxed.

for example, if I win a car, that is not money. but I have to pay taxes on it as it is considered income.

Money is also the method by which we give a certain value to the tax transaction.

you can be bold and caps all you want. it's the income that is taxed.

and I don't see you making much of an argument here... ever. why should I start now?

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I know what you're trying to say, but literally speaking you're incorrect. If money is taxed and not me then why, if I were to work two jobs, is the tax different than if I worked each of the jobs individually?

This thread is about income tax, so you are taxed as a no-interest savings account. Withholding is just that, a savings account from which to pay your taxes at the end of the year. You can adjust that by changing your witholding or just let it accrue and get a huge refund. Again, if you earn more, you have a higher pool of money, that pool gets taxed. You take the year off, you pay no taxes and are now elegible for EIC, etc. So the person isn't taxed, juist the money - as in aeverything finacial; follow the money,not the person.

Quote

Or, more simply, why is the last $50 I earn in a year taxed differently than the last $50 someone else earns?

Because of the graduated scale. The tax bar is not flat and ascending, it's a curve. It's just a way of collecting more from those who have more. At teh same time, we have a lot of tax writeoffs and an ultra-low employee tax scale.

Quote

To argue that the tax the money underwent was somehow affected by other money I made but that I have nothing to do with it is absurd.

I don't care if you get the money form 15 diff sources, when there is a collection of $$$, that collecction of $$$ gets taxed, regardless of who's name is attached to it.

Quote

Also, I've never heard of money being charged with tax evasion.

Only people get charged with a crime, not animals or any other substance can be charged. If there is a pool of newly acquired money, a person is attached to it and has the burden of paying taxes, and the luxury of being able to enjoy it.

I realize we all hate taxes, tell me, how would you pay for things if not taxes? The top 20% hold 93% of all cash, tell me, where are you able to get the $$$ from a lovely society that distributes their wealth so disproportionately?

Looking at taxes as money being taxed, not a person is like understanding that auto, home, etc insurance is leagalized corporate gambling; it's a different approach but true. If taxes were about people, then a given set of people would be taxed constantly, but as it is, a pool of money is taxed and the perosn who holds it matters not. Taxes are not personal, they're procedural.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

if you want to be semanticly specific (which you appear in bold caps to be insisting on) then money, is the method by which we declare some value to items and transactions. Those items and transactions, when they are income, are taxed.

That's not semantics, semantics is you claiming that income is taxed, not money when the money to which I refer is income-based money, just as with the thread title.

Quote

for example, if I win a car, that is not money. but I have to pay taxes on it as it is considered income.

Yes, a car, a vacation or money in a lottery is all considered to have a monetary value. If that value creates an eligible pool to be taxed by way of it's size amount then it gets taxed and the person who gets to enjoy it must pay part of that pool of money to the gov.

Quote

Money is also the method by which we give a certain value to the tax transaction.

OK, and??????

Quote

you can be bold and caps all you want. it's the income that is taxed.

GOOD!!! Then I see we're on the same page. The money to which I refer is the income money. Winning a prize has a money value, income via labor is income money, capital gains income is money. I don't see where you're trying to get by attempting to call income and money as different things in this argument.

Quote

and I don't see you making much of an argument here... ever. why should I start now?

The argument is this: PEOPLE ARE NOT TAXED, THE POOL OF INCOME/MONEY IS. If a given person earns/wins/whatever, if a person acquires money or items worth money, that money is taxable. If that same person earns nothing the next year, that person owes nothing because he/she earned nothing. SO what changed, what caused that person to be taxed one year and not the next has zero to do with the person; everything to do with the money.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

What you think I have an issue with someone who is rich? How many times in this thread have I mentioned I could careless how much money someone has. I just find it hilarious when a rich person whines about other rich people.

The only rich people I object to are those that whine about paying taxes. Rich people who whine about their taxes are just hypocritical ungrateful jerks.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

The argument is this: PEOPLE ARE NOT TAXED, THE POOL OF INCOME/MONEY IS. If a given person earns/wins/whatever, if a person acquires money or items worth money, that money is taxable. If that same person earns nothing the next year, that person owes nothing because he/she earned nothing. SO what changed, what caused that person to be taxed one year and not the next has zero to do with the person; everything to do with the money.

ok... glad you came around. but really... you shouldn't let me get to you so much. bold and caps? wow... someone needs better sleep I think.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

The argument is this: PEOPLE ARE NOT TAXED, THE POOL OF INCOME/MONEY IS. If a given person earns/wins/whatever, if a person acquires money or items worth money, that money is taxable. If that same person earns nothing the next year, that person owes nothing because he/she earned nothing. SO what changed, what caused that person to be taxed one year and not the next has zero to do with the person; everything to do with the money.

ok... glad you came around. but really... you shouldn't let me get to you so much. bold and caps? wow... someone needs better sleep I think.

Came around????? The only dispute we had was that I was genralizing money as income, you wanted it specified. Certain things should be moot, esp in thread entitled, "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax." The money to which I was refering to was the income, glad to see you are now at the same place everyone else was at the start of this thread, 9 pages ago.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

Came around????? The only dispute we had was that I was genralizing money as income, you wanted it specified. Certain things should be moot, esp in thread entitled, "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax." The money to which I was refering to was the income, glad to see you are now at the same place everyone else was at the start of this thread, 9 pages ago.

now I'm concerned about your health too. You're awfully cranky this morning. Couldn't sleep well?

you wanted to specify "money". It's called "Income Tax" Look up there at the title. I was being more general. Simply pointing out where you were being a little narrow in your viewpoint. Narrow view, and inflexible. Oh wait... my bad... you're a Democrat. That's par for the course. I get it now.

I understand why you're cranky now too. Likely the rain that's been going on in Zimbabwe. Bad weather can have a range of effects on people. You'll feel better after it clears up.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Came around????? The only dispute we had was that I was genralizing money as income, you wanted it specified. Certain things should be moot, esp in thread entitled, "Half of U.S. pays no federal income tax." The money to which I was refering to was the income, glad to see you are now at the same place everyone else was at the start of this thread, 9 pages ago.

now I'm concerned about your health too. You're awfully cranky this morning. Couldn't sleep well?

you wanted to specify "money". It's called "Income Tax" Look up there at the title. I was being more general. Simply pointing out where you were being a little narrow in your viewpoint. Narrow view, and inflexible. Oh wait... my bad... you're a Democrat. That's par for the course. I get it now.

I understand why you're cranky now too. Likely the rain that's been going on in Zimbabwe. Bad weather can have a range of effects on people. You'll feel better after it clears up.

The fact that you take my profile as litteral and correct explains volumes.

I get it, did a long time ago; you cannot argue that taxes are not applied to income/money, so you try to argue that by me saying, "money" that was different than saying, "income." The money to which I was refering was the income. 9 pages of everyone else getting it but you isn't a defense.

So, you agree that Income (money) is taxed, not people, right? Great, then quit whining as if there is a conspiracy against certain people.