If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Republicans propose tax hikes. Don't worry, they're not for the rich   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 180
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

4970 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jun 2012 at 5:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



180 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-20 04:14:56 PM  
Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.
 
2012-06-20 04:25:50 PM  
You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.
 
2012-06-20 04:28:39 PM  
I am shocked.
 
2012-06-20 04:35:01 PM  
Oh, and the Rich guy even whispered something to the camel a couple of times. The camel threw up a couple of gallons of water each time into the rich guy's buckets for some reason.
 
2012-06-20 04:39:26 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: Oh, and the Rich guy even whispered something to the camel a couple of times. The camel threw up a couple of gallons of water each time into the rich guy's buckets for some reason.


Don't worry, no one read that anyway.
 
2012-06-20 04:42:06 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.


Yeah, that's a pretty shiatty analogy. :-)

Here's a better way to look at it.

There are 10 people in a village. They want to make a pie. One guy says" I have a recipe"- you guys collect the ingredients and we'll make the pie.

So 9 of them work hard all day and gather the apples, cinnamon, wheat, etc. They bring the recipe guy the ingredients-who then sits back and tells the other 9 how to cook it.

When the pie is done- it is cut into 10 pieces. To which the One Recipe guy claims 9 of the slices "There would be no pie without my recipe." Leaving one for the other 9. He uses one slice to bribe two others to protect his reaming 8. One is named The Government, the other is named The Law and they are the biggest guys in the village.

And there you have American Distribution of wealth.
 
2012-06-20 04:47:22 PM  
Specifically, anyone who earns less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes go up by at least $1,000, and in some cases as much as $4,600, according to the JEC. Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

can we just get it over with and KILL all these politicians already?
pretty please???
no??????????????

sigh
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-20 04:47:53 PM  
The whole investors create jobs thing is nonsense anyway. It takes many things to make a profitable business and investment capital is just one element.

You need labor, infrastructure, consumer demand for your product, infrastructure, resources and many other things. If consumer demand is the limiting factor, more investment isn't going to help anything.
 
2012-06-20 04:52:05 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth


Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?
 
2012-06-20 04:58:57 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?


or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.
 
2012-06-20 05:06:23 PM  
Pie is legal theft. Also camels.
 
2012-06-20 05:09:39 PM  
Republicans propose tax hikes. Don't worry Confirming what we already knew about Republican tax policy/scratching the backs of supporters, they're not for the rich

FTFY, subby
 
2012-06-20 05:10:17 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.


I had to fight the urge to bite. Think of this as a moral "taking the bait" for you.
 
2012-06-20 05:11:22 PM  
But...

Won't this lower revenue?

I was under the impression that tax breaks, not tax hikes, increase revenue. Is that wrong? Is the person who said that full of shiat?
 
2012-06-20 05:11:38 PM  

namatad: Specifically, anyone who earns less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes go up by at least $1,000, and in some cases as much as $4,600, according to the JEC. Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

can we just get it over with and KILL all these politicians already?
pretty please???
no??????????????

sigh



And they continually get votes from the poor because "Jesus" and "No homos getting married".
 
2012-06-20 05:12:19 PM  

vpb: You need labor, infrastructure, consumer demand for your product, infrastructure, resources and many other things.


You said "infrastructure" twice.
 
2012-06-20 05:13:11 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: vpb: You need labor, infrastructure, consumer demand for your product, infrastructure, resources and many other things.

You said "infrastructure" twice.


Well, we need a lot of it.
 
2012-06-20 05:13:29 PM  

Epoch_Zero: But...

Won't this lower revenue?

I was under the impression that tax breaks, not tax hikes, increase revenue. Is that wrong? Is the person who said that full of shiat?


you're not wrong. allow me to give you an analogy. say labron james wants to make his score go up to win the big basketball contest. well, he does a flying dunk shot and slams the ball down (not up) into the hoop, which makes his tally go up by two points. it's the same way with tax policy.
 
2012-06-20 05:13:46 PM  

thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.


black market pies. the recipee guy has a patent and copyright.
/see law guy
 
2012-06-20 05:14:01 PM  

WorldCitizen: I am shocked.


ibankcoin.com
 
2012-06-20 05:15:16 PM  
I'm glad they can just fark us like chattel or slaves and not even have to pay us like we were hookers or something. I know some people, like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, expect to get paid when they get farked by the rich but that's un-Mercan to expect that. Bend over, grab your ankles, congress can spit on the tip a la Brokeback Mountain and the rich can fark us good for free. As Jesus intended!
 
2012-06-20 05:15:35 PM  
realneo.us

You have to pay your fair share, freeloader. We're taking the dog.

- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
 
2012-06-20 05:16:14 PM  
Complete lack of surprise.
 
2012-06-20 05:16:17 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.

black market pies. the recipee guy has a patent and copyright.
/see law guy


i highly doubt that the pie's recipe satisfies the non-obvious requirement for a patent.
 
2012-06-20 05:16:20 PM  
Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?
 
2012-06-20 05:17:00 PM  

crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?


To stop baby killing and gay marriage.
 
2012-06-20 05:17:20 PM  

crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?


As mentioned above:

Because Jesus and ain't no 'mo's getting married.
 
2012-06-20 05:17:20 PM  

rudemix: I'm glad they can just fark us like chattel or slaves and not even have to pay us like we were hookers or something. I know some people, like Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, expect to get paid when they get farked by the rich but that's un-Mercan to expect that. Bend over, grab your ankles, congress can spit on the tip a la Brokeback Mountain and the rich can fark us good for free. As Jesus intended!


....Go on.
 
2012-06-20 05:17:47 PM  
Nice use of sarcasm subby.

/Appreciates the art of sarcasm
 
2012-06-20 05:17:54 PM  
Consumer demand drives job creation.

No demand = No jobs.
 
2012-06-20 05:18:42 PM  
Republican Tax Plan Would Make The Rich Richer, Raise Taxes On The Middle Class: Report

Someone go check on the obvious tag, it might have fallen and can't get up or something.
 
2012-06-20 05:18:48 PM  
So we're taking money out of the low and middle class to give money to the rich in an attempt to get them to invest in a business who's customers are the poor and middle class who no longer have disposable income?

It's like if you had a pie...or a camel pie...and it farked you...or something. Yeah.
 
2012-06-20 05:19:01 PM  
See, it's not class warfare, because it helps the filthy rich and hurts the working class.

/and working class idiots still vote for them
//because they love Jeezis and hate homos
///and women, and blacks, and Mexicans, and Muslims, and ...
 
2012-06-20 05:19:25 PM  

thomps: TrollingForColumbine: thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.

black market pies. the recipee guy has a patent and copyright.
/see law guy

i highly doubt that the pie's recipe satisfies the non-obvious requirement for a patent.


it's an analogy.

/i said anal
//lightenupfrancis.jpg
 
2012-06-20 05:19:44 PM  
I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?
 
2012-06-20 05:20:19 PM  
I posted this in yesterdays thread about Mitch McConnell saying that the tax system was too progressive, it works here too:


Clever Mitch... I love that he uses the figure that top decile pays 70% of all Federal taxes collected to make it seem incredibly unfair.

What he fails to point out is that the income share of that decile is also just shy of 50% of all income in the US (http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/library/chart-graph/decomposing-to p-decile-us-income-share-3-groups-1913-2008) and that the top 1% represents nearly 25% of all income in the US. But instead, he uses the 10% figure, out of context, because at first glance, it seems insane.

Some further investigation is also very illustrative. Mitch likes to point out that old falsehood that nearly half the population pays no income tax at all!!! Oh the humanity. The figure for the bottom 50% of the population's contribution to Federal revenue is low, at around 3%. But let's take a look at the income share of the bottom half of the nation shall we. The bottom 50% of earners in the USA, likely the same group that Mitch claims is freeloading, account for 12% of the total US income share. Their effective tax rate is 13.6%. In reality, while they may seem to contribute less as a share of their income, it is hard to squeeze blood from a rock.

Let's look at it another way, after an effective Federal rate of 13%, someone in the bottom 50% can expect to have (before state taxes) 87% of $32,396. That is $28,185. Ignoring state taxes, that leaves this earner around $2350 a month to live on. According to MIT's figures (which include food, child care, medical, housing, transportation, and a miscellaneous extra), in a relatively cheap state, such as Idaho, one person living alone can expect to need $1,189 to cover basic living expenses (http://livingwage.mit.edu/states/16). If they have one adult and one child, that jumps to $2,350. Exactly what they earn post tax. Two adults, one child is prohibitively expensive, and two adults, two children is completely out of the question. Wow, they have it so lucky! At least most lucky than those in Michigan or Illinois that require around $1300 per month for a single adult.

Now let's turn again to the top 10%, who are paying an effective rate of 17.5% and the top 1% are paying an effective rate of 20.6% (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html# _grp3). The income threshold to make it into the top 10% is around $115,000 per year for an individual. Let's apply an effective tax rate of 17.5% to that and see what is left, $94,875, or $7906 per month. Let's pick an expensive state for them, let's go with Massachusetts where an individual needs roughly $1,750 (statewide) or in Boston at $1,881. That leaves a fairly good amount of money left over to spend on the goods and services that build our consumer economy. If this individual has a child, it will be a bit harder, as they will need $3,220 per month, leaving only $4,686 over. How harsh that progressive tax is; it has clearly created a scenario where this individual could in no fashion contribute to the economy! They are being robbed by the lucky bottom 50%!

But let's take this to the logical conclusion, let's get the top 1% and let's make them live in super expensive New York City. To qualify, nationally, for the top 1%, you need to earn around $458,000 per year. At an effective tax rate of 20.6%, that leaves $363,652, or $30,304 monthly (post tax more per month than the bottom 50% makes in a year...). Oh the horror! How on earth is an individual with no child going to come up with the $1,913 per month needed in New York Country (essentially Manhattan). Just imagine if they had a child and needed the $3,185 that a single parent and child would cost.

So now we return to Mitch McConnell's claim that the tax system already over favors the bottom end. I know, myself, looking at these tax scenarios, I would certainly not want to put in the effort to make more money, look at how terrible it is for the top 10% with their exorbitant tax rate! And if I was in the top 1%, I really don't know how with those tax rates I could ever "create a job" for someone. I mean, maybe I could if that guy in Idaho would just pay his fair share!
 
2012-06-20 05:20:21 PM  

thomps: Epoch_Zero: But...

Won't this lower revenue?

I was under the impression that tax breaks, not tax hikes, increase revenue. Is that wrong? Is the person who said that full of shiat?

you're not wrong. allow me to give you an analogy. say labron james wants to make his score go up to win the big basketball contest. well, he does a flying dunk shot and slams the ball down (not up) into the hoop, which makes his tally go up by two points. it's the same way with tax policy.


Ladies and gentlemen, your FARK Post of the WeekTM.
 
2012-06-20 05:20:41 PM  
And this is why I L-O-V-E the Republican Party. Now that I am doing well enough that I am in the Middle Class, I fell that I should shoulder more of the burden for the rich. It's only my duty as a lower lifeform and all...

----YAY TEAM!!!

FTA: Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

So if I make a million bucks, I would get a tax cut of $286,000 a year? What the Hell would that leave to be paid? $20??
 
2012-06-20 05:20:41 PM  

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.


I hear 100% of stones don't bleed.
 
2012-06-20 05:21:32 PM  

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?


OHHHHH so close. The judges were looking for "skin in the game." Yep, "skin in the game" was the correct answer. Tune in next week for "Right Wing Talking Point Regurgitation!"
 
2012-06-20 05:21:46 PM  
Same thing just happened in Kansas. If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now. So the truck driver, the waitress, and the janitor all pay state taxes, but the people they work for don't. I guess when the Democrats are led by a negro the GOP could outlaw guns, make Islam the national religion, and force prima nocta on the peasants and they will still vote for them.
 
2012-06-20 05:22:08 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.



smoke one for me too, dude. lol
 
2012-06-20 05:22:15 PM  

jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.


And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.
 
2012-06-20 05:22:29 PM  
I look forward to hearing all of the "I'm not voting for Obama because Democrats want to raid your wallet" people chiming in on this.
 
2012-06-20 05:23:14 PM  

LarryDan43: jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.

And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.


Wouldn't a better plan to be for YOU to be making $1.50 more than you do now?
 
2012-06-20 05:24:14 PM  

Headso: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

I hear 100% of stones don't bleed.


www.giantpanther.com
"You try havin' 'nything left at this age, lad."
 
2012-06-20 05:24:15 PM  
It's not class warfare when it benefits the rich!
 
2012-06-20 05:24:16 PM  
come on people...you can just eat beans and rice.
 
2012-06-20 05:24:36 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.

black market pies. the recipee guy has a patent and copyright.
/see law guy

i highly doubt that the pie's recipe satisfies the non-obvious requirement for a patent.

it's an analogy.

/i said anal
//lightenupfrancis.jpg


no, f*ck that. we're committed to this thing. recipe guy misplayed his hand. he should have had them bring in a bunch of extraneous ingredients and then combine them himself. allow me to provide an analogy to aid my point. remember that episode of the simpsons where moe creates the flaming moe and then becomes really popular because everyone likes the flaming moe and he refuses to sell the recipe to that one guy but then that one guy finds out what the secret ingredient is because homer dresses up like the phantom of the opera and tells everyone that it's cough syrup and that he had invented the flaming moe back in the day when his sisters-in-law were visiting and he needed a drink but was out of traditional mixer ingredients and then everyone knew the recipe and made knock-off flaming moe drinks and moe lost everything including that one bartender that he was banging that was suspiciously like one of the main characters from the tv show cheers? well it's just like that: cheers couldn't sue the simpsons for copyright infringement because it's parody.
 
2012-06-20 05:24:46 PM  

jst3p: LarryDan43: jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.

And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.

Wouldn't a better plan to be for YOU to be making $1.50 more than you do now?


wat. and put him in a higher tax bracket. farking dimorats
 
2012-06-20 05:25:04 PM  
bonkers bush boy gave tax cuts to the rich for 8 years, ending in 2008 when the whole sh*thouse almost went up in flames.


lets try it again!
 
2012-06-20 05:25:52 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Mike_LowELL: Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.

I had to fight the urge to bite. Think of this as a moral "taking the bait" for you.


You got to be able to distinguish between satire and actual derp.

/Pretty damn hard with the modern Republicans though.
 
2012-06-20 05:26:56 PM  

thomps: TrollingForColumbine: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.

black market pies. the recipee guy has a patent and copyright.
/see law guy

i highly doubt that the pie's recipe satisfies the non-obvious requirement for a patent.

it's an analogy.

/i said anal
//lightenupfrancis.jpg

no, f*ck that. we're committed to this thing. recipe guy misplayed his hand. he should have had them bring in a bunch of extraneous ingredients and then combine them himself. allow me to provide an analogy to aid my point. remember that episode of the simpsons where moe creates the flaming moe and then becomes really popular because everyone likes the flaming moe and he refuses to sell the recipe to that one guy but then that one guy finds out what the secret ingredient is because homer dresses up like the phantom of the opera and tells everyone that it's cough syrup and that he had invented the flaming moe back in the day when his sisters-in-law were visiting and he needed a drink but was out of traditional mixer ingredients and then everyone knew the recipe and made knock-off flaming moe drinks and moe lost everything including that one bartender that he was banging that was suspiciously like one of the main characters from the tv show cheers? well it's just like that: cheers couldn't sue the simpsons for copyright infringement because it's parody.


keepfarkingthatchickenfrancis.jpg
 
2012-06-20 05:27:03 PM  

busy chillin': come on people...you can just eat beans and rice.


Now I want a burrito.
 
2012-06-20 05:28:03 PM  
The important question is: where can I get some of this camel pie?
 
2012-06-20 05:28:23 PM  

busy chillin': come on people... you can just eat beans and rice

cake.

/FTFY.
 
2012-06-20 05:28:59 PM  

Wyalt Derp: The important question is: where can I get some of this camel pie?


and does it have any toes.
 
2012-06-20 05:29:04 PM  

Wyalt Derp: The important question is: where can I get some of this camel pie?


bring $15 and your own condom and i can set it up for you. EIP.
 
2012-06-20 05:29:19 PM  

busy chillin': come on people...you can just eat beans and rice.


No, I definitely want camel pie.
 
2012-06-20 05:29:29 PM  
"yer jes pushin'class warfare", the republican boob machine chants.

then they give tax cuts to the rich and make the middle class pay the difference.


you have to be either a pathological liar or stupid to fall for something that obvious.
 
2012-06-20 05:29:51 PM  

busy chillin': come on people...you can just eat beans and rice.


That sounds good for dinner. Maybe some cornbread, too.
 
2012-06-20 05:30:03 PM  
Fluorescent Testicle

busy chillin': come on people... you can just eat beans and rice cake.

/FTFY.


Yeah, but see, Sean Hannity actually recently said what I posted. But I have a refrigerator so I better just shut up.
 
2012-06-20 05:30:40 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: //lightenupfrancis.jpg


TrollingForColumbine: keepfarkingthatchickenfrancis.jpg


you really need to learn how to actually post pictures if you are going to use them so often. but, incidentally, that actually would be copyright infringement.
 
2012-06-20 05:30:44 PM  

jst3p: LarryDan43: jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.

And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.

Wouldn't a better plan to be for YOU to be making $1.50 more than you do now?


If he'd joined the union, he could have been. But, that's commiesoshulism.
 
2012-06-20 05:30:50 PM  

madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.


I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.
 
2012-06-20 05:30:54 PM  

Wyalt Derp: busy chillin': come on people...you can just eat beans and rice.

No, I definitely want camel pie.


Link
 
2012-06-20 05:31:34 PM  

jst3p: namatad: Specifically, anyone who earns less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes go up by at least $1,000, and in some cases as much as $4,600, according to the JEC. Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

can we just get it over with and KILL all these politicians already?
pretty please???
no??????????????

sigh


And they continually get votes from the poor because "Jesus" and "No homos getting married".


Yep, and somehow they will convince people that this isn't against their "no raising taxes" pledge.
 
2012-06-20 05:31:43 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?


Sure. They can try. Those are the folks you put in the for-profit jails
 
2012-06-20 05:32:59 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.


I am assuming it is just for state taxes
 
2012-06-20 05:33:57 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Mike_LowELL: Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.

I had to fight the urge to bite. Think of this as a moral "taking the bait" for you.


You are not aware of who Mike is are you? He's a professional at what he does. He doesn't believe this crap he just uses the absurd to make a point, he does this time and time again, he's kind of a legend around here.
 
2012-06-20 05:34:20 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: Wyalt Derp: The important question is: where can I get some of this camel pie?

and does it have any toes.


i172.photobucket.com
camel.ethereal.net
 
2012-06-20 05:34:37 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes


That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.
 
2012-06-20 05:34:50 PM  

ghare: jst3p: LarryDan43: jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.

And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.

Wouldn't a better plan to be for YOU to be making $1.50 more than you do now?

If he'd joined the union, he could have been. But, that's commiesoshulism.


This is an ironic argument for him to be making because the right wingers in the cubes near me are always citing "you are just jealous, you want what they have" as an argument against progressive taxation. But isn't this blatant jealousy?
 
2012-06-20 05:34:56 PM  

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?


Rush limbaugh is not a good source of information
 
2012-06-20 05:35:04 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: I am assuming it is just for state taxes


you are correct
 
2012-06-20 05:35:39 PM  

thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.


As long as a plan finishes with me getting pie AND another mans wife, I will vote for it.
 
2012-06-20 05:35:51 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Fuggin Bizzy: vpb: You need labor, infrastructure, consumer demand for your product, infrastructure, resources and many other things.

You said "infrastructure" twice.

Well, we need a lot of it.


And he likes infrastructure.
 
2012-06-20 05:37:25 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.


For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.
 
2012-06-20 05:37:29 PM  
huh....

Still no blood

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-20 05:38:12 PM  
I see where the confusion is.

Brownback signed a bill that eliminated entity level taxes for pass-through entities, in essence conforming with Federal tax policy. This doesn't mean that income from businesses and partnerships are no longer income, just that they are not taxed at the entity level, but rather at the individual level.

California does this as well, as do most States. I can't say for certain that all States choose not to tax pass-throughs at the entity level, but I can say that I am pretty sure this is the case.
 
2012-06-20 05:39:31 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.


apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.
 
2012-06-20 05:39:38 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.


No, you can't just "do what you want" when talking about redefining a word. ESPECIALLY when that word is "income." A State can decide whether or not to tax said income, but they don't really get to define the word.

/Enrolled Agent
 
2012-06-20 05:40:09 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.


As seen on Fark with 531 comments no less
 
2012-06-20 05:40:15 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I see where the confusion is.

Brownback signed a bill that eliminated entity level taxes for pass-through entities, in essence conforming with Federal tax policy. This doesn't mean that income from businesses and partnerships are no longer income, just that they are not taxed at the entity level, but rather at the individual level.

California does this as well, as do most States. I can't say for certain that all States choose not to tax pass-throughs at the entity level, but I can say that I am pretty sure this is the case.


You mean s corp/schedule K income?
 
2012-06-20 05:40:27 PM  

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?


If you don't want to pay federal income tax, you can take a minimum wage job. No one's stopping you. GO DO IT!
 
2012-06-20 05:41:01 PM  
But they all signed a pledge to never raise taxes, right?
 
2012-06-20 05:41:16 PM  

jst3p: ghare: jst3p: LarryDan43: jst3p: crab66: Wait. Why does anyone vote for these guys again?

To stop baby killing and gay marriage.

And to stop my union neighbor from making $1.50 more than me while working less hours. Ahole.

Wouldn't a better plan to be for YOU to be making $1.50 more than you do now?

If he'd joined the union, he could have been. But, that's commiesoshulism.

This is an ironic argument for him to be making because the right wingers in the cubes near me are always citing "you are just jealous, you want what they have" as an argument against progressive taxation. But isn't this blatant jealousy?


It really is: mouthbreathing non-unions derpsters like, oh, say Joe the Plumber see a union guy doing the same job they do and actually making a living. Is their response, "Hmm, maybe I ought to join this union thingy?" Nope. "MUST DESTROY ALL UNIONS!"

Which I guess wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't then go out and literally worship guys like Romney, who just got born to wealthy parents, and call them Job Creators and insist that a return to a 3% higher tax rate of 10 years ago would kill America.
 
2012-06-20 05:42:01 PM  

thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.


Sole proprietors as still SOL. Thanks for looking out for the little guy.
 
2012-06-20 05:42:18 PM  

ghare: It really is: mouthbreathing non-unions derpsters like, oh, say Joe the Plumber see a union guy doing the same job they do and actually making a living. Is their response, "Hmm, maybe I ought to join this union thingy?" Nope. "MUST DESTROY ALL UNIONS!"

Which I guess wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't then go out and literally worship guys like Romney, who just got born to wealthy parents, and call them Job Creators and insist that a return to a 3% higher tax rate of 10 years ago would kill America.


GET OUT OF MY HEAD!


/not in a union
 
2012-06-20 05:43:06 PM  

Mike_LowELL: Higher taxes on the poor provides incentive for those leeching off the government to stop being poor, get a job, build a couple factories, and become rich. At which point, they will be rewarded with lower tax rates than those who refuse to stop being poor. Prove me wrong.


Nobody makes sweet, sweet love to Poe's Law like you do, man. (Certainly not Poe's wife, anyway.)
 
2012-06-20 05:43:07 PM  

thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.


Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.
 
2012-06-20 05:44:25 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.


which makes perfect sense. i'm too lazy and otherwise occupied to google around but i wouldn't be surprised if there were a separate corporate state tax as well.
 
2012-06-20 05:44:36 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.


but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.
 
2012-06-20 05:44:42 PM  
HallsOfMandos

But they all signed a pledge to never raise taxes, right?

Maybe Grover makes over $200,000 so he is cool with it?
 
2012-06-20 05:44:53 PM  
ftfa: " people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year"

I call BS.

If the top marginal tax rate is around 35%, then a person earning $1M, assuming he has no deductions would pay less than $350,000. Let's call it 350k for simplicity.

If he is getting a tax cut of $286,000, that means that his effective tax rate is less than 6.4% (350k-286k = taxes of 64k on income of $1M).

Now, if that person has any deductions, his effective tax rate is even lower.
 
2012-06-20 05:44:58 PM  
Life is all about pies and camels, my friends. Pies and camels.
 
2012-06-20 05:45:08 PM  

HallsOfMandos: But they all signed a pledge to never raise taxes, right?


Only of the people holding their foundation. The poor are just collateral.
 
2012-06-20 05:46:18 PM  

ghare: It really is: mouthbreathing non-unions derpsters like, oh, say Joe the Plumber see a union guy doing the same job they do and actually making a living. Is their response, "Hmm, maybe I ought to join this union thingy?" Nope. "MUST DESTROY ALL UNIONS!"

Which I guess wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't then go out and literally worship guys like Romney, who just got born to wealthy parents, and call them Job Creators and insist that a return to a 3% higher tax rate of 10 years ago would kill America.


It is called 'Crab Pot' mentality. Crabs won't let their peers escape from the trap. If one is about to get out the others will grab it and drag it back down. That is the main reason that working class people dislike Unions - the Union people are getting ahead and they want to take that away instead of lifting themselves up. In other words, they are as dumb as invertebrates.
 
2012-06-20 05:46:39 PM  

jst3p: ghare: It really is: mouthbreathing non-unions derpsters like, oh, say Joe the Plumber see a union guy doing the same job they do and actually making a living. Is their response, "Hmm, maybe I ought to join this union thingy?" Nope. "MUST DESTROY ALL UNIONS!"

Which I guess wouldn't bother me so much if they didn't then go out and literally worship guys like Romney, who just got born to wealthy parents, and call them Job Creators and insist that a return to a 3% higher tax rate of 10 years ago would kill America.

GET OUT OF MY HEAD!


/not in a union


Me neither, but then I live in a right-to-starve state that is composed of dribbling retards who thought it was a good idea to elect Rick Scott governor. I'd leave if I didn't have family commitments forcing me to stay.
 
2012-06-20 05:48:48 PM  
If the rates decrease, but some of the deductions are eliminated, let's go for it. According to the chart, my tax bill would go down $3k. I could use that.
 
2012-06-20 05:49:12 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.


Pretty simple to add a minority stakeholder. I anticipate a lot of attorneys in Kansas will be doing S corps this year.... I'm sure my wife will get plenty of them.
 
2012-06-20 05:50:17 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.

but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.


I'm having issues finding coherent articles on the topic. Looking for the bill in question.
 
2012-06-20 05:51:27 PM  
Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.
 
2012-06-20 05:52:40 PM  
I get a refund from the IRS every year.
 
2012-06-20 05:53:20 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Here's a better way to look at it.

There are 10 people in a village. They want to make a pie. One guy says" I have a recipe"- you guys collect the ingredients and we'll make the pie.

So 9 of them work hard all day and gather the apples, cinnamon, wheat, etc. They bring the recipe guy the ingredients-who then sits back and tells the other 9 how to cook it.

When the pie is done- it is cut into 10 pieces. To which the One Recipe guy claims 9 of the slices "There would be no pie without my recipe." Leaving one for the other 9. He uses one slice to bribe two others to protect his reaming 8. One is named The Government, the other is named The Law and they are the biggest guys in the village.

And there you have American Distribution of wealth.


So the guy taking 9 slices of the pie is after all a job creator. He's now hired the government and the law and the people making the pie had jobs making pie, and those people received pie at the end of the day. And he can now trade the pie for yachts and people to build his mansion and clean his house and gather more ingredients so there is more pie for everyone.
 
2012-06-20 05:54:04 PM  

thomps: Bonkthat_Again: Darth_Lukecash: And there you have American Distribution of wealth

Yes, much better analogy.

So you're saying (assuming the guy who provided the recipe will under no circumstance share his pie), the only recourse is for the 7 others to overpower the 2 big guys?

or, now that they know the recipe and where all the ingredients are, they can go out and make a bunch of pies on their own for themselves to eat and to sell to others so they can become pie magnates and then come back to town ten years later for a reunion and then f*ck that recipe guy's wife.


i1102.photobucket.com

PIE?!


i1092.photobucket.com

Huh?

/Got nothin' but Soarin and Pinkie.
//Probably still a better contribution to the thread than the moronic duo
/You know who they are.
 
2012-06-20 05:54:08 PM  
The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me
 
2012-06-20 05:55:00 PM  

JesusJuice: Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.


which farkers specifically? If you're going to make death threats at least have the courtesy to let the people know.
 
2012-06-20 05:55:04 PM  
So this is what it's like when a political party makes every attempt to alienate an entire generation of voters.

/namely the youngest, making under 100k generation.
 
2012-06-20 05:56:19 PM  

skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me


Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.
 
2012-06-20 05:56:21 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.


puff puff pass, man.
 
2012-06-20 05:56:21 PM  
...and howinhell does a camel get in the kitchen in the first goddamn case??
 
2012-06-20 05:56:22 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.


Actually, he's pretty close to the truth about the tax cut bill Brownback just signed a month ago. The law changes the way pass-through businesses are treated. Profits for these businesses used to be subject to the personal tax code, but they will now be exempt from taxes. Thousands of businesses are expected to restructure to make their profits (read as income for the owners) tax-free. On top of that, part of the obvious reduction in revenue is being paid for by making permanent a temporary sales tax hike and eliminating the earned income tax credit.
 
2012-06-20 05:56:57 PM  
There were scores of people who previously said that they'd be willing to pay higher taxes.

When told that they could voluntarily pay higher taxes, they said that it's not fair and that the point is to make everyone pay higher taxes too.

Well, here's your chance...
 
2012-06-20 05:57:32 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.


ok... that still doesn't make any sense.
 
2012-06-20 05:57:45 PM  

HallsOfMandos: But they all signed a pledge to never raise taxes, right?


This. When is Grover going to speak out against this tax increase??
 
2012-06-20 05:58:18 PM  
FTA -

Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

I know you were told there would be no math, but seriously.....
 
2012-06-20 05:59:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: ftfa: " people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year"

I call BS.

If the top marginal tax rate is around 35%, then a person earning $1M, assuming he has no deductions would pay less than $350,000. Let's call it 350k for simplicity.

If he is getting a tax cut of $286,000, that means that his effective tax rate is less than 6.4% (350k-286k = taxes of 64k on income of $1M).

Now, if that person has any deductions, his effective tax rate is even lower.


That is definitely BS. I thought the same thing when I read it. My guess is that they meant "Those earning over $1 million will on average get a $286,000 to $331,000 tax decrease." So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000. That's my guess anyway, because there is no way the numbers expressed in TFA are accurate as portrayed.
 
2012-06-20 05:59:53 PM  

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

Actually, he's pretty close to the truth about the tax cut bill Brownback just signed a month ago. The law changes the way pass-through businesses are treated. Profits for these businesses used to be subject to the personal tax code, but they will now be exempt from taxes. Thousands of businesses are expected to restructure to make their profits (read as income for the owners) tax-free. On top of that, part of the obvious reduction in revenue is being paid for by making permanent a temporary sales tax hike and eliminating the earned income tax credit.


I did see that the non-wage income from pass throughs will now no longer be taxed. That's crazy. If you have an LLC, LLP, GL, you don't HAVE to take a salary (according to Federal law). So ALL those distributions can come as non-wage profits and be exempt from KS State tax.

Holy hell, I want to set up shop in Kansas City for a few months and handle all the conversions. I'd make a KILLING.
 
2012-06-20 06:01:48 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: thomps: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: TrollingForColumbine: The_Six_Fingered_Man: madgonad: If you are a business owner or in a partnership you don't have to pay income taxes in Kansas. No, I'm serious. Only income from payroll counts as income in Kansas now.

I'm curious as to where you got this.

Something tells me that you might be mistaken about that. I found an article that states that Kansas is considering eliminating the income tax, but nothing that says that they unilaterally (without consent of the Federal government) redefined the word "income" to exclude profits from businesses.

I am assuming it is just for state taxes

That's fine, I'm sure it is as well. I still don't see where the State of Kansas has diverged from the Feds on the definition of "income." No other state, that I know of, has this sort of definition. If I'm not mistaken, all States and protectorates subject to income tax conform to the Federal definition.

For federal tax purposes yes. for state tax purposes I believe they can do what they want. IANAL or Accountant.

apparently s corps and partnerships are exempt from kansas' personal income tax.

Right, which conforms with Federal tax policy. Income from those entities are taxed at the shareholder or partner level, not the entity level.

but that has always been true of s corps. that is the reason for s corps as far as I can tell. I think Kansas is not taxing it at any level. Sole proprietor be damned.

I'm having issues finding coherent articles on the topic. Looking for the bill in question.


The Kansas City Star, Lawrence Journal World, and Wichita paper (can't remember its name) all reported on it extensively. Also, a number of tax-focused think tanks reported on its expected results. Even the Tax Foundation, the most conservative think tank focused on taxes, thinks that the bill is a disaster designed to enrich the Koch brothers while screwing the poor.
 
2012-06-20 06:01:49 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000.


I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...
 
2012-06-20 06:03:00 PM  
What the article doesn't tell you is that the standard deduction is $50,000.
 
2012-06-20 06:04:06 PM  

Serious Black: The Kansas City Star, Lawrence Journal World, and Wichita paper (can't remember its name) all reported on it extensively. Also, a number of tax-focused think tanks reported on its expected results. Even the Tax Foundation, the most conservative think tank focused on taxes, thinks that the bill is a disaster designed to enrich the Koch brothers while screwing the poor.


I'm inclined to agree with them. That's quite possibly the most bone headed move they could have made.

"Hey guys, we won't tax your non-wage income from partnerships. Just make sure you guys pay yourselves a salary, ok?"

MORTIMER: "Wait, we aren't required to pay ourselves, since we're a partnership."
JEEVES: "Brilliant. Betty, call our accountant and have our salaries suspended. We will be taking distributions instead."

KANSAS DOR: "GODDAMMITSOMUCH!"
 
2012-06-20 06:04:39 PM  

JesusJuice: Let me know when we're ready to throw these farkers up against a wall. I'll be cleaning my guns.


Woohoo. Don't tread on me. We came unarmed this time. The taxpayers are the Jews for the Republicans' ovens.
 
2012-06-20 06:05:01 PM  
Nice, objective reporting, there, HuffPo.

At least they linked to the WaPo story, which explains it better.

FTFL: So although households earning $100,000 to $200,000 a year would save about $7,000 from the lower tax rates in the GOP plan, those savings would be swamped by eliminating major deductions, according to the report by the Democratically controlled congressional Joint Economic Committee.

The net result: Married couples in that income range would pay an additional $2,700 annually to the Internal Revenue Service, on top of the tax increases that are scheduled to hit every American household when the George W. Bush-era cuts expire at the end of the year.


Or they could do nothing, and the same couple will get hit by the AMT soon enough. Which is exactly what I expect Congress to do -- nothing. Rates will all revert 1 January. If Obama is re-elected, and the Republicans continue to hold part of of Congress, nothing will happen. If the Democrats take back the house (about as likely as the Dolphins winning the Super Bowl), the rates will continue exactly as they are. If Romney wins, the Republicans pass his tax proposal in lame duck, and it dies in the Senate, or gets vetoed by the President.
 
2012-06-20 06:05:02 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...


So, I guess the question is, how much more than $1 million does the typical household earning more than $1 million earn? If the typical household earning over $1 million averages $10 million, the numbers don't sound as extreme.
 
2012-06-20 06:10:06 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.


wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)
 
2012-06-20 06:11:00 PM  
I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.
 
2012-06-20 06:12:45 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: The_Six_Fingered_Man: I'm reading the report from the Commission right now. Here is a salient excerpt:

...the typical household making more than $1 million and filing a joint return will still experience a net reduction in taxes of $286,543 under Ryan's budget. The typical household earning between $500,000 and $1 million will see their tax burden decline by $37,887...

So, I guess the question is, how much more than $1 million does the typical household earning more than $1 million earn? If the typical household earning over $1 million averages $10 million, the numbers don't sound as extreme.


The report doesn't say, and I'm not in the mood to go review IRS stats from 2009 to give you an estimate. I will say that the report says that, of those making more than $1m, the average AGI is $3,068,649. Take that for what you will.

The report is on the Ryan Plan, which has unspecified base broadening, so the numbers are still way speculative.
 
2012-06-20 06:14:54 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: tenpoundsofcheese: ftfa: " people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year"

I call BS.

If the top marginal tax rate is around 35%, then a person earning $1M, assuming he has no deductions would pay less than $350,000. Let's call it 350k for simplicity.

If he is getting a tax cut of $286,000, that means that his effective tax rate is less than 6.4% (350k-286k = taxes of 64k on income of $1M).

Now, if that person has any deductions, his effective tax rate is even lower.

That is definitely BS. I thought the same thing when I read it. My guess is that they meant "Those earning over $1 million will on average get a $286,000 to $331,000 tax decrease." So if the guy that earns $1 million gets a $50,000 reduction and the gut that earns $10 million gets a $550,000 reduction, it averages out to $300,000. That's my guess anyway, because there is no way the numbers expressed in TFA are accurate as portrayed.



Yeah, you are probably right but that isn't how it was stated: If you earn a million or more you get at least $286k.

They clearly wrote it this way as part of a class warfare attempt. People will remember that millionaires are effectively paying no taxes.
 
2012-06-20 06:15:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)


I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.
 
2012-06-20 06:16:20 PM  

Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.


Is that a one time tax, or are you going to tax people like that every year?
 
2012-06-20 06:17:44 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.


It's on the chart in the linked WaPo article. Might've been average savings for incomes over 1,000,000. Not sure and currently mobile
 
2012-06-20 06:20:30 PM  

skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?


Magic.
 
2012-06-20 06:25:35 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

Is that a one time tax, or are you going to tax people like that every year?


Every year if you want to keep around the same level of income for the government. The point is, whatever the amount the burden should be distributed based on wealth...not at an individual level but if you are part of the top 1% that own 35% of the wealth THAT GROUP of 1% should be paying about 35% of the taxes. I would call that a good tax code.
 
2012-06-20 06:26:19 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare


DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.
 
2012-06-20 06:26:46 PM  

skullkrusher: The_Six_Fingered_Man: tenpoundsofcheese: The_Six_Fingered_Man: skullkrusher: The top marginal rate is 35%. How is eliminating our current brackets and replacing them with 10 and 25% brackets going to reduce taxes on someone earning $1,000,000 by $440k before counting deduction eliminations?

This make-a no sense to me

Well, for starters, they are using the 39.6% number that the top bracket reverts to on December 31st.

wut?

Okay, the top marginal rate is 39.6%. To make the math easier, let's assume that is the effective rate.
That means his tax on $1M is 396,000. How does changing the bracket to 25% have his taxes reduced by $440k?

(hint: 440k > 396k)

I don't see the $440k number in the article. I see this: "people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year."

BTW: The HuffPo piece was not written by someone who is well, or even moderately versed in tax policy or procedure.

It's on the chart in the linked WaPo article. Might've been average savings for incomes over 1,000,000. Not sure and currently mobile


I see...

That $440K is not net. Net decrease is the $331k number.
 
2012-06-20 06:29:28 PM  

Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare

DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.


i see you started posting after your alt disappeared in that other thread.
 
2012-06-20 06:29:48 PM  

Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.


All you need is some fancy accounting to make it look like you're in debt as much as your assets. Hey, net worth = zero!
 
2012-06-20 06:39:02 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: tenpoundsofcheese: class warfare

DRINK!

Seriously, the right uses this card more than the left uses the race card these days.

i see you started posting after your alt disappeared in that other thread.


I heard Kroger has a sale on tin foil this week. ;)
 
2012-06-20 06:41:06 PM  

jigger: Aldon: I just want to point out that when it comes to who should be taxed and how much WEALTH not income should be the metric.

A fair and just tax code would end up putting 35% of the taxes on people who own 35% of the wealth, don't you think?

/ not advocating HOW this might be done, just the results.

All you need is some fancy accounting to make it look like you're in debt as much as your assets. Hey, net worth = zero!


That wouldn't create the results I'm advocating. For example, creating a mix of income, property and capital gains taxes that resulted in the 1% group that owns 35% of the wealth getting 35% of the total tax burden, that woubet relate the results I'm advocating.
 
2012-06-20 06:43:08 PM  
I would think every dem would approve of this. They also want to take away the mortgage deduction, because fark the middle class.
 
2012-06-20 06:45:11 PM  

Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?


We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.
 
2012-06-20 06:54:47 PM  

Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.


No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.
 
2012-06-20 06:56:29 PM  
Well, most Republicans have pledged to never raise taxes, so we should be fine.
Unless of course the Republicans lied to us. But who really believes that could happen?
 
2012-06-20 06:59:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.


So you're fine with cutting all the tax cuts and deductions those people are able to get because they earn so little money then?
 
2012-06-20 07:02:37 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Eshman: Thune: I hear around half the people in America don't even pay federal income tax.

Shouldn't everyone pay thier fair share?

We've covered this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and each time, this premise is deemed bullshiat. So pay the fark attention or shut the fark up.

No the premise and the facts are correct.
People are just okay with it.


When you consider ALL taxes (not just federal income) the poor pay their fair share of the tax burden.

Of course my idea of "fair share " is based on wealth.
 
2012-06-20 07:08:29 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: That $440K is not net. Net decrease is the $331k number.


right. Question is where the $440k comes from
 
2012-06-20 07:08:59 PM  

RobertBruce: I would think every dem would approve of this. They also want to take away the mortgage deduction, because fark the middle class.


Seriously... You mean you've spent the last 25 years or so believing the "Tax and Spend" campaign propaganda from the 80's? That explains a lot about you, actually.
 
2012-06-20 07:14:05 PM  
so vote them out
 
2012-06-20 07:22:25 PM  

skullkrusher: The_Six_Fingered_Man: That $440K is not net. Net decrease is the $331k number.

right. Question is where the $440k comes from


It's got to be an average of tax savings across ALL incomes over $1m. There is no other explanation. The graph is shiatty, the analysis is shiatty, and the Democratic Staff of the Joint Commission on shiatty Tax Policies should feel bad for putting it out.
 
2012-06-20 07:53:00 PM  
Employer-provided Health Insurance, Mortgage Interest,State and local taxes, and retirement savings are "special-interest" loopholes???

Wut??

I'll give you mortgage interest as that and §121 exclusion of principle residence contributed to the real estate debacle. You can take it even though it will have a huge impact on the middle class, lower & upper middle class.

Tax breaks on employer provided insurance is the only thing keeping many employers from actually having insurance plans tied to their work force. Eliminate that and the tax benefit of medical payments you got yourself an even bigger problem with rising medical costs.

Paying Federal taxes on taxes that you have paid to local and state governments.Really taxing a tax???
Does that then include interest on muni-bonds as income??? That'll piss off many state and local governments.

Retirement savings??? So if I'm a hedge-fund manager do I pay taxes on stocks and bonds that I haven't sold yet based upon the basis and the value at that time. Do I pay taxes on options and other derivatives??? I think not. So why then tax retirement savings??? Do you really want people fully dependent on Social Security when they retire.



Seriously, how high are these people??? I'm thinking it's bath salts.
 
2012-06-20 08:27:40 PM  

wotthefark: I'll give you mortgage interest as that and §121 exclusion of principle residence contributed to the real estate debacle. You can take it even though it will have a huge impact on the middle class, lower & upper middle class.


And that's what the WaPo link in TFA points out. There's no reason for it anymore, and it only serves two purposes -- 1. To over-extend people on credit, and 2. Keep people locked in to failed communities.

wotthefark: Tax breaks on employer provided insurance is the only thing keeping many employers from actually having insurance plans tied to their work force. Eliminate that and the tax benefit of medical payments you got yourself an even bigger problem with rising medical costs.


They also serve to lock people into an employment situation just for the health benefits. A single-payer insurance system would be better. The rumored Romney plan pulls the tax writeoff for this, which would equalize the private insurance market a bit, but still wouldn't cover everybody....
Paying Federal taxes on taxes that you have paid to local and state governments.Really taxing a tax???
Does that then include interest on muni-bonds as income??? That'll piss off many state and local governments.

wotthefark: Retirement savings??? So if I'm a hedge-fund manager do I pay taxes on stocks and bonds that I haven't sold yet based upon the basis and the value at that time. Do I pay taxes on options and other derivatives??? I think not. So why then tax retirement savings??? Do you really want people fully dependent on Social Security when they retire.


See the health benefits. It's bad for the country when people get locked in to an employer just because they're offering a 2% match, and everybody else is only offering 1.5%. I'd prefer they let employers continue to count those as expenses, and lift the cap on the "employer contribution" to SS. Since that's an excise tax, uncapping it wouldn't be a problem. (where uncapping the individual contribution would be.)
 
2012-06-20 08:51:17 PM  

Bonkthat_Again: You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.


In the desert, it's hard to find a body.
 
2012-06-20 08:55:01 PM  
If you aren't making at least $250,000/yr and still vote Republican you are a complete farking idiot and deserve any financial hardships that befall you.
 
2012-06-20 09:15:09 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Bonkthat_Again: You know, I just don't understand the whole distribution of wealth. No matter what the very wealthy proposes, short of killing themselves and leaving all their assets to be spilt evenly amongst all Americans, it can't work.

*warning* Shiatty analogy ahead

If there are 10 of us in the desert, being pulled on a cart by a camel, all 10 of use must contribute some of our water to the camel. If 9 of us have a gallon of water each, except for the rich guy....he has 1000 gallons, it doesn't matter what 9 of us give to the camel. In a hundred miles, he's going to dehydrate....unless the rich guy either gives us each 10-20 gallons, or flat out gives the water directly to the camel. There is a finite amount of water. We all used to have roughly 100 gallons each. But the rich guy taxed us so heavy (because he owned the cart)...he even made some back door deal with the cart driver whereas we had to pay the driver too, but the water ended up with the rich guy anyway...I don't know.

Yeah, that's a pretty shiatty analogy. :-)

Here's a better way to look at it.

There are 10 people in a village. They want to make a pie. One guy says" I have a recipe"- you guys collect the ingredients and we'll make the pie.

So 9 of them work hard all day and gather the apples, cinnamon, wheat, etc. They bring the recipe guy the ingredients-who then sits back and tells the other 9 how to cook it.

When the pie is done- it is cut into 10 pieces. To which the One Recipe guy claims 9 of the slices "There would be no pie without my recipe." Leaving one for the other 9. He uses one slice to bribe two others to protect his reaming 8. One is named The Government, the other is named The Law and they are the biggest guys in the village.

And there you have American Distribution of wealth.


You two just made the entire thread. Seriously. These are the best analogies I've seen in my life.
 
2012-06-20 09:34:07 PM  
In times of crisis, placing the burden of recovery on those hardest hit by said crisis while asking those who can easiest afford to contribute and still live in not only comfort but luxury to not lift a finger, especially those who orchestrated said crisis in the first place is not only immoral, reprehensible and despicable...

It's STUPID!
 
2012-06-20 09:54:58 PM  
Sadly a lot of people would see their taxes go up and blame the Democrats because it must be their fault somehow.
 
2012-06-20 10:41:10 PM  

wotthefark: Employer-provided Health Insurance, Mortgage Interest,State and local taxes, and retirement savings are "special-interest" loopholes???

Wut??

I'll give you mortgage interest as that and §121 exclusion of principle residence contributed to the real estate debacle. You can take it even though it will have a huge impact on the middle class, lower & upper middle class.

Tax breaks on employer provided insurance is the only thing keeping many employers from actually having insurance plans tied to their work force. Eliminate that and the tax benefit of medical payments you got yourself an even bigger problem with rising medical costs.

Paying Federal taxes on taxes that you have paid to local and state governments.Really taxing a tax???


Just as the mortgage interest deduction has little real result other than making people buy more expensive homes than they really need, the employer's health insurance credit also causes the average worker to consume too much of a good thing. If the boss buys him a nicer plan, he'll take it and use it, even if he doesn't need it and wouldn't have bought it for himself. If he received instead a tax credit or subsidy to buy from a wide range of insurance options, he probably takes the high deductible plan and consumes less care, leaving the doctor fee to give more attention to those who are actually sick.

Finally, the deduction of state taxes for me never passed the logic test. Person A and person B made the same income but in different states. They enjoy the same benefits and protections from the federal government, but if person B pays a lot of state tax and person A does not, person A might pay a lot more in Federal tax for the same benefits. Meanwhile person B got his federal services at a discount and probably enjoys better police and school services from his state because he paid higher state taxes for them.
 
2012-06-20 10:45:47 PM  
Typical republican
calling the poor freeloaders while shifting more and more of the tax burden on to them while shifting it away from those who do not have to worry about where their meal comes from.

As a semi anarchist my only consolation is that such a system can only collapse on itself.

Hypnozombie
 
2012-06-20 11:16:23 PM  

GentDirkly: wotthefark: Employer-provided Health Insurance, Mortgage Interest,State and local taxes, and retirement savings are "special-interest" loopholes???

Wut??

I'll give you mortgage interest as that and §121 exclusion of principle residence contributed to the real estate debacle. You can take it even though it will have a huge impact on the middle class, lower & upper middle class.

Tax breaks on employer provided insurance is the only thing keeping many employers from actually having insurance plans tied to their work force. Eliminate that and the tax benefit of medical payments you got yourself an even bigger problem with rising medical costs.

Paying Federal taxes on taxes that you have paid to local and state governments.Really taxing a tax???


Just as the mortgage interest deduction has little real result other than making people buy more expensive homes than they really need, the employer's health insurance credit also causes the average worker to consume too much of a good thing. If the boss buys him a nicer plan, he'll take it and use it, even if he doesn't need it and wouldn't have bought it for himself. If he received instead a tax credit or subsidy to buy from a wide range of insurance options, he probably takes the high deductible plan and consumes less care, leaving the doctor fee to give more attention to those who are actually sick.

Finally, the deduction of state taxes for me never passed the logic test. Person A and person B made the same income but in different states. They enjoy the same benefits and protections from the federal government, but if person B pays a lot of state tax and person A does not, person A might pay a lot more in Federal tax for the same benefits. Meanwhile person B got his federal services at a discount and probably enjoys better police and school services from his state because he paid higher state taxes for them.


High deductible plans where an individual pays $5000 per member of the family before co-insurance kicks in are still driving up costs. A trip to the emergency room and continuing care will eat that up in minutes. Then people can't pay the ongoing bills thus increasing health costs even more. So much for the tax credit.

If you make $50000 a yr and $15000 is going towards health insurance with an additional 20% after the fact you are going to the poor house faster than people choosing to be healthy utilizing plans with smaller deductibles. That's then a form of regressive taxation from the insurance co.s against;not only the sick, but the poor and middle class.

The only answer is then single payer which I have no problem with but I was thinking the Repub's would have a big problem with it. That then creates a tax instead of insurance companies which could be set up similar to medicare covering all individuals with the individuals kicking in for the 20% co-insurance by supplemental insurance or not. This will piss off the insurance co.s and the Republicans.

The State and local taxation actually makes sense. Does it cost more to live in NY city or Mississippi??? More people consuming more resources in a metro area.

State sales tax is regressive in that it again farks over the poor. Income tax is less regressive. Why then federally tax local and state tax if it's a tax you have already paid??? makes no sense.

The states will start charging tax on federal bonds and vice versa. Muni bonds would then have less incentive for institutions and individuals to invest in. With less muni bonds in place the states will be asking for more from the feds. This means of course then less institutions and individuals will purchase Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, and TIPS as it has no benefit with state taxation.
 
2012-06-21 12:12:19 AM  

Fuggin Bizzy: vpb: You need labor, infrastructure, consumer demand for your product, infrastructure, resources and many other things.

You said "infrastructure" twice.


He really likes infrastructure.
 
2012-06-21 03:14:10 AM  

namatad: Specifically, anyone who earns less than $200,000 a year would see their taxes go up by at least $1,000, and in some cases as much as $4,600, according to the JEC. Meanwhile, people who earn a million dollars or more would get a tax cut of between $286,000 and $331,000 a year.

can we just get it over with and KILL all these politicians already?
pretty please???
no??????????????

sigh


I have you favorited as "A Good Guy". Nothing in your post changes this in the least.
 
2012-06-21 06:31:55 AM  

Jackson Herring: Pie is legal theft. Also camels.


Money equals power. Power equals camel. Camel equals five celery sticks.

Five.

/quid pro quo
 
2012-06-21 06:47:03 AM  
The smartest thing the republicans ever did was capture the gun nuts. Make sure you pretend to be on their side so all the farked over army snipers never go after the right people when they finally despool.
 
2012-06-21 07:05:04 AM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-21 07:06:46 AM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-21 07:07:50 AM  
This has to be a joke. Do these guys want to hand Obama another term on a silver platter, and moreover, do they really hate being re-elected themselves? But most important of all, do they not understand that the Internet is full of all kinds of useful information?

For example: http://www.wikihow.com/Build-a-Guillotine
 
2012-06-21 07:08:55 AM  
i208.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-21 07:57:48 AM  

GentDirkly: wotthefark: Employer-provided Health Insurance, Mortgage Interest,State and local taxes, and retirement savings are "special-interest" loopholes???

Wut??

I'll give you mortgage interest as that and §121 exclusion of principle residence contributed to the real estate debacle. You can take it even though it will have a huge impact on the middle class, lower & upper middle class.

Tax breaks on employer provided insurance is the only thing keeping many employers from actually having insurance plans tied to their work force. Eliminate that and the tax benefit of medical payments you got yourself an even bigger problem with rising medical costs.

Paying Federal taxes on taxes that you have paid to local and state governments.Really taxing a tax???


Just as the mortgage interest deduction has little real result other than making people buy more expensive homes than they really need, the employer's health insurance credit also causes the average worker to consume too much of a good thing. If the boss buys him a nicer plan, he'll take it and use it, even if he doesn't need it and wouldn't have bought it for himself. If he received instead a tax credit or subsidy to buy from a wide range of insurance options, he probably takes the high deductible plan and consumes less care, leaving the doctor fee to give more attention to those who are actually sick.

Finally, the deduction of state taxes for me never passed the logic test. Person A and person B made the same income but in different states. They enjoy the same benefits and protections from the federal government, but if person B pays a lot of state tax and person A does not, person A might pay a lot more in Federal tax for the same benefits. Meanwhile person B got his federal services at a discount and probably enjoys better police and school services from his state because he paid higher state taxes for them.


Yea, lets go ahead and restrict access to healthcare by using the all mighty hand of the free market, amirite?
 
2012-06-21 08:43:28 AM  

imontheinternet: [realneo.us image 375x500]

You have to pay your fair share, freeloader. We're taking the dog.

- Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)



xtupload.com
 
2012-06-21 08:47:09 AM  

orangehat: Sadly a lot of people would see their taxes go up and blame the Democrats because it must be their fault somehow.


I still get mail at my house sent to the previous owners; a solidly Republican older couple. I recently got a fund-raising letter from John Boehner's office, and it was a disgustingly disingenuous, misleading piece of garbage.

I shiat you not, the letter said something along the lines of "help me lead the charge against Democrat-controlled Washington". My first thought was "if Democrats are so in control, how come you're Speaker of the House?"

Motherfarkers know how to divide by zero.
 
2012-06-21 09:02:06 AM  

Dedmon: Yea, lets go ahead and restrict access to healthcare by using the all mighty hand of the free market, amirite?


Health care keeps getting more expensive because demand is very high. Private insurance hasn't been able to stop this growth of demand, because providers and the government throw too many wrenches out there. There are only two ways to reduce demand.

One is to have the government, via bureaucratic policies, prioritize who needs care the most. This creates long waits, a lack of responsiveness, and strains the doctor-patient relationship. People who want care are denied it because the government decided that they aren't sick enough, or that doing a certain preventative treatment doesn't have enough benefit to society as a whole.

The other way is to have people decide for themselves if they feel "$100 sick" today or "$1000 sick" today. Let doctors inform people about the benefits of various preventative treatments, and let people decide for themselves if the vaccine is worth $200 or not.

Government is certainly going to have more access to information than the individual, however history in this country shows that people may vote for themselves to have excessive benefits, "free candy", contrary to sound economic or medical advice (i.e. it's easy to imagine a politician running on a "free MRIs for all!" platform).

People in our society have more individualistic attitudes, so the second approach is probably best for us. We don't trust large organizations to make these kinds of decisions for us. Yes, many people will make wrong choices but as long as the doctor gave sound advice, that's no one's fault but their own.
 
2012-06-21 09:09:01 AM  
Now, we can decide on a case by case basis if the government or individuals should have the authority to pay and decide about different treatments and procedures. The measles vaccine, for instance; it's probably best that the government go ahead and buy that for us, make it free; vaccines make society as a whole healthier. Same thing with basic hospice care. But other things? Like joint reconstruction, pacemakers, chemotherapy? Yes they are all life-saving but that doesn't mean you have to make them free to all comers. For instance, someone who is over 80 years old will not get much benefit from many of those things, they would rather die naturally.
 
2012-06-21 09:47:45 AM  
came here for discussion on taxes, instead got stories about camels and pies?

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-21 09:54:49 AM  
Get rid of Bush tax cuts, raise taxes on everyone.
 
2012-06-21 09:57:12 AM  

Pincy: If you aren't making at least $250,000/yr and still vote Republican you are a complete farking idiot and deserve any financial hardships that befall you.


Not running into any financial hardships, but thanks!
 
2012-06-21 12:30:54 PM  

Zerochance: orangehat: Sadly a lot of people would see their taxes go up and blame the Democrats because it must be their fault somehow.

I still get mail at my house sent to the previous owners; a solidly Republican older couple. I recently got a fund-raising letter from John Boehner's office, and it was a disgustingly disingenuous, misleading piece of garbage.

I shiat you not, the letter said something along the lines of "help me lead the charge against Democrat-controlled Washington". My first thought was "if Democrats are so in control, how come you're Speaker of the House?"

Motherfarkers know how to divide by zero.


A letter or a post card?
 
2012-06-21 02:15:23 PM  
"Republicans. I hate these guys." --Indiana Jones
 
2012-06-21 06:24:50 PM  

derpdeederp: Pincy: If you aren't making at least $250,000/yr and still vote Republican you are a complete farking idiot and deserve any financial hardships that befall you.

Not running into any financial hardships, but thanks!


Admitting you're an idiot is the first step to recovery
 
Displayed 180 of 180 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report