/approves of headline

"Rody?"

Came for the Piper, leaving with a smile.

Who is this Rody guy?

Hmmmm . . . high paying jobs in New York City helps the New York City economy. That's mind blowing stuff.

And who is this "Rody" Giuliani? Is it evil twin Rudy Giuliani's moral compliment?

SouthpawSlicer: Came for the Piper, leaving with a smile.

I didn't even pick up on the typo at first and looked at the last 3 comments like wtf?! Then I laughed heartily. I thank you all.

so if less bonus money on wallstreet will mean less tax revenue for the city, then can't they just cut the salaries of high paid low working government offices with big double-dipping pensions?

just an idea

Sorry, rich white guy, you're a lying sack of shiat scrabbling to keep the dream of white collar crime alive in a country that can't afford it anymore.

This calls for a double.

Rody to the max.

The State of New York recognizes this too. However, the current governor would like to change things so they aren't reliant on those bonuses, as they are obviously going away. (hopefully).

In other news, we still need a national wage maximum!!!!!

"You like the coconuts!?!" Huh!?! You like the coconuts!?!?"

Great for NYC. Shiatty for the rest of us.

I came here to chew bubblegum and laugh at misspelled headlines... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

I used to be a rody for Van Halen.

Three Crooked Squirrels: Hmmmm . . . high paying jobs in New York City helps the New York City economy. That's mind blowing stuff.

And who is this "Rody" Giuliani? Is it evil twin Rudy Giuliani's moral compliment?

Those assholes spend their money in Greenwich and Ramsey and New Groton and Islip, not as much in NYC.

urger: Who is this Rody guy?

keyboardist - Faith no More

Ruh Roh?

sloppy shoes: In other news, we still need a national wage maximum!!!!!


The government should just scrap the tax brackets and institute a exponential curve.

Uncle Pim: sloppy shoes: In other news, we still need a national wage maximum!!!!!


The government should just scrap the tax brackets and institute a exponential curve.

It would essentially be the same thing, except continuous- which would have its own advantages and disadvantages.

Hmmm, an old, white, republican male thinks trickle-down economics are a good idea even though the past 8 years have shown it to be a dismal failure?

I'm Jack's total lack of surprise.

He's right, but that doesn't make it right.

Um, does it not occur to him that a good economy causes investments to pay well, which means the execs get better compensation, rather than the better compensation leading to better investment returns? I'm not saying there's no correlation, I just think he willfully has cause and effect backward.

Jesus the 33rd: urger: Who is this Rody guy?

keyboardist - Faith no More

Well played.

Of course! Give money to the rich and hope they spend it on you!

/pathetic asshat

Uncle Pim: sloppy shoes: In other news, we still need a national wage maximum!!!!!


The government should just scrap the tax brackets and institute a exponential curve.

That should be fairly easy to do. Plot the existing income against tax based on current filings and extrapolate the basic formula graph. As your income approaches the GDP of your country so does your tax rate approach 100%. I agree. The reverse should be true. As your income approaches zero, so should your tax rate.

I think the poorest people in the US should pay taxes. If you make 20K a year, you should have to pay 0.2% income tax or $40.00 income tax. If you make 10K a year, you should pay 0.1% income tax or $10.00. Actually, I would like to develop a formula but my my highschool math is rusty.

I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.


Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

What we *SHOULD* be doing is saying "You want bailout money? Fine. But you have to spend X percent of it on new equipment, construction, or local (ie., US based) services". That would provide economic stimulus.

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.



Yeah, I see him out on the I-64 bridge over the Mississippi. He's crushed and is going to off himself.

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.


Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

What we *SHOULD* be doing is saying "You want bailout money? Fine. But you have to spend X percent of it on new equipment, construction, or local (ie., US based) services". That would provide economic stimulus.

Stupidest post of the day.

"Um, we don't need new equipment."

"SHUT UP AND SPEND IT"

Dumbass.

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.


Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

What we *SHOULD* be doing is saying "You want bailout money? Fine. But you have to spend X percent of it on new equipment, construction, or local (ie., US based) services". That would provide economic stimulus.

So Rudy failed to cut government spending and relied on bonus revenue, which is OPTIONAL revenue to keep the city running?

Wow, that sounds like everything that GOP is against!

FAIL


Oh, and check out this HERO:

U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., plans to introduce legislation Friday afternoon that will cap compensation for employees of any private company that accepts federal dollars because of the economic downturn.

Employees would not be able to make more than the president - $400,000 - until the company no longer relies on federal assistance from the $700 billion bailout of the financial sector, McCaskill's office said.

dittybopper: Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

Kansas, France?

no shiat rody but if they're paying out bonuses with taxpayer money it kind of farking defeats the purpose doesn't it?

BunkyBrewman: This calls for a double.

dittybopper: Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

Using that logic you might as well dump $2 billion on the unemployed instead who will spend their money domestically than a small number of executives who probably will stash it in offshore accounts.

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

...can you read?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/27/obama-officials-tells-cit_n_161202.htm l

French jet...


Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

What we *SHOULD* be doing is saying "You want bailout money? Fine. But you have to spend X percent of it on new equipment, construction, or local (ie., US based) services". That would provide economic stimulus.

...these people will just put their money into foreign banks or buy foreign goods...if their bonuses were contingent on supporting American business then great...otherwise we're handing money to the irresponsible farkers the worked to create the mess were in.

Rhoda Giuliani

you left the "g" of the beginning of the title, submitter

Leave dittybopper alone!

D: (guy crying emoticon)

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.


Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

What we *SHOULD* be doing is saying "You want bailout money? Fine. But you have to spend X percent of it on new equipment, construction, or local (ie., US based) services". That would provide economic stimulus.

Um no, because this money was supposed to be used to make the banks solvent again.

It was not to be used as an economic stimulus, nor as free cash to pad executive pay or lavish expenditures.

Basically it be like me giving you a loan for your business with the understanding that it would benefit mine in the future, then you go out and blow it on hookers and blackjack.

Bf+: dittybopper: Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

Kansas, France?

Bahhaha

Next talking point: But the jet would get repaired here, so Obama is hurting maintenance workers!

HotWingConspiracy: Bf+: dittybopper: Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

Kansas, France?

Bahhaha

Next talking point: But the jet would get repaired here, so Obama is hurting maintenance workers!

Seriously. The right has collectively lost its mind. Completely.

HotWingConspiracy: Bf+: dittybopper: Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

Kansas, France?

Bahhaha

Next talking point: But the jet would get repaired here, so Obama is hurting maintenance workers!

And dont forget the aliens.. they would have to build the landing strip....in Des Moines

/probably not obscure

dittybopper: I am laughing at Obama right now.

Obama: Hey, if you are taking bailout money, don't buy a new corporate jet.

Which means, of course, that the people who make those jets out in Kansas have one less sale, and the government doesn't get the tax for the sale, and if enough of that happens then there are layoffs at Cessna and hence less taxes from income and more outlays in unemployment benefits and such.

The Dassault Falcon such as that Citibank took crap for purchasing is built in France. (pops)

Poor babies are stuck with only five corporate jets now.

While you laugh at Obama we laugh at you.

Darconix: mrshowrules: That should be fairly easy to do. Plot the existing income against tax based on current filings and extrapolate the basic formula graph. As your income approaches the GDP of your country so does your tax rate approach 100%. I agree. The reverse should be true. As your income approaches zero, so should your tax rate.

I think the poorest people in the US should pay taxes. If you make 20K a year, you should have to pay 0.2% income tax or $40.00 income tax. If you make 10K a year, you should pay 0.1% income tax or $10.00. Actually, I would like to develop a formula but my my highschool math is rusty.

That's silly. A flat tax is the best. Everybody pays 10%. Any social program that can't be funded by that 10% gets axed by the government. If you make $20,000 a year, you pay $2,000 in taxes. If you make $200,000 a year, you pay $20,000 in taxes. The wealthy are still supporting the schools, roads, and public institutions in a vastly disproportionate manner than the deadbeats, but at least it's uniform and doesn't serve to disincentivize productivity or restrict economic class mobility.

You're still stupid, but a flat tax would only be fair if there was about a $30-50,000 standard deduction. I would explain this too you, but you are clearly too stupid to understand.

Fart_Machine: dittybopper: Obama: Giving out bonuses in these economic times is irresponsible.

Errrmmm, except that those bonuses get the livin' dogshiat taxed out of them, which helps to keep government services running, and they are often used to buy goods and services, which keeps other people employed. New York State is being *SCREWED* financially because of the lack of bonuses, and the resultant reduction in tax revenue.

Using that logic you might as well dump $2 billion on the unemployed instead who will spend their money domestically than a small number of executives who probably will stash it in offshore accounts.

That's actually in the stimulus bill, and it's sound economics. Keeping recently unemployed people a float will help dramatically.

TARP wasn't intended as a stimulus.

Giuliani: I remember when I was mayor.....

Yeah. I remember when you told us that you were mayor..... this will be the 107,586^th time that you have informed us that you were the mayor, you f*cking putz.

Solid State Vittles: I came here to chew bubblegum and laugh at misspelled headlines... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

I came here to laugh and that pushed me over the edge for some reason.

Darconix: mrshowrules: That should be fairly easy to do. Plot the existing income against tax based on current filings and extrapolate the basic formula graph. As your income approaches the GDP of your country so does your tax rate approach 100%. I agree. The reverse should be true. As your income approaches zero, so should your tax rate.

I think the poorest people in the US should pay taxes. If you make 20K a year, you should have to pay 0.2% income tax or $40.00 income tax. If you make 10K a year, you should pay 0.1% income tax or $10.00. Actually, I would like to develop a formula but my my highschool math is rusty.

That's silly. A flat tax is the best. Everybody pays 10%. Any social program that can't be funded by that 10% gets axed by the government. If you make $20,000 a year, you pay $2,000 in taxes. If you make $200,000 a year, you pay $20,000 in taxes. The wealthy are still supporting the schools, roads, and public institutions in a vastly disproportionate manner than the deadbeats, but at least it's uniform and doesn't serve to disincentivize productivity or restrict economic class mobility.

No. If the flat tax was predicated upon a cost of living deduction that would be ok. A single across the board standard deduction of say 15k. Everyone gets that deduction, everyone pays the same tax above that amount. The issue with that is that it's not that black/white. Establishing a cost of living deduction isn't something that can really be done at the federal level. There's really no argument that the living costs for someone in rural Kentucky are different that someone living in New York city. Employment opportunities are also different.

I would support handing the existing federal income tax to the states. Each state would individually implement the existing tax law in addition to their current tax structure. The States would then have a federal tax liability based on their GDP/population. After a period of a few years, say 4 for things to even out, the states could then pose ballot initiatives for their residents to vote on in order to restructure their tax code, provided that they account for their federal liability.

After that each state could start to take on the responsibilities of specific federal departments, reducing their federal liability by the % of the federal budget that that department represents.

In the end, we have states taking more responsibility, the size/scope of the federal government being reduced, and the citizens of this country actually being able to vote on how they are taxed.

oh and forgot: