marks2065 0 #376 January 20, 2012 Quote>Maybe those like Kallend & dreamdancer should start to use the tax code to >their advantage instead of crying about those that do. Which is equivalent to saying "maybe people should start using the tax code to their advantage instead of whining and crying that taxes are too high." I don't like paying taxes but I know it is needed, I know I don't pay as much as the rich but I still pay and I am glad the rich pay, but I am tired of seeing so many pay nothing and then complain the rich don't pay enough. This class warfare created by the left is discusting and is causing harm to our country. The politicians spend to much and the lower income people don't pay enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #377 January 20, 2012 QuoteInterpretation: Mike can't refute the facts so he resorts to insults. Translation: I have no argument besides appeal to emotion and can't supply any facts, so I will try to discredit the poster.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #378 January 20, 2012 the super rich certainly need to pay more tax...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
kelpdiver 2 #379 January 20, 2012 QuoteMike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P. It may well be (I'd think yes) true, but it's not a meaningful statement. The typical increase in taxes to the 1% from the 1993 tax increases was greater than the average income of the 99% as well. And why would this be a surprise? Roughly half of the 99% pay no income taxes of all - of course they're not going to see a significant change from increases or decreases. Big numbers are fun, of course. Top NBA players make more money every time they shoot the ball in a game than the average American. GOOD GOD - WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! It's a purely emotional tactic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,311 #380 January 20, 2012 Thanks for inserting some substance. I appreciate it. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #381 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteMike, can you refute that the average tax savings of the 1% exceeded the average income of the 99%? If not, why isn't that relevant? I'm not saying it is (average, without median, can be very misleading). But it'd be nice to hear. Wendy P. It may well be (I'd think yes) true, but it's not a meaningful statement. The typical increase in taxes to the 1% from the 1993 tax increases was greater than the average income of the 99% as well. And why would this be a surprise? Roughly half of the 99% pay no income taxes of all - of course they're not going to see a significant change from increases or decreases. Big numbers are fun, of course. Top NBA players make more money every time they shoot the ball in a game than the average American. GOOD GOD - WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING! It's a purely emotional tactic. and all the numbers show that the rich are getting richer - at our expense...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 #382 January 20, 2012 Quoteand all the numbers show that the rich are getting richer - at our expense... The numbers don't support your claim. During the Clinton years, the bottom 99% paid 67.25% of income taxes. Under Bush, the bottom 99% paid 62.9% - a 6.4% decrease. Conversely, the richest 1% paid 32.75% of the total under Clinton and 37.1% under Bush - a 13.3% increase.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #383 January 20, 2012 Quote and all the numbers show that the rich are getting richer - at our expense... I've never figured out why the NBA owners are completely incapable of controlling salaries - they're the ones with the wallet and the ability to say no. But so long as fans will buy tickets and TV networks will pay to broadcast, these hard working athletes with lovely genetics are going to make a princely sum for being just a tiny bit better than everyone else. In the bigger picture, DD, you should blame Walmart shoppers for the shifting in wealth. Consumers don't want to pay extra for quality or local manufacturing, thus killing off the better paying jobs for the high school graduates. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #384 January 20, 2012 the difference between athletes and bankers is that it isn't athletes who bankrupted the economy and got us to bail them out... (meanwhile the super rich accelerate away from the rest of us - not healthy for a society as buffett recognises)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
kelpdiver 2 #385 January 20, 2012 Quotethe difference between athletes and bankers is that it isn't athletes who bankrupted the economy and got us to bail them out... (meanwhile the super rich accelerate away from the rest of us - not healthy for a society as buffett recognises) So did he recognize this, or cause it as you say in the first paragraph? BTW, the Raiders cost the city of Oakland a small fortune when they agreed to return from LA in exchange for stadium concessions. I believe it cost them 17M/yr when the PSL sales didn't realize the claimed earnings. Other cities give up land and hundreds of millions for a stadium, either to attract a team or in the face of a threat to leave by the owner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,311 #386 January 20, 2012 I don't like the increasing distance between the mass of wealthiest couple of percentiles (the individuals don't matter as much; they're outliers) and the mean. But I tend to agree with you that the focus on "more stuff" (and that stuff coming from Walmart and other cheap foreign-made places) has a lot to do with it. People don't "deserve" credit, televisions, or cars. They do deserve an honest chance at a decent education, and an honest chance at a decent job. I think they deserve to be treated with respect as the default. Housing, clothing, and food are things that societies like to be sure their people have; they've very low on the hierarchy of needs -- it's in the interests of a stable society to make sure people have that. But it's better if they can earn it. Right now it's really tough to get a job in many parts of the country. Not having one doesn't necessarily mean you're lazy or useless. Of course, there are lazy people out there as well. So our national costs in making sure that people have food & shelter are higher than usual. Anyway, that was a really long and meandering post. I wish we could get more people in the US (let's start small ) to consider how to leave things better than they found them, rather than how to maximize their own benefit at the expense of others. Wendy P. There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #387 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteand all the numbers show that the rich are getting richer - at our expense... The numbers don't support your claim. During the Clinton years, the bottom 99% paid 67.25% of income taxes. Under Bush, the bottom 99% paid 62.9% - a 6.4% decrease. Conversely, the richest 1% paid 32.75% of the total under Clinton and 37.1% under Bush - a 13.3% increase. Those numbers are irrelevant to what he wrote. Please pay attention. The rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer.... 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
mnealtx 0 #388 January 20, 2012 QuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #389 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. not compared to the rich...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 #390 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. not compared to the rich... So?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #391 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. not compared to the rich... So? the rich are still accelerating away from the rest of society. have you read hg wells' 'the time machine'? if so you'll know the end result...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 #392 January 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. not compared to the rich... So? the rich are still accelerating away from the rest of society. Again, so? Quotehave you read hg wells' 'the time machine'? if so you'll know the end result... Non-sequitur.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #393 January 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. No. Not after accounting for inflation. Since the 1970s only the wealthy have made out like bandits. Source: Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 (Department of Commerce, 2010), table F-7, available at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/index.html... 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
mnealtx 0 #394 January 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe rich ARE, proportionally, getting richer. So are the poor. No. Not after accounting for inflation. Since the 1970s only the wealthy have made out like bandits. Source: Bureau of the Census, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 (Department of Commerce, 2010), table F-7, available at www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/families/index.html From table F7: Median income, 2010 dollars: 2010: 60,395 1970: 49,443 Mean income, 2010 dollars: 2010: 78,361 1970: 55,652 Guess that's more of the math where 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, right?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,822 #395 January 21, 2012 Quote Guess that's more of the math where 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, right? Still having the old comprehension problem, I see. Do you know the meaning of this symbol: "/", in math? It was very carefuly explained to you yesterday, but still you refuse to get it.... 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
mnealtx 0 #396 January 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteGuess that's more of the math where 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, right? Still having the old comprehension problem, I see. Still throwing insults when you can't refute the argument, I see. By all means, enlighten us - show us how 49k is more than 60k, or how 55k is more than 78k. QuoteDo you know the meaning of this symbol: "/", in math? It was very carefuly explained to you yesterday, but still you refuse to get it. You mean where you divided the 70 billion by .01 in a bogus attempt to misdirect because you couldn't explain away the numbers? Yeah, I remember that.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #397 January 21, 2012 Quotethe super rich certainly need to pay more tax... I think you need to pay more tax, what is your fair share? what is the fair share of everyone making less than 50k? why are those people's "fair share" never talked about. when you pay as many total $s as the rich do then you can speak about fair share. until you pay the total $ amount they pay you just look whiny kid trying to mooch off of others. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #398 January 21, 2012 i'm sure the super rich are grateful to you for rushing to their defense... (or are they laughing at you all the way to the bank)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
kallend 1,822 #399 January 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteGuess that's more of the math where 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, right? Still having the old comprehension problem, I see. Still throwing insults when you can't refute the argument, I see. By all means, enlighten us - show us how 49k is more than 60k, or how 55k is more than 78k. QuoteDo you know the meaning of this symbol: "/", in math? It was very carefuly explained to you yesterday, but still you refuse to get it. You mean where you divided the 70 billion by .01 in a bogus attempt to misdirect because you couldn't explain away the numbers? Yeah, I remember that. The only person you fool is yourself. Well, maybe rushmc too.... 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
mnealtx 0 #400 January 21, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteGuess that's more of the math where 70 billion is more than 3 trillion, right? Still having the old comprehension problem, I see. Still throwing insults when you can't refute the argument, I see. By all means, enlighten us - show us how 49k is more than 60k, or how 55k is more than 78k. QuoteDo you know the meaning of this symbol: "/", in math? It was very carefuly explained to you yesterday, but still you refuse to get it. You mean where you divided the 70 billion by .01 in a bogus attempt to misdirect because you couldn't explain away the numbers? Yeah, I remember that. The only person you fool is yourself. Well, maybe rushmc too. Translation: The numbers are against me and I can't get them to fall for the bogus point I tried to make.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
