winsor 186 #101 April 9, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote raising the minimum wage doesn't increase inflation yes it will. it was explained to you in detail in another thread. you mean you gave your opinion - but no evidence and interestingly enough I wasn't the only one stating the obvious in that thread. yeah... so show me the evidence that it doesn't cause inflation. And then I'll wink at you too. I'd call you ignorant, but we've tried to educate you. You're just stubborn. Don't encourage it. Maybe if you ignore it, it will go away (since there is no killfile here...). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #102 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #103 April 9, 2010 Quote Quote Based on their 2008 report, ExxonMobil paid $36.5B in income taxes on $81.75B income. The author has retracted his original publication, after speaking directly with Exxon Mobile. He now admits that they actually paid $46 billion in 2009 US income taxes, and $15 billion in taxes to other countries: http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/04/07/exxon-says-it-does-pay-u-s-income-taxes/ His misunderstanding was about how the taxes were recorded. That's all fine and good, but he had no issue with blurting out BS like that in light of the fact that he had no facts to back his statement. It was okay because it was the "big, bad, oil company". So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #104 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuotepussy's they are called pussy's That's "pussies," which is the plural of "pussy." "Pussy's" is the possessive. For example: "Those pussies like to play with the ball of yarn. I am not sure which pussy's ball of yarn it is, but all the pussies play with it." I may have flunked English, but I am pretty sure about this one. Blue skies, Winsor What ever you want to be called I am ok with that"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #105 April 9, 2010 I've said for a long time, people aren't taxed, money is. You earn a lot of money, you get taxed accordingly. You earn shit, you don't get taxed and perhaps get EIC. Get it; money gets taxed, not people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #106 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoted from another source - Sort of goes along these lines: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Wish everyone could read Atlas Scrugged. It explains what is going to happen. Can't even spell the name of a book whose ideas are long since disproven. Awesome... I'll bet you think the author was male, too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #107 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. Well, what a SURPRISE that is. The income disparity and the wealth disparity has also changed since the 1980s - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In 1980 the lowest income quintile made 28% of what the upper quintile made. By 2001 that had dropped to 20% (source US Treasury). According to Pickety-Saez, “In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nation’s total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income.”... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #108 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. Well, what a SURPRISE that is. The income disparity and the wealth disparity has also changed since the 1980s - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In 1980 the lowest income quintile made 28% of what the upper quintile made. By 2001 that had dropped to 20% (source US Treasury). According to Pickety-Saez, “In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nation’s total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income.” Thanks. Noted. Is that supposed to make me feel it's ok for 40% to receive checks in the mail for nothing? -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #109 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. Well, what a SURPRISE that is. The income disparity and the wealth disparity has also changed since the 1980s - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In 1980 the lowest income quintile made 28% of what the upper quintile made. By 2001 that had dropped to 20% (source US Treasury). According to Pickety-Saez, “In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nation’s total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income.” Thanks. Noted. Is that supposed to make me feel it's ok for 40% to receive checks in the mail for nothing? No, I don't care how you FEEL about it. It explains your previous comment about the number needing govt. help increasing since the '80s. As income and wealth shift even further away from the lower segment, more of them will need help.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #110 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. Well, what a SURPRISE that is. The income disparity and the wealth disparity has also changed since the 1980s - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In 1980 the lowest income quintile made 28% of what the upper quintile made. By 2001 that had dropped to 20% (source US Treasury). According to Pickety-Saez, “In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nation’s total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income.” Thanks. Noted. Is that supposed to make me feel it's ok for 40% to receive checks in the mail for nothing? No, I don't care how you FEEL about it. It explains your previous comment about the number needing govt. help increasing since the '80s. As income and wealth shift even further away from the lower segment, more of them will need help. "Need" help. 40% of the population "needs" free government money once a year.... Nice. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #111 April 9, 2010 Quote According to Pickety-Saez, In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nations total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income. The wealthy having more money is orthogonal to what's happening to the rest of us. In America being poor does not preclude having luxuries like cars, color televisions (which 98.9% of us own), or even cable/satellite TV (64% of households earning less than $15,000 a year). Most families earning under $15,000 a year (57%) even have a washing machine so they don't need to go to the laundromat. Wealth distribution is only a problem when it comes to people's feelings and we'd be better served dealing with real problems facing the non-wealthy, like the government artificially propping up house and education prices. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #112 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLiberals equate paying taxes to caring. No, I equate it to paying for services, like roads, air traffic control, emergent medical and fire services, the military, NASA etc. Some of them are used by everyone; some are used by only a few. And what service is provided by funneling tax dollars to checks in the mail for 40% of the population. You really think most of that 47% gets government checks? Not likely. Reduce that even more by retirees who get SS. No. I said 40%. Up nearly double from the 80's. Well, what a SURPRISE that is. The income disparity and the wealth disparity has also changed since the 1980s - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. In 1980 the lowest income quintile made 28% of what the upper quintile made. By 2001 that had dropped to 20% (source US Treasury). According to Pickety-Saez, “In 2007, the percent of total income received by the top 10% of families was 49.74%, or effectively one-half of the nation’s total. This compares to 1980, when the top 10% received 34.63%, or about one-third of all income.” Thanks. Noted. Is that supposed to make me feel it's ok for 40% to receive checks in the mail for nothing? No, I don't care how you FEEL about it. It explains your previous comment about the number needing govt. help increasing since the '80s. As income and wealth shift even further away from the lower segment, more of them will need help. "Need" help. 40% of the population "needs" free government money once a year.... Nice. If you receive unemployment payments because you lost your job in Bush's recession, I reckon you need govt. help (it actually comes from the taxes you paid when employed). That's 10% right there. According to Saint Ron Paul, the bottom 40% own 0.2% of the wealth.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #113 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuote According to St. Ron Paul (R, but really Libertarian) (10/18/2009) the bottom 40% of the US population has 0.2% of all US wealth. So the "poor" part is right there. And yet millions of Mexicans try to jump the border every year to be one of them. There's a wealth versus income distinction. Most of those in this 40% do not have wealth. Yet income tax is about income, not about wealth. Taxing those who choose to save money and paying those who (often) choose to live paycheck to paycheck sends a bad message about responsibility. "Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume." Alan Greenspan.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #114 April 9, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote In 2007, the top 0.01% of earners took 6% of the nation's earnings. The top 1% took 23% of the nation's earnings. The top 10% took 49% of the nation's earnings. There's not a whole lot left to tax by the time you get to the bottom 50%. good point - clearly a flat tax in 2007 would have been a very progressive tax that would still have everyone contributing proportionately to what they earned, but still having all citizens paying for those roads, schools and protection Yep, great idea, taxing someone who is already below the poverty line. I can see why the right likes that idea. How do you propose they contribute so they don't just use their voting power to vote for more gov't programs they get the benefit of, but don't have to pay for? It wouldn't be $1000's per person, probably would max out way less than $500. It's not so much the contribution level that's important as much as them feeling they have a stake in this. I guess you loved the Poll Tax. No but I'm not sure if motor/voter was the best idea. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #115 April 9, 2010 Dr. Saez sounds like a pretty important and busy guy. He's teaching Econ 231 at Cal this spring. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,635 #116 April 9, 2010 QuoteDr. Saez sounds like a pretty important and busy guy. He's teaching Econ 231 at Cal this spring. Cool - a professor who actually teaches students! Richard Feynman (Nobel laureate) used to teach undergraduates at Caltech. Leon Lederman (Nobel Laureate) taught "Physics for non-scientists" for several years. When I was an undergrad student I had a course from Neville Mott (Nobel Laureate). Did you have a point? If you don't like Saez, try the Gini coefficient of income inequality. For the US, this rose from 40 to 47 in the time frame Mr. Osh mentioned.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #117 April 9, 2010 QuoteAccording to Saint Ron Paul, the bottom 40% own 0.2% of the wealth. That D.O.W. sounds a lot like Communism. Hmmm, so Capitalism and Communism are that close, huh? Yep and they are both very Utilitarian too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #118 April 9, 2010 QuoteDid you have a point? Yeah, I do. He is teaching ONE sophomore level course this spring. Probably making 120K$/year. Call me unimpressed. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lewmonst 0 #119 April 9, 2010 Quote the question is, when half the voting population doesn't pay taxes, who's going to elect the guy that will make them pay taxes? the answer is the fearful, uneducated, easily persuaded people who buy into the conservative propaganda telling them their security, way of life, and values are being threatened by terrorists, gays, socialist health care, atheists and abortion. Smoke and mirrors that perpetuate and enable the rich to write the laws and allow themselves to get richer.http://www.exitshot.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #120 April 9, 2010 A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #121 April 9, 2010 Quote >and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we' No, it was the usual sense meaning "me and others." I was one of the others. in that case provide some evidence stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #122 April 9, 2010 Quote Quote >and you're feeling out on a limb so you've gone to the royal 'we' No, it was the usual sense meaning "me and others." I was one of the others. in that case provide some evidence You first.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #123 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuotepussy's they are called pussy's That's "pussies," which is the plural of "pussy." "Pussy's" is the possessive. For example: "Those pussies like to play with the ball of yarn. I am not sure which pussy's ball of yarn it is, but all the pussies play with it." I may have flunked English, but I am pretty sure about this one. Blue skies, Winsor What ever you want to be called I am ok with that It is not about calling names, it is about being coherent. Steven Colbert plays a conservative buffoon to mock the opposition; one would do well to avoid playing into the stereotype that their own side of the aisle is synonymous with "village idiot." I do not mind as much if those who represent positions with which I do not agree show themselves to be half-wits - though they may get the backing of the imbecile contingent, which is large and powerful - but it concerns me if someone states a legitimate point in such a manner that it is marginalized. I realize the difficulty that exists when interacting with spineless parasites to avoid stating the obvious, but it does not buy you much in practice. However, if you must resort to name-calling, you may as well seek to use proper grammar and punctuation. The tee shirt that said "your retarded" was a joke by dint of grammatical construct. If you want to be taken seriously, try not to let your language be a joke as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
danornan 64 #124 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoted from another source - Sort of goes along these lines: The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Wish everyone could read Atlas Scrugged. It explains what is going to happen. Can't even spell the name of a book whose ideas are long since disproven. Awesome... I'll bet you think the author was male, too. This is why I rarely respond to comments on DZ.com. The spelling police who are more interested in spelling and grammar, than a point! Many others feel the same and much is missed by the yelling...Dano Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #125 April 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotepussy's they are called pussy's That's "pussies," which is the plural of "pussy." "Pussy's" is the possessive. For example: "Those pussies like to play with the ball of yarn. I am not sure which pussy's ball of yarn it is, but all the pussies play with it." I may have flunked English, but I am pretty sure about this one. Blue skies, Winsor What ever you want to be called I am ok with that It is not about calling names, it is about being coherent. Steven Colbert plays a conservative buffoon to mock the opposition; one would do well to avoid playing into the stereotype that their own side of the aisle is synonymous with "village idiot." I do not mind as much if those who represent positions with which I do not agree show themselves to be half-wits - though they may get the backing of the imbecile contingent, which is large and powerful - but it concerns me if someone states a legitimate point in such a manner that it is marginalized. I realize the difficulty that exists when interacting with spineless parasites to avoid stating the obvious, but it does not buy you much in practice. However, if you must resort to name-calling, you may as well seek to use proper grammar and punctuation. The tee shirt that said "your retarded" was a joke by dint of grammatical construct. If you want to be taken seriously, try not to let your language be a joke as well. While I see and for the most part agree with you points Two things come to mind One I will not go into cause it will never do any good (not aimed at you at all) Second one Pussy came from another thread or earlier comment I just continued it On another note, oh, never mind but I do understand your point"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
