kallend 1,623
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBesides, money isn't taxed, people are. Which is (a) why the source of the money shouldn't matter, and (b) why the "this money has already been taxed" argument is stupid.
Non sequitur, yourself - people aren't taxed, their income is.
Nonsense, my income never wrote a check to the IRS, and neither did yours. My income doesn't pay property tax or sales tax or estate tax, I do.
Said taxes being based on their *income*. People who don't earn a certain amount of *INCOME* don't write checks to the IRS, either.
.
Ha ha. So now you equate inheritance and capital gains with income? You are getting desperate.
Attempting to misdirect *AGAIN*? You are getting desperate.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
dks13827 2
You will when you retire from working and hopefully have some investmets etc.
kallend 1,623
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBesides, money isn't taxed, people are. Which is (a) why the source of the money shouldn't matter, and (b) why the "this money has already been taxed" argument is stupid.
Non sequitur, yourself - people aren't taxed, their income is.
Nonsense, my income never wrote a check to the IRS, and neither did yours. My income doesn't pay property tax or sales tax or estate tax, I do.
Said taxes being based on their *income*. People who don't earn a certain amount of *INCOME* don't write checks to the IRS, either.
.
Ha ha. So now you equate inheritance and capital gains with income? You are getting desperate.
Attempting to misdirect *AGAIN*? You are getting desperate.
Not my fault if you're wrong.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteYou will when you retire from working and hopefully have some investmets etc.
Many who live on investments are in fact considered unemployed. I wonder how many who favor higher taxes would support raising them on retired and unemployed people.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBesides, money isn't taxed, people are. Which is (a) why the source of the money shouldn't matter, and (b) why the "this money has already been taxed" argument is stupid.
Non sequitur, yourself - people aren't taxed, their income is.
Nonsense, my income never wrote a check to the IRS, and neither did yours. My income doesn't pay property tax or sales tax or estate tax, I do.
Said taxes being based on their *income*. People who don't earn a certain amount of *INCOME* don't write checks to the IRS, either.
.
Ha ha. So now you equate inheritance and capital gains with income? You are getting desperate.
Attempting to misdirect *AGAIN*? You are getting desperate.
Not my fault if you're wrong.
Roughly 50% of filers having NO tax liability proves you wrong and support my claim.
Nice try.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
billvon 2,400
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>>>How can anyone with an IQ over 50 ever justify the concept that money earned by this
>>>method or that method should be taxed at different rates? Income is income.
>>So you'd support a (say) 25% flat tax rate for every one?
>Non sequitur.
Let's see - a non sequitur is something that does not connect logically to the statement preceding it.
So we have a statement that says that income is income, and money earned by any method should be taxed at the same rate. I asked whether he really wanted all income taxed at the same rate. Did you not understand the connection there?
>Besides, money isn't taxed, people are.
And yet I pay a percentage of the money I make, not a percentage of my weight, height or value as a person. So do 99.99% of the people in the US. So I think while that is a cool new-agey sentiment it doesn't have any backing in terms of actual taxation.
(And I think you would be VERY unhappy with a flat tax of $24,000 per person for every person in the US!)
>>>method or that method should be taxed at different rates? Income is income.
>>So you'd support a (say) 25% flat tax rate for every one?
>Non sequitur.
Let's see - a non sequitur is something that does not connect logically to the statement preceding it.
So we have a statement that says that income is income, and money earned by any method should be taxed at the same rate. I asked whether he really wanted all income taxed at the same rate. Did you not understand the connection there?
>Besides, money isn't taxed, people are.
And yet I pay a percentage of the money I make, not a percentage of my weight, height or value as a person. So do 99.99% of the people in the US. So I think while that is a cool new-agey sentiment it doesn't have any backing in terms of actual taxation.
(And I think you would be VERY unhappy with a flat tax of $24,000 per person for every person in the US!)
ShcShc11 0
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316
According to the TPC analysis, if we reverted the taxes on the rich (the higher brackets), it will raise about 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage.
78 B$ is an OK amount, but its still a fairly small dot of the overall picture. All this political fighting/discourse for only 78B$ is like nitpicking over a few bucks ...
According to the TPC analysis, if we reverted the taxes on the rich (the higher brackets), it will raise about 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage.
78 B$ is an OK amount, but its still a fairly small dot of the overall picture. All this political fighting/discourse for only 78B$ is like nitpicking over a few bucks ...
Do people really believe that Romney had an equal chance in life to someone born into poverty? He didn't "make" that money on his own...just being born to his parents guaranteed he would make that kind of money as long as he didn't become a heroin addict.
You must be very naive if you think you can make that kind of dough in America without a leg up from birth. It's remotely possible, but the vast majority are just born into wealth and are trained from birth on how to perpetuate that wealth.
The few and far between stories of poor people "rising to the top" are just stories the rich tell the poor to keep them quiet.
It's sad you all think that the rich are so superior to you as human beings. They're not.
You must be very naive if you think you can make that kind of dough in America without a leg up from birth. It's remotely possible, but the vast majority are just born into wealth and are trained from birth on how to perpetuate that wealth.
The few and far between stories of poor people "rising to the top" are just stories the rich tell the poor to keep them quiet.
It's sad you all think that the rich are so superior to you as human beings. They're not.
mnealtx 0
Quotehttp://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316
If you want to place a link, click the "URL" button under the text window, paste your link, then click the "URL" button again.
QuoteAccording to the TPC analysis, if we reverted the taxes on the rich (the higher brackets), it will raise about 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage.
This assumes that the rich just roll over and take it, and don't leave like they did when NJ and NY raised taxes.
Quote78 B$ is an OK amount, but its still a fairly small dot of the overall picture. All this political fighting/discourse for only 78B$ is like nitpicking over a few bucks ...
If the Dems *truly* wanted to do something about the taxes, they'd revert the ENTIRE package because that's where the greatest gain would be - 3 trillion, after all, being MUCH more than 78 billion.
Doing that doesn't let them play class warfare and lobby for votes, though.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
quade 3
Quote78 B$ is an OK amount, but its still a fairly small dot of the overall picture. All this political fighting/discourse for only 78B$ is like nitpicking over a few bucks ...
Uhm . . . can you let me have a few bucks?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
kallend 1,623
Quote>>>How can anyone with an IQ over 50 ever justify the concept that money earned by this
>>>method or that method should be taxed at different rates? Income is income.
>>So you'd support a (say) 25% flat tax rate for every one?
>Non sequitur.
Let's see - a non sequitur is something that does not connect logically to the statement preceding it.
So we have a statement that says that income is income, and money earned by any method should be taxed at the same rate. I asked whether he really wanted all income taxed at the same rate. Did you not understand the connection there?
Money earned by different methods being taxed at the same rate doesn't imply a flat tax. Can still have different brackets depending on the AMOUNT earned.
I'll refrain from commenting on what you didn't understand.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,400
>Can still have different brackets depending on the AMOUNT earned.
"It is ALL income, and should be taxed at the same rate."
"All income should be taxed at the same percentage rate."
I'll let you fight with him about what he said.
"It is ALL income, and should be taxed at the same rate."
"All income should be taxed at the same percentage rate."
I'll let you fight with him about what he said.
kallend 1,623
Quotehttp://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12316
According to the TPC analysis, if we reverted the taxes on the rich (the higher brackets), it will raise about 78 billion $, approximately half a GDP percentage.
78 B$ is an OK amount, but its still a fairly small dot of the overall picture. All this political fighting/discourse for only 78B$ is like nitpicking over a few bucks ...
Just because it doesn't solve the entire problem doesn't mean its not worth doing.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,623
Quote>Can still have different brackets depending on the AMOUNT earned.
"It is ALL income, and should be taxed at the same rate."
"All income should be taxed at the same percentage rate."
I'll let you fight with him about what he said.
The post I read, and to which responded (post #73, this thread), goes:
>How can anyone with an IQ over 50 ever justify the concept that money earned by this
>method or that method should be taxed at different rates? Income is income.
Emphasis mine.
I don't see the line you quoted in your post #73.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,400
>Emphasis mine.
Ah, so you didn't read the post I answered. Fair enough.
Ah, so you didn't read the post I answered. Fair enough.
Coreece 190
Quotethen wonder who worked hared for their income?
That's right Oh Great Shah, that's all you can do is wonder...you have no idea.
Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...
Said taxes being based on their *income*. People who don't earn a certain amount of *INCOME* don't write checks to the IRS, either.
.
Ha ha. So now you equate inheritance and capital gains with income? You are getting desperate.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.