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.

(CBS News)   Who are the 47% who pay no tax and take no responsibility? "3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes"   (cbsnews.com) divider line 347
    More: Asinine, income taxes, collective responsibility, median household income, Tax Foundation, incomes  
•       •       •

3321 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Sep 2012 at 2:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-19 12:32:12 PM
 
2012-09-19 12:40:29 PM
If you're dependent on the government to manipulate the tax code in your favor, provide you amnesty for tax evasion and ignore derivatives fraud then it's a different type of dependent on the government.

Because for this type of dependent on the government you contribute to campaigns.
 
2012-09-19 12:45:28 PM
www.inquisitr.com
Taxes? We 1%-ers don't pay no stinkin' taxes! LOL!!!
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 12:47:55 PM
Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?
 
2012-09-19 12:53:06 PM

vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?


Only one way to be sure...
 
2012-09-19 01:00:47 PM
www.cbpp.org
 
2012-09-19 01:14:13 PM

vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?


There are 47 percent of the people who believe that they are entitled to tap-dancing horses, to car elevators, to the Presidency of the United States, to you-name-it.
 
2012-09-19 01:18:41 PM

impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]



Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 01:21:29 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


And too many of them are wealthy people who think they deserve more tax breaks.
 
2012-09-19 01:23:28 PM
Damn shame I to vote Obama a second time, years ago. I might have enjoyed being mad at Romney.
 
2012-09-19 01:24:00 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


you don't know how to read charts.
 
2012-09-19 01:24:25 PM

Xaxor: Damn shame I

decided to vote Obama a second time, years ago. I might have enjoyed being mad at Romney.

Cripes.

/FTFM
 
2012-09-19 01:24:42 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?

Only one way to be sure...


You know, that's the other thing Rmoney opened up with this whole thing. The rumor persists that the reason he won't release his tax returns is that they will show he paid no taxes, and his ragging on deadbeats raises the question, "So you did pay income tax, right, Mitt?"

This may go down as one of the single stupidest things a Presidential nominee has ever said during the campaign.
 
2012-09-19 01:27:42 PM

BravadoGT: Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


So raise taxes on the poor and middle class?

Glad you admit the majority are working Americans and not leeches waiting for a handout.
 
2012-09-19 01:28:05 PM
If the outrage is that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, wouldn't Mittens support raising the minimum wage to try and bring that number down ("Now you're not too poor to avoid paying taxes")? Or is that another thing that makes Supply-side Baby Jesus cry?
 
2012-09-19 01:29:05 PM

impaler: Glad you admit the majority of those not paying income taxes are working Americans and not leeches waiting for a handout.


FTFM.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 01:29:21 PM

jake_lex: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?

Only one way to be sure...

You know, that's the other thing Rmoney opened up with this whole thing. The rumor persists that the reason he won't release his tax returns is that they will show he paid no taxes, and his ragging on deadbeats raises the question, "So you did pay income tax, right, Mitt?"

This may go down as one of the single stupidest things a Presidential nominee has ever said during the campaign.


And too many of them are wealthy people who think they deserve more tax breaks.
Not just that, he has promised to release his 2011 returns when he is finished with them next month (he filed for an extension).

He is intentionally reminding people that he didn't release the 2009 returns right before the election.
 
2012-09-19 01:35:18 PM
And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.
 
2012-09-19 01:36:44 PM
www.altfg.com

Welfare Queens
 
2012-09-19 01:38:30 PM

DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.


Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.
 
2012-09-19 01:39:45 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.


You need to think through what he is saying.

If you remove capital gains tax, Romney would be paying no taxes - at all. That's what he said in the debate. That means that the only taxes he pays are capital gains taxes. Which means he doesn't pay income taxes.
 
2012-09-19 01:43:41 PM

DamnYankees: You need to think


Forget it. He's on a roll.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 01:44:40 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.


Yes they are.
 
2012-09-19 01:48:08 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.


WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
 
2012-09-19 01:48:50 PM
Yes, capital gains are income taxes.
 
2012-09-19 01:49:36 PM

BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.


If you are not a troll, you are really really stupid.
 
2012-09-19 01:55:47 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.

If you are not a troll, you are really really stupid.


Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.
 
2012-09-19 01:56:36 PM

Calmamity: DamnYankees: You need to think

Forget it. He's on a troll.


FTFY

/at least, I hope he is; I'd rather assume that dumb people are trolls than admit that there really are people as stupid as he portrays himself to be
 
2012-09-19 01:57:23 PM

BravadoGT: AdolfOliverPanties: BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.

If you are not a troll, you are really really stupid.

Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.


So you agree, Romney is a parasite.
 
2012-09-19 01:59:13 PM
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-09-19 02:05:52 PM

BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.


They're called "income taxes on capital gains."

They are part of the income tax.

Part of Romney's 1040 (income tax filing)
growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-19 02:21:23 PM

vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?


Someone who didn't pay income taxes would hesitate to release his tax records if running for President.
 
2012-09-19 02:23:16 PM
it's kinda weird to think i bounced at a bar full of 1 percenters (before that one changed definitions, somehow), have alternately been a 47%, a 53%, and 99%...and didn't really change a damned thing.

i think i kinda liked it better when they just said 'real americans' to demonize half the country rather than trying to act like it was a math equation, tho.
 
2012-09-19 02:24:02 PM
I was waiting for this. Lets now take a look at corporate taxes vs. corporate welfare and find out who the real leeches are. Then we can move on to DoD contractors that receive non-noncompetitive funding and show how much pork barrel spending gets siphoned into the coffers of the red states.
 
2012-09-19 02:25:21 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2012-09-19 02:25:57 PM

impaler: BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.

They're called "income taxes on capital gains."

They are part of the income tax.

Part of Romney's 1040 (income tax filing)
[growlersoftware.com image 613x600]


They are taxed at a different rate for some reason, which makes absolutely no sense. Income is income, regardless of the source, and should be taxed to the same rate.
 
2012-09-19 02:27:02 PM
Still trying to squeeze mileage out of this article?

If only we could focus all that vitrol on the fuel efficiency of cars....
 
2012-09-19 02:28:29 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


Yes, I can see how someone with your post history would now be for raising taxes.

You look like a tool
 
2012-09-19 02:29:02 PM

BravadoGT: AdolfOliverPanties: BravadoGT: DamnYankees: And Mitt Romney is one of them. He said in a debate with Gingrich that if you reduce capital gains to 0%, he would pay no taxes, which means he pays no income tax. He said this on TV. That parasite.

Capital gains taxes are not income taxes. So, no--it doesn't mean that.

If you are not a troll, you are really really stupid.

Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.


Long term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at a different rate from other types of incomes, but that does not mean that the tax is not an income tax.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 02:29:15 PM

TabASlotB: [docs.google.com image 600x371] 

Look at the spike in Left vertical axis titles around 2007. That's crazy! Someone should really do something about this...


It's perfectly okay when it is your buddies. When you're poor... well...
 
2012-09-19 02:29:37 PM

BravadoGT: as it is commonly used


Try using words for what they actually mean... maybe a little less of what you think other people "commonly" mean. Essentially you seem to be saying, "since some people mistakenly think wage taxes are the only form of income taxes, then 'income taxes' means what they mistakenly think it means instead of what it means, and therefor you are wrong."

That about sum it up? These other folks, they still subscribe the actual meaning of income taxes and probably aren't going to budge. People who know things tend not to be so easily swayed as people who don't.
 
2012-09-19 02:30:03 PM
freeloaders
 
2012-09-19 02:30:16 PM

Corvus: i.qkme.me


I fell entitled right into accidentally once.
 
2012-09-19 02:30:19 PM

impaler: BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.

They're called "income taxes on capital gains."

They are part of the income tax.

Part of Romney's 1040 (income tax filing)
[growlersoftware.com image 613x600]


Yes, but they are not taxed at the same rate as income.

/I think
//correct me if not
///I learn through my many screw-ups
////and slashies
 
2012-09-19 02:30:24 PM

Antimatter: They are taxed at a different rate for some reason, which makes absolutely no sense. Income is income, regardless of the source, and should be taxed to the same rate.


Haven't you been paying attention?

If capital gains income is taxed at the same rate as income from working, job creators wouldn't create jobs.
 
2012-09-19 02:31:03 PM

Epoch_Zero: impaler: BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.

They're called "income taxes on capital gains."

They are part of the income tax.

Part of Romney's 1040 (income tax filing)
[growlersoftware.com image 613x600]

Yes, but they are not taxed at the same rate as income.

/I think
//correct me if not
///I learn through my many screw-ups
////and slashies


They are if they are short term capital gains.
 
2012-09-19 02:31:38 PM

vernonFL: [www.altfg.com image 500x312]

Welfare Queen


manifestopart2.com
 
2012-09-19 02:31:57 PM

impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.


Bite your tongue!! Earned income is taxed at 35% plus

Capital Gains income is taxed at 15%
 
2012-09-19 02:32:28 PM

Epoch_Zero: Yes, but they are not taxed at the same rate as income.


Correct.

Short term capital gains (money made on things held for less than 1 year) are taxed as regular income.
Long term capital gains have a different rate, and it's basically 15% right now (there modifications to that)
 
2012-09-19 02:32:45 PM

sweetmelissa31: vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?

There are 47 percent of the people who believe that they are entitled to tap-dancing horses, to car elevators, to the Presidency of the United States, to you-name-it.


If you give a poor person a horse, you feed him for a day (because he'll just club it over the head and eat it, that's what poor people do).

If you teach the horse to dance... well, I'm not sure how that actually helps anyone but you've got to admit it's kinda cool.
 
2012-09-19 02:32:50 PM

sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 446x336]


j.wigflip.com
 
2012-09-19 02:33:05 PM

BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.


Schedule D is an income form so I have no idea what the fark you think you're talking about. Capital gains are income. The fact that they're taxed at a separate rate from wage earnings is a moot point, it's still income and so Mitt Romney, in fact, paid income taxes. What he didn't pay was payroll taxes.

You'd think a group of people who have spent so much time whining about taxes might have the slightest clue how they work...
 
2012-09-19 02:34:39 PM
It's amusing to me that there are people out there who look at our tax system and think, "You know what will fix this mess? Raising taxes on the poorest Americans while cutting them for the wealthiest".

I often imagine them squeezing stones in their hand, confident that, eventually, some blood will come out of it.

Lucky poor people got it too easy in this country, anyway...
 
2012-09-19 02:35:23 PM

Jacobin: impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.

Bite your tongue!! Earned income is taxed at 35% plus

Long Term Capital Gains income is taxed at 15% unless you are in the 10 or 15% brackets where they aren't taxed


for accuracy's sake
 
2012-09-19 02:35:51 PM
I find it incredible that they may actually believe that raising taxes on people who make almost nothing compared to the rest will result in any real important revenue gain. They can't honestly believe something like that, so the only tangible reason for this is spite - the rich and powerful just hate the poor(er), the old and the majority with all of their being.
 
2012-09-19 02:36:05 PM

keylock71: It's amusing to me that there are people out there who look at our tax system and think, "You know what will fix this mess? Raising taxes on the poorest Americans while cutting them for the wealthiest".

I often imagine them squeezing stones in their hand, confident that, eventually, some blood will come out of it.

Lucky poor people got it too easy in this country, anyway...


but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones
 
2012-09-19 02:36:47 PM
So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?
 
2012-09-19 02:37:44 PM
According to 2011 data from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes;

Lucky me, I get to be in the no man's land between 59k and 211k where I pay a shiat ton in federal income taxes. I need to see how to turn my salary into capital gains.
 
2012-09-19 02:38:09 PM

skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones


Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!
 
2012-09-19 02:38:45 PM

RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?


still considered a payroll tax except, since you and your wife are your own employers, you gotta pay the employer portion too.
 
2012-09-19 02:38:51 PM

RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?


The self employeed lack good lobbyists.
 
2012-09-19 02:39:01 PM

RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?


It is my understanding that everyone is taxed that way, but my employer pays half. You are your own employer so you pay both halves.
 
2012-09-19 02:39:01 PM
Get rid of refundable tax credits and this issue goes away.
 
2012-09-19 02:39:20 PM

keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!


we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!
 
2012-09-19 02:40:10 PM

RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?


They aren't income taxes. Look at where they show up on your your 1040. All income, including capital gains, show up on the front of the 1040 to make your Adjusted Gross Income. SE tax shows up under the Other Taxes section on the second page of the form.
 
2012-09-19 02:40:16 PM
encrypted-tbn2.google.com

www.akaktrading.com
 
2012-09-19 02:40:34 PM
It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009 (which isn't all that unlikely; chances are he had capital loss carryover from the 2008 crash and he might not have sold much stock while the market was still recovering.) It would be great to hear all these explanations about how he acted completely legally, how he qualified for deductions that Congress had determined were beneficial to allow people to write off, and you have to take into account all the other ways that Romney contributes to the general welfare of this country.

AKA, the same stuff they keep discounting when biatching about "the 47%."
 
2012-09-19 02:40:43 PM

skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!

we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!


Sounds like a new FOX sitcom to me!
 
2012-09-19 02:41:10 PM

Biological Ali: If you give a poor person a horse, you feed him for a day (because he'll just club it over the head and eat it, that's what poor people do).

If you teach the horse to dance, you just inspired a poor person to finally get a job in order to buy a horse.


FTFY
 
2012-09-19 02:41:40 PM

Grungehamster: It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009 (which isn't all that unlikely; chances are he had capital loss carryover from the 2008 crash and he might not have sold much stock while the market was still recovering.) It would be great to hear all these explanations about how he acted completely legally, how he qualified for deductions that Congress had determined were beneficial to allow people to write off, and you have to take into account all the other ways that Romney contributes to the general welfare of this country.

AKA, the same stuff they keep discounting when biatching about "the 47%."


More likely is that he took the 2009 amnesty. That's why he won't release.
 
2012-09-19 02:42:50 PM

skullkrusher: RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?

still considered a payroll tax except, since you and your wife are your own employers, you gotta pay the employer portion too.


Yes, I know. But it seems weird to call it a payroll tax and treat it different than capital gains, when both are filed with income tax forms.
 
2012-09-19 02:42:55 PM

DamnYankees: Grungehamster: It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009 (which isn't all that unlikely; chances are he had capital loss carryover from the 2008 crash and he might not have sold much stock while the market was still recovering.) It would be great to hear all these explanations about how he acted completely legally, how he qualified for deductions that Congress had determined were beneficial to allow people to write off, and you have to take into account all the other ways that Romney contributes to the general welfare of this country.

AKA, the same stuff they keep discounting when biatching about "the 47%."

More likely is that he took the 2009 amnesty. That's why he won't release.


This.

It will come out eventually but Mitt will lose even if it doesn't surface before Nov.
 
2012-09-19 02:43:20 PM
Who writes tax laws?

Whose interests are they serving?

Duh.
 
2012-09-19 02:43:30 PM
Silly me, I thought everyone was obligated to pay the least amount of taxes legally possible.
The tax codes were created on by the House and Senate, passed by the President, and enforced by the IRS, so if you play by their rules and come out ahead what's the big whoop?
If you knew all the loop holes and could use them, wouldn't you?
 
2012-09-19 02:43:45 PM

Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 446x336]

[j.wigflip.com image 394x305]


That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.
 
2012-09-19 02:44:08 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If the outrage is that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, wouldn't Mittens support raising the minimum wage to try and bring that number down ("Now you're not too poor to avoid paying taxes")? Or is that another thing that makes Supply-side Baby Jesus cry?


Raising the minimum wage is not as simple a fix as people seem to think it is.
 
2012-09-19 02:44:24 PM

Jobber8742: RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?

They aren't income taxes. Look at where they show up on your your 1040. All income, including capital gains, show up on the front of the 1040 to make your Adjusted Gross Income. SE tax shows up under the Other Taxes section on the second page of the form.


Tell me. Where does "Self Employment" income show up?

As for your "where taxes show up" on the 1040 argument, income taxes on wages don't show up until the second page of the 1040 either.

So, in short, what exactly was your point?
 
2012-09-19 02:44:53 PM

Jobber8742: RyogaM:

They aren't income taxes. Look at where they show up on your your 1040. All income, including capital gains, show up on the front of the 1040 to make your Adjusted Gross Income. SE tax shows up under the Other Taxes section on the second page of the form.


That's right. Good point.
 
2012-09-19 02:45:27 PM

RyogaM: Jobber8742: RyogaM:

They aren't income taxes. Look at where they show up on your your 1040. All income, including capital gains, show up on the front of the 1040 to make your Adjusted Gross Income. SE tax shows up under the Other Taxes section on the second page of the form.

That's right. Good point.


No, it's a stupid point. ALL TAXES, whether on self-employment, rental income, wages, etc are on the second page.
 
2012-09-19 02:45:48 PM
I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).
 
2012-09-19 02:46:06 PM

brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).


Easy. Stop making income.
 
2012-09-19 02:46:20 PM

Grungehamster: It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009


It is highly unlikely Romney paid no taxes in 2009 or any other year. Income taxes from speaking fees with deductions canceling them out, maybe. He pays taxes elsewhere and that's what will be used to water the attacks down.

Its a wet dream the left needs to give up on. There are other low hanging fruit on the Romney tree.
 
2012-09-19 02:46:28 PM

vernonFL: [encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 259x194]

[www.akaktrading.com image 500x378]


I am free to purchase a bulldozer?
 
2012-09-19 02:46:39 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.


That poor guy has a happier and more carefree existence than you or I ever will.
 
2012-09-19 02:46:49 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Tell me. Where does "Self Employment" income show up?


Schedule C. Which gets wrapped around in front of the 1040 as AGI.
 
2012-09-19 02:46:55 PM
Listen, when government agencies and think tanks and everyone talks about 53% pay income taxes etc., they are including capital gains in those figures. That's just the way it is.

Federal taxes also include the categories: FICA, corporate income taxes, and excise taxes.

/the more you know
 
2012-09-19 02:46:59 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Jackson Herring: sweetmelissa31: [j.wigflip.com image 446x336]

[j.wigflip.com image 394x305]

That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.


I guarantee none of this was in the model release he or his guardian signed...

My conscious is clean, though. I paid for the royalty free use of the image set. : )
 
2012-09-19 02:47:10 PM

brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).



Either don't make income or be incredibly wealthy and have the best and most evil lawyers protecting your ass.
 
2012-09-19 02:47:14 PM
No abortions, no child credit? My sister in law would be on a food line with eight kids instead of six.
 
2012-09-19 02:47:58 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: RyogaM: Jobber8742: RyogaM:

They aren't income taxes. Look at where they show up on your your 1040. All income, including capital gains, show up on the front of the 1040 to make your Adjusted Gross Income. SE tax shows up under the Other Taxes section on the second page of the form.

That's right. Good point.

No, it's a stupid point. ALL TAXES, whether on self-employment, rental income, wages, etc are on the second page.


Gah, you're all making my head hurt. I got a guy for this stuff for a reason.
 
2012-09-19 02:48:11 PM

keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!

we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!

Sounds like a new FOX sitcom to me!


only if I work on my super stereotypical NY accent and you sound like Good Will Hunting and call me a "wicked hahd-on" a lot
 
2012-09-19 02:48:34 PM

DamnYankees: Grungehamster: It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009 (which isn't all that unlikely; chances are he had capital loss carryover from the 2008 crash and he might not have sold much stock while the market was still recovering.) It would be great to hear all these explanations about how he acted completely legally, how he qualified for deductions that Congress had determined were beneficial to allow people to write off, and you have to take into account all the other ways that Romney contributes to the general welfare of this country.

AKA, the same stuff they keep discounting when biatching about "the 47%."

More likely is that he took the 2009 amnesty. That's why he won't release.


True. But really, I'm surprised 2009 wasn't the peak year for negative tax liability for high income individuals just because they lost their shirts the year before, did some loss harvesting, and that gave them a short term tax reprieve while the markets recovered.
 
2012-09-19 02:49:22 PM

RyogaM: skullkrusher: RyogaM: So, I'm and my wife are self-employed. We file Schedule SE (Self-Employment Tax ( Form 1040)) with our income tax. Schedule SE is how the government gets my Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid portion of my taxes. It is about 14% of our total income. So, because it is filed with our income tax, and is a tax on our income, up to the limit, is it not to be considered an income tax? Why? There is no guarantee that we will get that money back if we die. There is no guarantee we will get the money at all if the benefits are changed. If they are income taxes for the Self Employed, why not for everyone else?

still considered a payroll tax except, since you and your wife are your own employers, you gotta pay the employer portion too.

Yes, I know. But it seems weird to call it a payroll tax and treat it different than capital gains, when both are filed with income tax forms.


what do you mean treat it differently than cap gains? It's treated differently than your wage income too. I guess I'm missing the point
 
2012-09-19 02:49:59 PM

RyogaM: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Tell me. Where does "Self Employment" income show up?

Schedule C. Which gets wrapped around in front of the 1040 as AGI.


Yes, of this I am aware, since I prepare taxes for a living. The assertion that SE taxes are not income taxes simply because the SE tax shows up on the second page is laughable and asinine. In fact, ALL taxes are calculated and shown on the second page.

The very first line of the Schedule SE states "Name of person with self-employment income." SE tax is a tax on SE income. Ergo, income tax.
 
2012-09-19 02:52:50 PM

Jackson Herring: The All-Powerful Atheismo: That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.

That poor guy has a happier and more carefree existence than you or I ever will.


So you're suggesting that he's.... happier than you and me?
 
2012-09-19 02:53:03 PM
Ugh. We really need a "if your taxable income" (whatever the bottom line is on that farking form. The one that says how much of your income - from whatever source, minus family and first-home deductions - is subject to taxation before credits) "is more than 10x the median US salary" (that'd be $26,364 in 2010, 10x which would be $263,640), you pay a minimum of 5% tax on that figure. No credit or deduction (other than family and first/primary home) can get you out of paying that 5%.

It's really crazy that we still expect poor people to fork over payroll taxes - 4% of their salary (unless they're self-employed, in which case it's 10.2%), yet some rich people (who, it must be noted, don't pay a dime in payroll taxes after they earn their 110,100th dollar - Mitt hit that number in the first week of January last year) can't be bothered to fork over dime #1.
 
2012-09-19 02:54:05 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.


I'm sure even he feels the shame that comes along with being sometimes associated with Romney supporters.
 
2012-09-19 02:55:00 PM

Biological Ali: Jackson Herring: The All-Powerful Atheismo: That poor guy in that picture. I feel bad for him but I imagine if he ever knew he was being used for this meme he would greet the news with a smile and a vacant stare.

That poor guy has a happier and more carefree existence than you or I ever will.

So you're suggesting that he's.... happier than you and me?


Oh wow that took me a little while to get. Think about it though, how many times in a normal person's life do they experience an emotion as pure and innocent as that gentleman feels every time he thinks about ice cream?
 
2012-09-19 02:57:47 PM

The_Six_Fingered_Man: RyogaM: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Tell me. Where does "Self Employment" income show up?

Schedule C. Which gets wrapped around in front of the 1040 as AGI.

Yes, of this I am aware, since I prepare taxes for a living. The assertion that SE taxes are not income taxes simply because the SE tax shows up on the second page is laughable and asinine. In fact, ALL taxes are calculated and shown on the second page.

The very first line of the Schedule SE states "Name of person with self-employment income." SE tax is a tax on SE income. Ergo, income tax.


I too prepared taxes for many years. Perhaps I said that poorly. The long term capital gains show up and income and are taxed as income, granted at a different rate from the other ordinary income. Your income taxes are essentially calculated based off your Adjusted Gross income, which is the last number on the first page. All income you are taxed on for your income tax shows up on the front page. The point I was trying to make about the SE tax is that it is in the Other Taxes section. The SE is nothing more than payroll taxes, not income taxes. They are not the same thing. They are only added to the 1040 for the ease (I know some people will take exception with that word, lol) of the filer.
 
2012-09-19 02:57:56 PM

impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.


Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.
 
2012-09-19 03:00:26 PM
Hey, they have chairs with wheels and here I am using my legs like a sucker.
 
2012-09-19 03:01:02 PM
 
2012-09-19 03:02:55 PM
Can we focus a little bit more on how this "47%" figure includes children???

20% of Americans are under 15. Are Republicans really suggesting that we need to start taxing money from the Tooth Fairy? What percentage do we need to take from their allowance to ensure they have sufficient "skin in the game" (God how I loathe that phrase)?

How else are we supposed to interpret their need to include 6 year olds in their idiotic tirades?
 
2012-09-19 03:02:58 PM

Garet Garrett: impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.

Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.


So, this "47%" number is an even more meaningless statistic than it appeared to be at face value?
 
2012-09-19 03:03:01 PM

Tigger: If you're dependent on the government to manipulate the tax code in your favor, provide you amnesty for tax evasion and ignore derivatives fraud then it's a different type of dependent on the government.

Because for this type of dependent on the government you contribute to campaigns.


Wish I wasn't on mobile or you'd be getting "smart" and nice color of green highlighting. Hope I remember to do it when I get home.
 
2012-09-19 03:06:14 PM
Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link
 
2012-09-19 03:08:56 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


Meh, maybe, but what do you propose we do about the working poor? Folks who make $18,000 a year working full time, busting their asses for peanuts and maybe on AFDC/food stamps? We need to tax these people? You can't get blood from a turnip.

I know folks who have not struggled (really struggled) like to think that there are all these fat, lazy, minorities (shh!), with 14 kids by 8 different dads just suckling all of your hard earned money off the gov't teet while they ride around in their Cadillacs with their iPhones, but this is NOT the majority of the folks who are not paying federal taxes or getting some form of assistance. The majority of folks work their asses off in low level, low paying jobs but simply make too damn little money to pay federal income taxes.

/Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses - are they still in operation? . . If they'd rather die, then they had better do it and decrease the surplus population. Good night, gentlemen.
 
Bf+
2012-09-19 03:08:58 PM

Biological Ali: So, this "47%" number is an even more meaningless statistic than it appeared to be at face value?


emilyslist.org
Well, it's actually more like 147%
 
2012-09-19 03:09:27 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Can we focus a little bit more on how this "47%" figure includes children???


The figure is "47% of households have no net positive income tax."
 
2012-09-19 03:09:44 PM

skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!

we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!

Sounds like a new FOX sitcom to me!

only if I work on my super stereotypical NY accent and you sound like Good Will Hunting and call me a "wicked hahd-on" a lot


Ay, Guy... That's Boston. I sound more like the folks in Outside Providence. : )

popcornsocks.com

"Whatuh you two dildos up tuh?"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:10:04 PM

cig-mkr: Silly me, I thought everyone was obligated to pay the least amount of taxes legally possible.
The tax codes were created on by the House and Senate, passed by the President, and enforced by the IRS, so if you play by their rules and come out ahead what's the big whoop?
If you knew all the loop holes and could use them, wouldn't you?


The big "whoop" is that money influences politics and the wealthy have used their influence to re-write the tax code to their benefit. The expenses of government have to be paid and if wealthy people don't pull their weight someone else has to.
 
2012-09-19 03:10:10 PM

Garet Garrett: impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.

Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.


You didn't read the whole thing. Up until this year, if your income

These people might also be utilizing carryforwards to reduce their tax liability. Also, if they plowed millions into Roth IRAs like Mittens did, that income would be tax-free. I'm sure there are other gimmicks in the tax code that are more obscure.
 
2012-09-19 03:11:52 PM

keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!

we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!

Sounds like a new FOX sitcom to me!

only if I work on my super stereotypical NY accent and you sound like Good Will Hunting and call me a "wicked hahd-on" a lot

Ay, Guy... That's Boston. I sound more like the folks in Outside Providence. : )

[popcornsocks.com image 300x168]

"Whatuh you two dildos up tuh?"


oh... that's something entirely different. Less quaint, more "LOOK AT ME IMMA FARKING IDIOT!"

/no offense :)
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:12:06 PM

ManRay: Grungehamster: It would be hilarious if Romney's tax returns leaked and it turned out that he didn't pay any taxes in 2009

It is highly unlikely Romney paid no taxes in 2009 or any other year. Income taxes from speaking fees with deductions canceling them out, maybe. He pays taxes elsewhere and that's what will be used to water the attacks down.

Its a wet dream the left needs to give up on. There are other low hanging fruit on the Romney tree.


Like the amnesty of offshore accounts?
 
2012-09-19 03:12:48 PM
Damn lazy entitled Americans

growlersoftware.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:13:23 PM

Garet Garrett: impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.

Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.


Capital gains tax is income tax.
 
2012-09-19 03:14:33 PM

skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: keylock71: skullkrusher: but if you bash them over some poor person's head and take his wallet, you've managed to get both some money AND blood on your stones

Plus, they can hire someone to do the bashing, thereby creating a job. Win-win!

we just fixed shiat, masshole. skullkrusher and keylock71 go to Washington!

Sounds like a new FOX sitcom to me!

only if I work on my super stereotypical NY accent and you sound like Good Will Hunting and call me a "wicked hahd-on" a lot

Ay, Guy... That's Boston. I sound more like the folks in Outside Providence. : )

[popcornsocks.com image 300x168]

"Whatuh you two dildos up tuh?"

oh... that's something entirely different. Less quaint, more "LOOK AT ME IMMA FARKING IDIOT!"

/no offense :)


"Brown University?!? Hey, dey got one of dem in Providence, too!"
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:15:24 PM

cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link


So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.
 
2012-09-19 03:16:41 PM

Dr Dreidel: It's really crazy that we still expect poor people to fork over payroll taxes - 4% of their salary (unless they're self-employed, in which case it's 10.2%), yet some rich people (who, it must be noted, don't pay a dime in payroll taxes after they earn their 110,100th dollar - Mitt hit that number in the first week of January last year) can't be bothered to fork over dime #1.


As lottery runners, casino owners, mafiosos, coyotes, drug dealers, payday loaners, shyster lawyers, ghetto supermarket merchants, and low-income housing managers will tell you, there is no easier source of profit than the poor, and it takes effort to bilk the rich.

/The 'pubs just want in on the ez mony
 
2012-09-19 03:16:59 PM
It is because they are philanthropists and gave away all of their earnings to charities. I thought liberals wanted the wealthy to help out those in need.
 
2012-09-19 03:18:01 PM

brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).


1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.
 
2012-09-19 03:18:38 PM

Garet Garrett: Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.


I don't know what you're on about with regards to the article, but capital gains are income.
 
2012-09-19 03:19:17 PM

ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.


Been there, it isn't all it is cracked up to be.
 
2012-09-19 03:19:27 PM

vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.


You can only deduct up to, I think, 50% of your income with contributions to charity. These people are sneaky though and find other ways to deduct the rest.
 
2012-09-19 03:20:25 PM

keylock71: Ay, Guy... That's Boston. I sound more like the folks in Outside Providence. : )


Oh wow, check that movie out on YouTube. Not a great RI accent at all.
 
2012-09-19 03:22:22 PM

Semi-Sane: It is because they are philanthropists and gave away all of their earnings to charities. I thought liberals wanted the wealthy to help out those in need.


But according to Romney they are in that 47% of "victims" and those "who feel entitled" that he is against.
 
2012-09-19 03:22:26 PM

vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.


If you're Warren Buffet and giving half of your $44 billion fortune to charity, that's more than "give some money to charity". So yeah, if you're in the process of giving away $22 billion you're gonna have some pretty sweet write-offs.

It also shows what a d-bag he can be for going around saying his secretary is in a higher tax bracket. With deductions like that, she better be or he needs to fire his accountants.
 
2012-09-19 03:22:41 PM

Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

You can only deduct up to, I think, 50% of your income with contributions to charity. These people are sneaky though and find other ways to deduct the rest.


One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan
 
2012-09-19 03:23:03 PM

Jackson Herring: keylock71: Ay, Guy... That's Boston. I sound more like the folks in Outside Providence. : )

Oh wow, check that movie out on YouTube. Not a great RI accent at all.


Baldwin came the closest, I think... Not nearly enough RI colloquialisms, though.
 
2012-09-19 03:24:58 PM

Lost Thought 00: Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

You can only deduct up to, I think, 50% of your income with contributions to charity. These people are sneaky though and find other ways to deduct the rest.

One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan


Surely this sort of scheme is illegal.
 
2012-09-19 03:25:25 PM

ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.


The real money spot for a large return is 3 kids, single, and $12,750-$16,700 in earned income. EIC is maximized and the additional child tax credit is maximized. You can easily get back about $8K more than you paid in.
 
2012-09-19 03:26:22 PM
You know who needs a tax cut?

www.canyoncountryzephyr.com

This guy.
 
2012-09-19 03:26:36 PM

qorkfiend: Lost Thought 00: Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

You can only deduct up to, I think, 50% of your income with contributions to charity. These people are sneaky though and find other ways to deduct the rest.

One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan

Surely this sort of scheme is illegal.


It's illegal for that to be to sole purpose of the company. However, a flimsy cover story is all that is needed to avoid the watchful eye of the ever undermanned SEC oversight boards
 
2012-09-19 03:27:23 PM

madgonad: Garet Garrett: impaler: Yes, capital gains are income taxes.

Then the headline is just wrong then, since the 3,000 taxable units referenced in the data underlying the linked article have high incomes based upon the inclusion of capital gains, while the question of whether they're paying "income taxes" is a function of "individual income tax" - distinct from cap gains taxes.

You have to dig around to figure that out, of course, but the proof's here.

You didn't read the whole thing. Up until this year, if your income

These people might also be utilizing carryforwards to reduce their tax liability. Also, if they plowed millions into Roth IRAs like Mittens did, that income would be tax-free. I'm sure there are other gimmicks in the tax code that are more obscure.


Looks like half the post got eaten. Again, the way that taxes on long term capital gains are structured and the loopholes present you will see a lot more fluxuation in tax rates year to year than on earned income, so the idea that someone who makes almost all their money through financial investing will probably pay roughly the same amount over the long term (except if you use things like IRAs and irrevocable trusts to shield yourself from some liability). Simply put, it's more than possible to have an off year that you can benefit from through carryovers while still making bank when that's your method of making money.
 
2012-09-19 03:27:25 PM

cchris_39: If you're Warren Buffet and giving half of your $44 billion fortune to charity, that's more than "give some money to charity". So yeah, if you're in the process of giving away $22 billion you're gonna have some pretty sweet write-offs.

It also shows what a d-bag he can be for going around saying his secretary is in a higher tax bracket. With deductions like that, she better be or he needs to fire his accountants.


LOL. He pays less without charity contributions retard. He just makes his money with capital gains that is taxed at 15%.

Also, giving away $20 billion, that you will never see again, is a stupid way to save $3 billion. (you see $20 billion is a much larger number than $3 billion).

d-bag
 
2012-09-19 03:27:54 PM

cchris_39: It also shows what a d-bag he can be for going around saying his secretary is in a higher tax bracket. With deductions like that, she better be or he needs to fire his accountants.


Shut up, you moron
 
2012-09-19 03:28:55 PM

Jobber8742: ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.

The real money spot for a large return is 3 kids, single, and $12,750-$16,700 in earned income. EIC is maximized and the additional child tax credit is maximized. You can easily get back about $8K more than you paid in.


If you want to go whole hog you have those three kids by 3 different fathers. Child support is tax free, for the recipient. My ex gets $2,000 a month, tax free, in child support from me and other daddy while living in new baby's daddy house. She makes around 16k a year (working at Dick's sporting goods, love how that worked out) and gets a tax refund of around $6,000 every March.
 
2012-09-19 03:30:02 PM

jst3p: Jobber8742: ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.

The real money spot for a large return is 3 kids, single, and $12,750-$16,700 in earned income. EIC is maximized and the additional child tax credit is maximized. You can easily get back about $8K more than you paid in.

If you want to go whole hog you have those three kids by 3 different fathers. Child support is tax free, for the recipient. My ex gets $2,000 a month, tax free, in child support from me and other daddy while living in new baby's daddy house. She makes around 16k a year (working at Dick's sporting goods, love how that worked out) and gets a tax refund of around $6,000 every March.


Quite the lucky ducky
 
2012-09-19 03:31:18 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: I don't know what you're on about with regards to the article


I'm saying that the people who make 2.2 million in "income" are getting that in cap gains, on which they pay taxes. So citing to a table that talks about personal income taxes, not cap gains, to say that they don't pay income taxes is wrong if you consider cap gains tax to be income tax.

And the rate can be competitive with what you'd pay on ordinary income. Short term cap gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. And if somebody's living off $100k of cap gains/year with no earned income, the $15k they'll pay in tax on that, even if it's all long-term gains, is on the same order of magnitude as what they'd be paying if they earned that as salary. Admittedly, the numbers shift when you start talking in the millions per year.

I'm just asking for apples-to-apples comparisons. Include cap gains in income? Then include that they're paying fed tax on that.
 
2012-09-19 03:31:28 PM

Lost Thought 00: jst3p: Jobber8742: ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.

The real money spot for a large return is 3 kids, single, and $12,750-$16,700 in earned income. EIC is maximized and the additional child tax credit is maximized. You can easily get back about $8K more than you paid in.

If you want to go whole hog you have those three kids by 3 different fathers. Child support is tax free, for the recipient. My ex gets $2,000 a month, tax free, in child support from me and other daddy while living in new baby's daddy house. She makes around 16k a year (working at Dick's sporting goods, love how that worked out) and gets a tax refund of around $6,000 every March.

Quite the lucky ducky


True that, I wouldn't trade lives with her.
 
2012-09-19 03:32:39 PM
You would think the threadshiatting shill troll usual suspect would be here to defend their paymasters.
 
2012-09-19 03:33:38 PM

BravadoGT: So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


www.cbpp.org

Son. Have you *seen* a chart before?

Cause... what you said is REALLY farking dumb.
 
2012-09-19 03:35:32 PM

Garet Garrett: Vegan Meat Popsicle: I don't know what you're on about with regards to the article

I'm saying that the people who make 2.2 million in "income" are getting that in cap gains, on which they pay taxes. So citing to a table that talks about personal income taxes, not cap gains, to say that they don't pay income taxes is wrong if you consider cap gains tax to be income tax.

And the rate can be competitive with what you'd pay on ordinary income. Short term cap gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. And if somebody's living off $100k of cap gains/year with no earned income, the $15k they'll pay in tax on that, even if it's all long-term gains, is on the same order of magnitude as what they'd be paying if they earned that as salary. Admittedly, the numbers shift when you start talking in the millions per year.

I'm just asking for apples-to-apples comparisons. Include cap gains in income? Then include that they're paying fed tax on that.


Loss harvesting
 
2012-09-19 03:35:48 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


This.
 
2012-09-19 03:36:27 PM
An important thing to remember about that 47% figure is that it refers to a single, extraordinary tax year. It's utter bullshiat.
 
2012-09-19 03:37:04 PM

jst3p: Been there, it isn't all it is cracked up to be.


Maybe not for you and me, but for plenty of people it seems just fine.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:37:18 PM
47% of People understand percentages.
72% of People don't understand percentages.
 
2012-09-19 03:37:41 PM

BMulligan: An important thing to remember about that 47% figure is that it refers to a single, extraordinary tax year. It's utter bullshiat.


Cherry picking data points is a time honored statistical tradition
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:38:45 PM

BMulligan: An important thing to remember about that 47% figure is that it refers to a single, extraordinary tax year. It's utter bullshiat.


Oh.. for more reasons that on it is utter bullshiat.

It's mostly bullshiat, though, because it is another volley in the campaign of utter GOP redirection. They can't win of correct facts so they have to drop back to misleading facts.
 
2012-09-19 03:39:13 PM

ManRay: jst3p: Been there, it isn't all it is cracked up to be.

Maybe not for you and me, but for plenty of people it seems just fine.


I don't think there is anyone in that position by choice.
 
2012-09-19 03:39:52 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

This.


You too, huh? I wonder if you're realize your error...

/nah, you'll run like the other guy.
 
2012-09-19 03:40:02 PM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Can we focus a little bit more on how this "47%" figure includes children???

20% of Americans are under 15. Are Republicans really suggesting that we need to start taxing money from the Tooth Fairy? What percentage do we need to take from their allowance to ensure they have sufficient "skin in the game" (God how I loathe that phrase)?

How else are we supposed to interpret their need to include 6 year olds in their idiotic tirades?


The 47% refers to households, not individuals. So unless there are households comprised entirely of children you'll have to try again.
 
2012-09-19 03:40:13 PM

jst3p: Lost Thought 00: jst3p: Jobber8742: ManRay: brandied: I just wanna know how I can avoid paying taxes (legally).

1. Get a job making $40k or so a year.
2. Have a few kids.
3. Buy a house.
4. Take the deductions from your mortgage and kids.
5. Profit.

The real money spot for a large return is 3 kids, single, and $12,750-$16,700 in earned income. EIC is maximized and the additional child tax credit is maximized. You can easily get back about $8K more than you paid in.

If you want to go whole hog you have those three kids by 3 different fathers. Child support is tax free, for the recipient. My ex gets $2,000 a month, tax free, in child support from me and other daddy while living in new baby's daddy house. She makes around 16k a year (working at Dick's sporting goods, love how that worked out) and gets a tax refund of around $6,000 every March.

Quite the lucky ducky

True that, I wouldn't trade lives with her.


I wouldn't, either. I read this and was like "WTF" but then I remembered she's got 3 kids while working a part-time job with little hope for advancement...
 
2012-09-19 03:40:32 PM
Republicans, even if you tax 100% of the wealth of the 47% it will not pay off the national debt, so what is your point besides waging "class warfare"?
 
2012-09-19 03:42:14 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

This.


Wait, yeah. I jumped the gun.

"This" applies to your first two sentences. The rest not so much, as BeesNuts pointed out.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:42:30 PM

cchris_39: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

If you're Warren Buffet and giving half of your $44 billion fortune to charity, that's more than "give some money to charity". So yeah, if you're in the process of giving away $22 billion you're gonna have some pretty sweet write-offs.

It also shows what a d-bag he can be for going around saying his secretary is in a higher tax bracket. With deductions like that, she better be or he needs to fire his accountants.


How is he being a "d-bag"? If his income was capital gains and hers was salary then she would be paying a higher rate. She is paying a higher rate than Romney too. His point is that the tax sustem is screwed up and it is.
 
2012-09-19 03:42:53 PM

vpb: cig-mkr: Silly me, I thought everyone was obligated to pay the least amount of taxes legally possible.
The tax codes were created on by the House and Senate, passed by the President, and enforced by the IRS, so if you play by their rules and come out ahead what's the big whoop?
If you knew all the loop holes and could use them, wouldn't you?

The big "whoop" is that money influences politics and the wealthy have used their influence to re-write the tax code to their benefit. The expenses of government have to be paid and if wealthy people don't pull their weight someone else has to.


And we the sheeple, have never held the politicians accountable for their actions. Probably too busy trying to make enough of a living to support a family. And "The expenses of government" need to be reviewed, I'm sure there are some cost that could be slashed, like bridges and roads to nowhere, and not social programs.
/ not snark, I'm agreeing with you.
 
2012-09-19 03:43:29 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Can we focus a little bit more on how this "47%" figure includes children???

20% of Americans are under 15. Are Republicans really suggesting that we need to start taxing money from the Tooth Fairy? What percentage do we need to take from their allowance to ensure they have sufficient "skin in the game" (God how I loathe that phrase)?

How else are we supposed to interpret their need to include 6 year olds in their idiotic tirades?

The 47% refers to households, not individuals. So unless there are households comprised entirely of children you'll have to try again.


Which is why Mitt said:
"My job is not to worry about those people households I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people households who pay no income tax."

Oops. Is it as fun running interference for RMoney as it is to point out how wrong you always are?
 
2012-09-19 03:44:27 PM
those 3,000 taxpayers didn't write it.

www.csmonitor.com
 
2012-09-19 03:46:08 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

This.

Wait, yeah. I jumped the gun.

"This" applies to your first two sentences. The rest not so much, as BeesNuts pointed out.


Maybe I'll retract the snark from the last post there... you're not so bad. Bravado? Complete idiot. I pegged you as the same for simply agreeing with him. At least you didn't double down or run off. Credit where credit's due.

All the same. Romney was very clearly saying that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, and they feel entitled to health care, food, housing "you name it". If he "meant" Households, then he's still wrong. If he meant what he said, he's super-duper wrong.
 
2012-09-19 03:47:36 PM
if all of our roads and bridges were financed solely by the poor and penniless, I can guaran-damn-ty you nobody would be getting rich using more than their fair share of those roads and bridges.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 03:48:04 PM

SlothB77: those 3,000 taxpayers didn't write it.

[www.csmonitor.com image 300x200]


EXCUSE ME? Those 3000 corporate assholes sure had more of a say in the tax code than *I* did.
 
2012-09-19 03:48:09 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

This.


You realize all tax revenue goes into one pot right? That pot pays for wars and tax deductions for dancing horses also.
 
2012-09-19 03:49:37 PM

Lost Thought 00: It's illegal for that to be to sole purpose of the company. However, a flimsy cover story is all that is needed to avoid the watchful eye of the ever undermanned SEC oversight boards


I think I'm going to remain skeptical of tax avoidance analysis provided by someone who thinks the SEC has any "oversight" role with respect to a private, solely owned business entity.
 
2012-09-19 03:49:48 PM

qorkfiend: Lost Thought 00: Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

You can only deduct up to, I think, 50% of your income with contributions to charity. These people are sneaky though and find other ways to deduct the rest.

One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan

Surely this sort of scheme is illegal.


It is. The loan is a financing transaction and not deductible.
 
2012-09-19 03:50:14 PM

SlothB77: those 3,000 taxpayers didn't write it.

[www.csmonitor.com image 300x200]


How short should the tax code be while still ensuring that it captures the economic activity of 310 million people with incomes both on and off the continent, plus a similar number of businesses and charities, not to mention the various forms of income one might make.

So rules, penalties, enforcement, and all that - 6 pages, you think? 60? 600? 6,000?

// turns out, taxes are kind of important
// does anyone know how much, as a percentage, of those volumes apply to your standard "2 parents/incomes, 3 kids, a home and a 401(k)"? Is it more or less than 5%?
 
2012-09-19 03:50:55 PM

Antimatter: They are taxed at a different rate for some reason, which makes absolutely no sense. Income is income, regardless of the source, and should be taxed to the same rate.


And to be honest, if the rates were different capital gains (i.e. money you could be earning while playing a round of golf, or while you are sleeping) seems a better choice to be taxed higher than income tax (which for most people means you actually expended some effort working to get that income).
 
2012-09-19 03:52:23 PM

Garet Garrett: I'm just asking for apples-to-apples comparisons. Include cap gains in income? Then include that they're paying fed tax on that.


I'm not seeing what you're referring to when you talk about the TPC data. The article says that there are 3000 people with incomes over $2.2m who paid no income tax. With creative shifting of liabilities from year to year and write-offs, that's entirely possible. In fact, capital gains make it even easier. If you want to reduce your tax liability dramatically and suddenly you can sell a shiat-ton of losing stock and write off the losses to offset taxes on other income.

It is possible to earn money in a year and pay no income tax if you're creative enough.
 
2012-09-19 03:52:35 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

s3.amazonaws.com

DIdn't pay income taxes.
 
2012-09-19 03:52:58 PM

SlothB77: those 3,000 taxpayers didn't write it.

[www.csmonitor.com image 300x200]


No the GOP wrote it and wants to expand the list.
 
2012-09-19 03:53:29 PM

SlothB77: nobody would be getting rich using more than their fair share of those roads and bridges.


Please do show us where people are getting rich using "more than their fair share" of social programs. We'll wait.
 
2012-09-19 03:53:33 PM

kronicfeld: Lost Thought 00: It's illegal for that to be to sole purpose of the company. However, a flimsy cover story is all that is needed to avoid the watchful eye of the ever undermanned SEC oversight boards

I think I'm going to remain skeptical of tax avoidance analysis provided by someone who thinks the SEC has any "oversight" role with respect to a private, solely owned business entity.


www.waiting4cubs.com
 
2012-09-19 03:53:39 PM
Job creators, liberal media.
 
2012-09-19 03:58:54 PM

kronicfeld: Lost Thought 00: It's illegal for that to be to sole purpose of the company. However, a flimsy cover story is all that is needed to avoid the watchful eye of the ever undermanned SEC oversight boards

I think I'm going to remain skeptical of tax avoidance analysis provided by someone who thinks the SEC has any "oversight" role with respect to a private, solely owned business entity.


oh damn, I guess I'm not not a master of tax manipulation spending his free time on Fark
 
2012-09-19 04:00:00 PM
If this guy things tax returns are irrelevant to the task of getting elected as POTUS, then why the fark does he bring up taxes so often? Romney really is a shiatty person and I say again, If I was a republican, I'd be losing my shiat that McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan were the cream of the crop that rose to the top spot in my party.

These four people were foisted on America and that was bad enough, but to stand forth as the best representative of your party? Lulz! If I was a Republican, the next time I got some cheap sex in a mens room I'd rage-fark that ass hard out of pure anger!
 
2012-09-19 04:02:17 PM

BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


What the chart is saying is that over 60% of the people who don't pay income taxes DO pay payroll taxes. Which means they are working. Which means they are not deadbeat freeloaders.

/It's called 'missing the point'
 
2012-09-19 04:02:31 PM
The owner of the company I work for is a 1%

Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.


The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.
 
2012-09-19 04:04:06 PM

BeesNuts: Debeo Summa Credo: Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Can we focus a little bit more on how this "47%" figure includes children???

20% of Americans are under 15. Are Republicans really suggesting that we need to start taxing money from the Tooth Fairy? What percentage do we need to take from their allowance to ensure they have sufficient "skin in the game" (God how I loathe that phrase)?

How else are we supposed to interpret their need to include 6 year olds in their idiotic tirades?

The 47% refers to households, not individuals. So unless there are households comprised entirely of children you'll have to try again.

Which is why Mitt said:
"My job is not to worry about those people households I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people households who pay no income tax."

Oops. Is it as fun running interference for RMoney as it is to point out how wrong you always are?


Bbbbut Romney!!! I wasn't talking about the 47% that Romney mentioned, I was merely pointing out the egregious error in Taco's logic.

Does it feel good to be so wrong defending someone else who is wrong?
 
2012-09-19 04:04:33 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?
 
2012-09-19 04:05:59 PM

urbangirl: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

What the chart is saying is that over 60% of the people who don't pay income taxes DO pay payroll taxes. Which means they are working. Which means they are not deadbeat freeloaders.

/It's called 'missing the point'


But they're not paying income taxes. Income taxes that pay for the vast vast majority of discretionary federal spending. That IS the point.
 
2012-09-19 04:06:35 PM
When they got the figure of 47% that don't pay income taxes, did they consider CG income taxes? That's the only real fact that has any bearing in this context.
 
2012-09-19 04:07:00 PM

mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?


Doesn't make any difference. They're more than pulling their weight.
 
2012-09-19 04:07:10 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-09-19 04:09:31 PM

BeesNuts: Debeo Summa Credo: Debeo Summa Credo: BravadoGT: impaler: [www.cbpp.org image 288x235]


Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.

This.

Wait, yeah. I jumped the gun.

"This" applies to your first two sentences. The rest not so much, as BeesNuts pointed out.

Maybe I'll retract the snark from the last post there... you're not so bad. Bravado? Complete idiot. I pegged you as the same for simply agreeing with him. At least you didn't double down or run off. Credit where credit's due.

All the same. Romney was very clearly saying that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, and they feel entitled to health care, food, housing "you name it". If he "meant" Households, then he's still wrong. If he meant what he said, he's super-duper wrong.


Yes, he was technically wrong in saying that 47% of individuals don't pay taxes. If you added dependents to the numerator of that calculation the ratio would be much higher. You know what he meant.
 
2012-09-19 04:12:27 PM

Lost Thought 00: One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan


How is that legal?
 
2012-09-19 04:13:51 PM
I am in Romney's 47%. I paid no Federal Income Taxes last year because I don't have a farking job. I'd dearly love to be in the 53% but I'm not gonna ever vote for Willard Mitt Romney. Of course I'm boy gonna vote for Barack Hussein Obama either. Mostly because I'm a filthy non-citizen immigrant and can't vote, and can't afford to file the paperwork to become a citizen.

I want to be paying income tax, and I want my voice to matter in politics, so somebody hire me!
 
2012-09-19 04:16:06 PM

BeesNuts: Which is why Mitt said:
"My job is not to worry about those people households I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

"There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. These are people households who pay no income tax."

Oops. Is it as fun running interference for RMoney as it is to point out how wrong you always are?


To be fair, it was Mitt who farked it up.
 
2012-09-19 04:16:06 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Lost Thought 00: One neat trick is to make a shell corporation which accepts all your income, then loans it all out to your person at 0% interest. You pay no tax on the loaned money, and the corporation pays no tax because they have a net profit of $0 due to the loan

How is that legal?


Step 1: Be rich
Step 2: Hire awesome accountants and lawyers
Step 3: Profit!
 
2012-09-19 04:16:07 PM

mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?


If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.
 
2012-09-19 04:16:40 PM

pxsteel: The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes


But they own more than 40% of the wealth!

The bottom 40% own zero percent of the wealth. The inequality is the largest it's been since the great depression. And Romney/Ryan plan is to make it even worse.
 
2012-09-19 04:17:05 PM
www.precisionacademics.com.au

According to my math, I owe exactly potato in taxes.
 
2012-09-19 04:17:36 PM

Biological Ali: sweetmelissa31: vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?

There are 47 percent of the people who believe that they are entitled to tap-dancing horses, to car elevators, to the Presidency of the United States, to you-name-it.

If you give a poor person a horse, you feed him for a day (because he'll just club it over the head and eat it, that's what poor people do).

If you teach the horse to dance... well, I'm not sure how that actually helps anyone but you've got to admit it's kinda cool.


If you build a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. If you set him on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
 
2012-09-19 04:17:51 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


So, for the 10%'s, the people making 90% of the money, 70% of the tax is fair?

Look, I know I had the $30 surf n turf, and you only had the $5 hamburger... so $35, I'll pay 70% of that, so here's $24.50 to pay for my share of my $30 meal. Peace!
 
2012-09-19 04:18:46 PM

qorkfiend: Surely this sort of scheme is illegal.


http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-17/how-to-pay-no-taxes-1 0 -strategies-used-by-the-rich
 
2012-09-19 04:20:06 PM

pxsteel: Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


That's not how a progressive tax system works so your entire comment is pointless nonsense.
 
2012-09-19 04:20:13 PM

pxsteel: mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?

If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.


wut?
 
2012-09-19 04:20:17 PM

cig-mkr: if you play by their rules and come out ahead what's the big whoop?
If you knew all the loop holes and could use them, wouldn't you?


The argument is that it's the tax system that needs to be changed. No one would fault Romney (or anyone else) for reducing their tax burden legally. They would simply use that (potential) zero-tax payment as proof that the system is broken in such a way that favors the rich, thus arguing against the right's notion that taxes on the rich need to be lowered even further.

Having Romney paying zero, or close to zero, would undermine his plank of giving the rich more tax breaks.

If he did something illegal, that would be a whole different ball game, one that's not being discussed currently.
 
2012-09-19 04:21:38 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


You comparing the percent they pay based on an arbitrary percent of people. You are not comparing it the how much of income or wealth they have.

Are you saying that someone who make 1 trillion dollars should pay the same exact amount in taxes as someone that makes 0? Because that's the argument you are making.

Either you are very dumb or being very dishonest.
 
2012-09-19 04:22:13 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?

Doesn't make any difference. They're more than pulling their weight.


Correct. The wealthy exist in a separate universe than the rest of us. This is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2012-09-19 04:22:25 PM

stonicus: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

So, for the 10%'s, the people making 90% of the money, 70% of the tax is fair?

Look, I know I had the $30 surf n turf, and you only had the $5 hamburger... so $35, I'll pay 70% of that, so here's $24.50 to pay for my share of my $30 meal. Peace!


It is still way too complicated math for the GOP voting base. Can you use pictures?
 
2012-09-19 04:23:10 PM

pxsteel: mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?

If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.


Well they aren't really "making it" by themselves are they? They are not actually shiatting gold bricks. They are "making it" on the backs of the workers and if we want them to pay 90% in taxes, they should shut the fark up and pay it.
 
2012-09-19 04:25:50 PM
Latest poll today:|

Three out of four people say they have almost nothing in common with the GOP candidate.

Link
 
2012-09-19 04:27:31 PM

Corvus: But they own more than 40% of the wealth!


No, they don't, and it doesn't matter because that's a red herring.

The problem you encounter when you start talking about the top 1% is that you start including people who are "only" making a few hundred thousand a year. But if your target is the super-wealthy you need to start talking about more like the top .25%.

The wealth distribution in this country is so dangerously top heavy even people making hundreds of thousands a year are poor compared to the people who are causing the major disparity problem.

If you're going to argue about tax liability based on wealth you need to reduce it to actual numbers, not percentages. The top 1% includes too many people "poor enough" to skew the result so that it looks logical from the conservative perspective.

What never looks logical, however, is somebody pulling down $21,000,000 in one year and paying $3,000,000 on it, then whining about the poor and elderly not paying their fair share when they're asked to chip in an extra million. 

Oh, no. You poor baby. You'll only have $17,000,000 left over to bank! Better go shake down grandma for a slice of her social security check.
 
2012-09-19 04:28:06 PM

pxsteel: The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


You do know that to reduce the top 1% from paying 40% 20%, you have to reduce their share of total income?

growlersoftware.com
 
2012-09-19 04:29:06 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Corvus: But they own more than 40% of the wealth!

No, they don't, and it doesn't matter because that's a red herring.

The problem you encounter when you start talking about the top 1% is that you start including people who are "only" making a few hundred thousand a year. But if your target is the super-wealthy you need to start talking about more like the top .25%.

The wealth distribution in this country is so dangerously top heavy even people making hundreds of thousands a year are poor compared to the people who are causing the major disparity problem.

If you're going to argue about tax liability based on wealth you need to reduce it to actual numbers, not percentages. The top 1% includes too many people "poor enough" to skew the result so that it looks logical from the conservative perspective.

What never looks logical, however, is somebody pulling down $21,000,000 in one year and paying $3,000,000 on it, then whining about the poor and elderly not paying their fair share when they're asked to chip in an extra million. 

Oh, no. You poor baby. You'll only have $17,000,000 left over to bank! Better go shake down grandma for a slice of her social security check.


Well, he does need to pay his parents back and all...
 
2012-09-19 04:29:08 PM

deadcrickets: Latest poll today:|

Three out of four people say they have almost nothing in common with the GOP candidate.

Link


And that was poll done before Romney's true feelings hit the airwaves
 
2012-09-19 04:29:34 PM
I also like how the politicians tell us how screwed up and unfair the income tax system is, and then propose more of the same to fix it. It's almost like they benefit from keeping things screwed up.
 
2012-09-19 04:29:36 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.


Oh look, a new farkie!

pxsteel Favorited

Smartest
Funniest
2012-09-19 04:02:31 PM
(favorite: Obtuse Sh*thead)

Except, the * is an i
 
2012-09-19 04:29:58 PM

vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?


No, but I think one has a magic horse and dancing underwear.
 
2012-09-19 04:30:30 PM

Lost Thought 00: deadcrickets: Latest poll today:|

Three out of four people say they have almost nothing in common with the GOP candidate.

Link

And that was poll done before Romney's true feelings hit the airwaves


Exactly. It's the perfect time for Libertarians to steal more votes from the GOP!
 
2012-09-19 04:32:11 PM

BravadoGT: Yeah, payroll taxes are not income taxes. They're for social security and medicare--which, theoretically, you get back later. So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.


St. Ronnie is going to roll over in his grave when he hears the Republican base now wants to do away with the mortgage interest, earned income and child credits he implemented for working poor families to nudge them over the poverty line through tax breaks as opposed to things like minimum wage raises. He considered them hallmarks of his Presidency.

When St. Ronnie's signature pieces of legislation are too far left for the modern GOP to stomach, it might be a sign that you've fallen off the DERP ledge.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 04:32:40 PM
The rhetoric has always been "xx% don't pay taxes."

It's hasn't been "don't pay income taxes" or "don't pay any earnings related taxes" or anything like that.

Why is it so hard to see the intellectual dishonesty here? The people he is talking about might not pay *income* tax, but as we've seen in the stats a large percentage pay payroll tax. A large percentage of that group pay property tax and/or state income tax, and *everyone* pays sales taxes. He said "don't pay taxes." That's a dog whistle.

Sorry.. it's a totally unfair statement. It's GOP intellectual dishonesty to the max. Doubling down on it makes Mittens look like a freeper, and most sane individuals of any political persuasion don't want freepers to rule. So I'm sure we'll see how many INSANE voters we actually have this November.
 
2012-09-19 04:36:34 PM

THX 1138: [www.precisionacademics.com.au image 417x288]

According to my math, I owe exactly potato in taxes.


holy fark, a new one

where did you find that
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-09-19 04:38:11 PM

impaler: pxsteel: The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

You do know that to reduce the top 1% from paying 40% 20%, you have to reduce their share of total income?

[growlersoftware.com image 519x707]


If someone making $20 mil is forced to pay 50% income tax they still have $10 mil. Oh the humanity! How do you live on that?

If someone make $30k a year is taxed 33% then they have $20k a year and gets pretty hard to live.

That person making $30k is probably working 40-80 hours a week while Mr. 20 mil is sitting in the sun.

Does anyone on the far right ever think through this, or are they robots that get fed punch cards with talking points on them?
 
2012-09-19 04:39:31 PM

mrshowrules: pxsteel: mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?

If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.

Well they aren't really "making it" by themselves are they? They are not actually shiatting gold bricks. They are "making it" on the backs of the workers and if we want them to pay 90% in taxes, they should shut the fark up and pay it.


Hear hear.
 
2012-09-19 04:42:38 PM
No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.
 
2012-09-19 04:43:32 PM
People who work for a living, dedicate their useful working hours to an "employer" who doesn't pay them enough to put them at a livable income threshold: Parasites.

The employers who do that and force the public coffers to augment the "wages" they pay: Not parasites.

People who live on free money they don't have to work or do anything for that is, in fact, created by the first guy: Also not parasites. So not parasites, in fact, that we have to tax their free money at a lower rate than income that you have to actually work for to create incentives for them to go get that free money.

So what I'm getting from this is that living on welfare is only okay if you're already rich and don't need it.
 
2012-09-19 04:45:34 PM

d23: If someone making $20 mil is forced to pay 50% income tax they still have $10 mil. Oh the humanity! How do you live on that?

If someone make $30k a year is taxed 33% then they have $20k a year and gets pretty hard to live.

That person making $30k is probably working 40-80 hours a week while Mr. 20 mil is sitting in the sun.

Does anyone on the far right ever think through this, or are they robots that get fed punch cards with talking points on them?


You silly.

Taxing the person making $20 million punishes success, you see. What's the incentive to become obscenely wealthy if you have to pay higher taxes?

If you don't tax the poor people, they will just twiddle away and never improve themselves. What's the incentive to avoid crushing poverty if you don't have to pay taxes?

LOL. Liberals...
 
2012-09-19 04:46:00 PM
Mitt Romney doesn't get paid. I'm sure he has a corporation set up to receive all his speaking fees and such, those corporations then buy everything for him
 
2012-09-19 04:49:43 PM
I know if i had to pay an extra 3% on every million i made, i'd be pissed
/
 
2012-09-19 04:49:51 PM

The Muthaship: No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.


You should thank your boy Romney for starting up the tax return/tax cut debate,

I know dem strategists are. LOL
 
2012-09-19 04:51:40 PM

impaler: BravadoGT: Capital gains are taxed on an entirely different schedule that income taxes. While technically they are taxes on investment "income," the phrase "income taxes" as it is commonly used refers to taxes on wages. Romney would pay no income taxes right now because he has no job.

They're called "income taxes on capital gains."

They are part of the income tax.

Part of Romney's 1040 (income tax filing)
[growlersoftware.com image 613x600]


They are not subject to the personal income tax rate, and it's disingenuous to suggest that they are. They are not part of the income tax just because they are listed in the same form, if that were the case, payroll tax would be part of the income tax, and everything Romney said would be a total farking lie, we'd end up with 28% number, which is more than 90%comprised of the elderly, and people making less than 20k a year. But you already knew that, didn't you.
 
2012-09-19 04:51:47 PM

Corvus: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

You comparing the percent they pay based on an arbitrary percent of people. You are not comparing it the how much of income or wealth they have.

Are you saying that someone who make 1 trillion dollars should pay the same exact amount in taxes as someone that makes 0? Because that's the argument you are making.

Either you are very dumb or being very dishonest.


Por que no los dos?

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-19 04:52:56 PM

The Muthaship: No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.


Because on some level it is a requirement for civilized society.
 
2012-09-19 04:53:46 PM

The Muthaship: No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.


What's really precious is Republicans think that anyone but their brainwashed base cares. I, for one, would love to hear Obama talk more about income inequality. I'll bet I'm not alone.

/In the 53%
//Won't be voting for Rmoney
 
2012-09-19 04:56:44 PM

Tigger: If you're dependent on the government to manipulate the tax code in your favor, provide you amnesty for tax evasion and ignore derivatives fraud then it's a different type of dependent on the government.

Because for this type of dependent on the government you contribute to campaigns.




Then there's the whole issue of the wealthy being dependent on the labor for producing that wealth, but not rewarding that labor in a fair proportion to what they have profited.
 
2012-09-19 04:56:52 PM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: If the outrage is that 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, wouldn't Mittens support raising the minimum wage to try and bring that number down ("Now you're not too poor to avoid paying taxes")? Or is that another thing that makes Supply-side Baby Jesus cry?


Yup, SSBJ is sobbing. Instead of bringing people UP to a standard of living where they would be paying income taxes, the (R)'s would rather LOWER the threshold where people would have to pay income taxes. This is while simultaneously trimming back on the taxes people at the other end of the socioeconomic ladder would pay.

All that "skin in the game" bullsh*t, dontcha know...
 
2012-09-19 04:57:26 PM

Jackson Herring: holy fark, a new one

where did you find that


I learned some cool tricks in google images that i didn't know about before. I was so pleased I just had to take a photo of myself:

www.precisionacademics.com.au
 
2012-09-19 04:57:31 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: What's really precious is Republicans think that anyone but their brainwashed base cares. I, for one, would love to hear Obama talk more about income inequality. I'll bet I'm not alone.


I agree with you, actually. Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them. Fortunately for you all, I don't think you'll have to wait long.
 
2012-09-19 04:58:28 PM

The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.


Look how stupid you are.
 
2012-09-19 04:59:16 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: The Muthaship: No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.

What's really precious is Republicans think that anyone but their brainwashed base cares. I, for one, would love to hear Obama talk more about income inequality. I'll bet I'm not alone.

/In the 53%
//Won't be voting for Rmoney


/ditto
//Was in the top 5% of households by income tax paid last year
///Still not at the break even point that it would benefit me to vote Romney
 
2012-09-19 04:59:33 PM

impaler: d23: If someone making $20 mil is forced to pay 50% income tax they still have $10 mil. Oh the humanity! How do you live on that?

If someone make $30k a year is taxed 33% then they have $20k a year and gets pretty hard to live.

That person making $30k is probably working 40-80 hours a week while Mr. 20 mil is sitting in the sun.

Does anyone on the far right ever think through this, or are they robots that get fed punch cards with talking points on them?

You silly.

Taxing the person making $20 million punishes success, you see. What's the incentive to become obscenely wealthy if you have to pay higher taxes?

If you don't tax the poor people, they will just twiddle away and never improve themselves. What's the incentive to avoid crushing poverty if you don't have to pay taxes?

LOL. Liberals...


You say it's punishing success, I say it's a fee for service. You have far more to lose, so the government that ensures your countinuing wealth should charge you more to insure it... by your logic, insurance companies should charge the same fee for insuring a lamborghini as they do for a toyota tercel, because if they don't, it's punishing success. All this to say nothing of the fact that the rich use government services that aren't available or useful to the poor, do you think the guy making 30l a year gives a shiat about the securities and exchange commission? Why should we pretend that he benefits from the SEC as much as millionaires do? The reality is, for people making 15k-20l a year, even national defense doesn't matter... the reality is that anarchy and destabilization wouldn't really hurt them so much, they'd still be able to sell their sweat and live a similar lifestyle... the rich people have dozens of gated compounds they'd lose while fleeing. Poor McDonald's workers have little to no use for such an obscenely large military, they don't benefit from invading random countries halfway around the world, their Iranian Oil Interests aren't at all the same as Mitt Romney's. Aside from that, the reality is that if we include state, payroll, and sales taxes, poor people )20k or less) pay an average tax rate of 12.8%, whereas the effective tax rate on people making 200k or more is just 7.3%; so complaining that the rich are overtaxed is incredibly disingenuous when you only focus on one particular tax type so you can further a deeply flawed argument based on abject ignorance of reality.
 
2012-09-19 05:00:18 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.


this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism
 
2012-09-19 05:01:45 PM

The Muthaship: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: What's really precious is Republicans think that anyone but their brainwashed base cares. I, for one, would love to hear Obama talk more about income inequality. I'll bet I'm not alone.

I agree with you, actually. Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them. Fortunately for you all, I don't think you'll have to wait long.


That's the problem. Socialism is no longer viewed in a bad light by most Americans. I wrote an article about this about a year or two ago to Libertarians. The GOP keeps pounding that term and then pushing Fascism. What happens when you keep pushing one ideologue with hateful actions and statements? You get MASSIVE pushback. There is a very real chance right now that Americans will push the country much more towards socialism soon because of it.
 
2012-09-19 05:03:55 PM

skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism


If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.
 
2012-09-19 05:04:34 PM
Again, so much for the idiotic derp that our society is full of bottom feeders below the poverty line, living off the public trough without giving back.

I mean, who the f*ck are you people that believe this?
 
2012-09-19 05:06:01 PM

spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.


those Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochians are nuts.

No, I'm talking straight up, overthrow the state communal ownership of all capital sort of socialism. I think you get to have your own toothbrush
 
2012-09-19 05:10:12 PM

skullkrusher:
No, I'm talking straight up, overthrow the state communal ownership of all capital sort of socialism. I think you get to have your own toothbrush


b-b-but that guy has a nicer toothbrush than me...it's got the gum rubbing rubber on the sides and the tongue cleaner on the top. A tongue cleaner! I want a tongue cleaner. That ain't fair.
 
2012-09-19 05:12:27 PM

skullkrusher: spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.

those Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochians are nuts.

No, I'm talking straight up, overthrow the state communal ownership of all capital sort of socialism. I think you get to have your own toothbrush


See, the full on Marxist, totalitarian version is what I equate to communism (the real deal, not the corrupt real form we've seen in the USSR and China) and that's at one polar end of the scale. Socialism is sort of a sliding scale, and I think the US is close to the right spot on the scale, but I wish it were closer to the most European countries, but not quite as much to where you have government employees making planes etc.

You wouldn't catch too many arguing for that.
 
2012-09-19 05:13:34 PM

vernonFL: [www.altfg.com image 500x312]

Welfare Queens


www.dressage-news.com
Since Reagan, our nation's welfare queens have taken on a different look. Marijuana doesn't have a medical benefit, but watching a horse dance does?
 
2012-09-19 05:14:02 PM

spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.


I'm an collectivist anarchist but I'm aware that this is a super-minority opinion. I think this gives me a reasonable perspective to say that the Democrats are centrist capitalists almost universally, and the furthest left mainstream liberals go is "sort of a functional safety net, please, if it's not too much trouble".
 
2012-09-19 05:14:07 PM

spiderpaz: skullkrusher: spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.

those Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochians are nuts.

No, I'm talking straight up, overthrow the state communal ownership of all capital sort of socialism. I think you get to have your own toothbrush

See, the full on Marxist, totalitarian version is what I equate to communism (the real deal, not the corrupt real form we've seen in the USSR and China) and that's at one polar end of the scale. Socialism is sort of a sliding scale, and I think the US is close to the right spot on the scale, but I wish it were closer to the most European countries, but not quite as much to where you have government employees making planes etc.

You wouldn't catch too many arguing for that.


Yeah, agreed.

I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.
 
2012-09-19 05:14:45 PM

Jackson Herring: THX 1138: [www.precisionacademics.com.au image 417x288]

According to my math, I owe exactly potato in taxes.

holy fark, a new one

where did you find that


You can use google images to "search by image" to find images with similar characteristics (click on the camera icon next to the search field) by uploading an image from your computer. (so, save one of those, upload it and use the Google) You'll probably get a ton of identical images but you could dig deep and get lucky.

Altermatively, it's an istock.com image; if you can figure out what istock calls it (by contributor or other descriptive text) you can probably find more on their site.
 
2012-09-19 05:14:52 PM

spiderpaz: but I wish it were closer to the most European countries, but not quite as much to where you have government employees making planes etc.


We would have socialism comparable to European countries. The first step is to stop wasting billions and trillions on the military.
 
2012-09-19 05:15:37 PM

BravadoGT: So according to your chart, 61% of people who are not elderly, jobless, students, or disabled pay no income taxes. That's too damn high.



Millions of people are very poor in America. That's too damn high.
 
2012-09-19 05:15:57 PM

EighthDay: spiderpaz: skullkrusher: spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.

those Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochians are nuts.

No, I'm talking straight up, overthrow the state communal ownership of all capital sort of socialism. I think you get to have your own toothbrush

See, the full on Marxist, totalitarian version is what I equate to communism (the real deal, not the corrupt real form we've seen in the USSR and China) and that's at one polar end of the scale. Socialism is sort of a sliding scale, and I think the US is close to the right spot on the scale, but I wish it were closer to the most European countries, but not quite as much to where you have government employees making planes etc.

You wouldn't catch too many arguing for that.

Yeah, agreed.

I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.


I work with a lot of socialists and communists and no one advocates for that.
 
2012-09-19 05:16:10 PM

EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.


Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.
 
2012-09-19 05:17:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: spiderpaz: skullkrusher: A Dark Evil Omen: The Muthaship: Lots of D's (Obama, and 85-90% of Fark posters included) are absolutely pissed that they can't openly advocate for socialism and still have the elections come out the way they want them.

Look how stupid you are.

this. A Dark Evil Omen is one of very few farkers stupid enough to openly advocate for actual socialism

If you're talking Braint or France style socialism .... I think there are A LOT of farkers that would openly advocate for it. I'm pretty sure that 90% of either party doesn't have a firm grasp on all the nuances though, so when they argue, it turns into a whole bunch of herpa derp pretty quick.

I'm an collectivist anarchist but I'm aware that this is a super-minority opinion. I think this gives me a reasonable perspective to say that the Democrats are centrist capitalists almost universally, and the furthest left mainstream liberals go is "sort of a functional safety net, please, if it's not too much trouble".


So ... sort of a world with no private ownership - like a 7 billion man hippy commune then? Yeah, that's pretty extreme. Count me out ... I like all my modern conveniences, thank you. But tell me more about that safety net - I think I'd like some of that.
 
2012-09-19 05:18:21 PM

StopLurkListen: You can use google images to "search by image" to find images with similar characteristics (click on the camera icon next to the search field) by uploading an image from your computer


I should've elaborated in my previous post but I was using the click-and-drag feature where any image from another window can simply be dragged into the search field in the main google image search page (at least in chrome). it's pretty sweet.
 
2012-09-19 05:19:07 PM

spiderpaz: So ... sort of a world with no private ownership - like a 7 billion man hippy commune then? Yeah, that's pretty extreme. Count me out ... I like all my modern conveniences, thank you. But tell me more about that safety net - I think I'd like some of that.


That's a bit extreme, but collectivism we can agree on isn't such a bad thing. In fact, the more we continue to use up resources and not do such a good job of conserving them, we really should be pooling our available options.
 
2012-09-19 05:19:10 PM

whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.


even I can get on board with that, to some degree
 
2012-09-19 05:19:47 PM

Dr Dreidel: Ugh. We really need a "if your taxable income" (whatever the bottom line is on that farking form. The one that says how much of your income - from whatever source, minus family and first-home deductions - is subject to taxation before credits) "is more than 10x the median US salary" (that'd be $26,364 in 2010, 10x which would be $263,640), you pay a minimum of 5% tax on that figure. No credit or deduction (other than family and first/primary home) can get you out of paying that 5%.

It's really crazy that we still expect poor people to fork over payroll taxes - 4% of their salary (unless they're self-employed, in which case it's 10.2%), yet some rich people (who, it must be noted, don't pay a dime in payroll taxes after they earn their 110,100th dollar - Mitt hit that number in the first week of January last year) can't be bothered to fork over dime #1.


So how would you deal with casualty/theft loss for those folks?

I'm guessing a good chunk of those 3,000 who paid no tax would have used that as a deduction. However, I'm confused as to how they are using 2011 data when returns under extension aren't due until October.
 
2012-09-19 05:19:59 PM

spiderpaz: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: The Muthaship: No more threads about Obama saying that he wants redistribution of wealth. This is getting ridiculous.

What's really precious is Republicans think that anyone but their brainwashed base cares. I, for one, would love to hear Obama talk more about income inequality. I'll bet I'm not alone.

/In the 53%
//Won't be voting for Rmoney

/ditto
//Was in the top 5% of households by income tax paid last year
///Still not at the break even point that it would benefit me to vote Romney


Due to the fact that Romney want to pillage the mortgage tax deduction (the middle class holy grail) in order to lower capital gains taxes further - you never will be.
 
2012-09-19 05:21:23 PM
Well since Romney is bringing up income taxes then I'd like to see 10 years of his returns.
 
2012-09-19 05:21:45 PM

THX 1138: StopLurkListen: You can use google images to "search by image" to find images with similar characteristics (click on the camera icon next to the search field) by uploading an image from your computer

I should've elaborated in my previous post but I was using the click-and-drag feature where any image from another window can simply be dragged into the search field in the main google image search page (at least in chrome). it's pretty sweet.


I didn't know that. I promise to use this power for good and to not think of using it for evil more than five or six times an hour.
 
2012-09-19 05:22:19 PM

spiderpaz: I'm an collectivist anarchist but I'm aware that this is a super-minority opinion. I think this gives me a reasonable perspective to say that the Democrats are centrist capitalists almost universally, and the furthest left mainstream liberals go is "sort of a functional safety net, please, if it's not too much trouble".

So ... sort of a world with no private ownership - like a 7 billion man hippy commune then? Yeah, that's pretty extreme. Count me out ... I like all my modern conveniences, thank you. But tell me more about that safety net - I think I'd like some of that.


Well, that's not what I'm saying at all, I merely reject the assertion that farked-up capitalist ideas of state and property are either necessary or helpful to maintaining a modern society. I don't reject property at all, neither do most anarchists (you want communists for that). However, I also don't accept the idea that having masses of slave labor and a managerial hierarchy that makes money off their backs is somehow necessary to make an iPod.
 
2012-09-19 05:24:46 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.

even I can get on board with that, to some degree


buzzworthy.mtv.com

Whoa. Good on you.
 
2012-09-19 05:27:35 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Well, that's not what I'm saying at all, I merely reject the assertion that farked-up capitalist ideas of state and property are either necessary or helpful to maintaining a modern society. I don't reject property at all, neither do most anarchists (you want communists for that). However, I also don't accept the idea that having masses of slave labor and a managerial hierarchy that makes money off their backs is somehow necessary to make an iPod.


Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.
 
2012-09-19 05:27:57 PM

stonicus: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

So, for the 10%'s, the people making 90% of the money, 70% of the tax is fair?

Look, I know I had the $30 surf n turf, and you only had the $5 hamburger... so $35, I'll pay 70% of that, so here's $24.50 to pay for my share of my $30 meal. Peace!


I notice that you neglected to include a gratuity for your hard-working server. You really ARE thinking like a 1%-er!

/What's the difference between a rich person and a canoe?
//Canoes tip
 
2012-09-19 05:29:43 PM

whidbey: Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.


Actually, I don't accept that there's a difference; what distinguishes "corporatism" from "capitalism"? I also don't accept that there is any sort of necessary "business" class; there are workers, and that includes people who do things like project management, and there are parasitic capitalists.
 
2012-09-19 05:34:47 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.

even I can get on board with that, to some degree


Count me in. My electric provider - Ameren - just doubled the cost of a month of service. My electric bill each month is $86. I live alone in a one bedroom apartment.

It's ok though, because they held a town hall meeting.
 
kab
2012-09-19 05:35:03 PM

pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.



Between 1987 and 2008, the share of income controlled by the top 1% grew to 20% from 12%. That signals a total share growth of 67%. During the same period, their share of taxes went to 28% from 24%, suggesting share growth of 17%.

In other words, the top 1% share of income grew nearly five times faster than their share of taxes.
 
2012-09-19 05:35:51 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.

Actually, I don't accept that there's a difference; what distinguishes "corporatism" from "capitalism"? I also don't accept that there is any sort of necessary "business" class; there are workers, and that includes people who do things like project management, and there are parasitic capitalists.


Corporatism is a system built to support faceless companies owned by stock holders rather than attempting to keep a level playing field for all economic actors including small privately held companies.

You can't seriously compare a Dentist who owns a small two room office and employs three people with GE and say they're the same and equally to blame.
 
2012-09-19 05:36:39 PM
Holy crap! Have a group of several adults with widely differing political/economic ideologies just had 30ish exchanges about differing degrees of socialism and their pros and cons while staying rational and respectful?

Where the hell are all the trolls right now? Is there a Glenn Beck thread today or something?
 
2012-09-19 05:37:54 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: what distinguishes "corporatism" from "capitalism"?


Capitalism is my small business. It's pretty much accountable to me and whatever laws I need to follow to run it. This sort of capitalism often embraces traditional practices such as bartering, and often furthers a positive community spirit in that the money stays in the region.

Corporatism is. well, King. God. Once you reach that level, you can manipulate and circumvent laws, lobby successfully against labor reform, and move your sh*t totally overseas and continue to thumb your nose at everyone with your low growth, low wage bonanza. Big ass differences.
 
2012-09-19 05:37:58 PM
Ultimately this is a status issue, Romney was saying "You're better than those useless liberals, you pay your taxes and they don't" (God, if only that were true!). It would be nice for the repub candidate to appeal to the wealthy's sense of noblesse oblige, rather than their basic greed, if Romney were to say to his constituents "Those worthless leeches can't pay their bills, we're counting on you to forego your new vacation home in order to make up the difference," rather than "Those worthless leeches can't pay their bills, let's screw them over until they scream for mercy, and then screw 'em some more."
 
2012-09-19 05:40:12 PM

spiderpaz: Holy crap! Have a group of several adults with widely differing political/economic ideologies just had 30ish exchanges about differing degrees of socialism and their pros and cons while staying rational and respectful?

Where the hell are all the trolls right now? Is there a Glenn Beck thread today or something?


speaking of trolls, I haven't seen EWreckedSean shiatting all over a thread in quite a while.
 
2012-09-19 05:40:24 PM

whidbey: A Dark Evil Omen: Well, that's not what I'm saying at all, I merely reject the assertion that farked-up capitalist ideas of state and property are either necessary or helpful to maintaining a modern society. I don't reject property at all, neither do most anarchists (you want communists for that). However, I also don't accept the idea that having masses of slave labor and a managerial hierarchy that makes money off their backs is somehow necessary to make an iPod.

Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.


No, the problem is capitalism - an economic system based on the idea that capital should be artificially overvalued relative to labor. It's an insidious, intentional distortion of the market created by means of manipulating tax rates, border controls, and other legal and cultural mechanisms. We are taught to believe that capitalism is synonymous with the "free mark" but nothing could be further from the truth.
 
2012-09-19 05:41:02 PM
*market
 
2012-09-19 05:42:07 PM

BMulligan: No, the problem is capitalism - an economic system based on the idea that capital should be artificially overvalued relative to labor.


Well, I don't know. Seems that you should be able to mark up what you're selling to do more than just break even.
 
2012-09-19 05:42:46 PM

Lunchlady: A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.

Actually, I don't accept that there's a difference; what distinguishes "corporatism" from "capitalism"? I also don't accept that there is any sort of necessary "business" class; there are workers, and that includes people who do things like project management, and there are parasitic capitalists.

Corporatism is a system built to support faceless companies owned by stock holders rather than attempting to keep a level playing field for all economic actors including small privately held companies.

You can't seriously compare a Dentist who owns a small two room office and employs three people with GE and say they're the same and equally to blame.


In any form, the capitalist system allows the latter to exist but serves the former. There is no situation in which a system built on coercive hierarchy, whether that coercive hierarchy is business or state (and, indeed, the two are indistinguishable at the highest levels, see the various company towns that have existed in the US, or the Congo Free State, or the various South American banana republics, etc etc) will not devolve into such a thing. In principle, no, I reject all coercive relationships. In practice, the dentist is okay but so was Edison's Menlo Park laboratory. And now we have GE.
 
2012-09-19 05:44:04 PM

skullkrusher: whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.

even I can get on board with that, to some degree


s3.amazonaws.com 
late to the thread, read the funniest first and skipped to this?
i need to lay down.
 
2012-09-19 05:45:37 PM
who is the "potato man?" and what is his story? I must know!

/potato
/potato!
 
2012-09-19 05:45:40 PM

whidbey: skullkrusher: whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.

even I can get on board with that, to some degree

[buzzworthy.mtv.com image 330x261]

Whoa. Good on you.


that sort of thing makes sense. Utilities are monopolistic by nature of physical constraints. Unless we can get an efficient way to beam power over distances, it makes sense for everyone if it is non-profit.
 
2012-09-19 05:55:16 PM

skullkrusher: that sort of thing makes sense. Utilities are monopolistic by nature of physical constraints. Unless we can get an efficient way to beam power over distances, it makes sense for everyone if it is non-profit.


I can't wait until we figure out a way to do that. Solar station with array hookups on the ground = free power for everyone forever. Well, minus the cost of upkeep for the space station solar arrays and the power receiving stations and all the infrastructure to get it to your house. So. Relatively cheap power for everyone forever!
 
2012-09-19 05:58:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: Or that it's possible to make them locally, in mitigated communities where business and labor share pretty much equally. I'm pretty sure we both agree that it's corporatism, not capitalism, that's the real runaway destructive element here.

Actually, I don't accept that there's a difference; what distinguishes "corporatism" from "capitalism"? I also don't accept that there is any sort of necessary "business" class; there are workers, and that includes people who do things like project management, and there are parasitic capitalists.

Corporatism is a system built to support faceless companies owned by stock holders rather than attempting to keep a level playing field for all economic actors including small privately held companies.

You can't seriously compare a Dentist who owns a small two room office and employs three people with GE and say they're the same and equally to blame.

In any form, the capitalist system allows the latter to exist but serves the former. There is no situation in which a system built on coercive hierarchy, whether that coercive hierarchy is business or state (and, indeed, the two are indistinguishable at the highest levels, see the various company towns that have existed in the US, or the Congo Free State, or the various South American banana republics, etc etc) will not devolve into such a thing. In principle, no, I reject all coercive relationships. In practice, the dentist is okay but so was Edison's Menlo Park laboratory. And now we have GE.


I see what you're saying but outside of having better regulation I can't think of a system that will work better that doesn't either completely control means of production and employment (authoritarianism, communism, fascism) or isn't just complete chaos (anarchy). Even in a chaotic system human nature will tend towards social structure which means that really total control is the only permanent solution to the problem you speak of.
 
2012-09-19 06:06:32 PM

Lunchlady: I see what you're saying but outside of having better regulation I can't think of a system that will work better that doesn't either completely control means of production and employment (authoritarianism, communism, fascism) or isn't just complete chaos (anarchy). Even in a chaotic system human nature will tend towards social structure which means that really total control is the only permanent solution to the problem you speak of.


Why? Even in a context that retains the state, why is it impossible to change the economic incentives and convert from a capitalist system to a democratic one? This is not a natural situation by any means, merely a series of societal constructs. Do you think that it is impossible to have a worker-owned and democratically-operated "company" make iPods? Do you think it is unreasonable for the dentist and the three other people that work there to structure compensation differently?

Further to that, anarchism doesn't imply or require pure chaos. Neither I nor any other collectivist anarchist of any sort wants to do away with all societal structure. On the contrary, I would assert that a truly democratic and voluntary system is the only real path to order. Why do you feel that it is necessary to have rulers?
 
2012-09-19 06:09:00 PM

spiderpaz: Holy crap! Have a group of several adults with widely differing political/economic ideologies just had 30ish exchanges about differing degrees of socialism and their pros and cons while staying rational and respectful?

Where the hell are all the trolls right now? Is there a Glenn Beck thread today or something?


As a long time lurker I'd like to say, keep it up guys.

This is far more interesting to read that the usual herp-derp on this tab.
 
2012-09-19 06:11:11 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Why do you feel that it is necessary to have rulers?


How else do we measure things that are a foot long?

Seriously though, human nature rules out anarchy because free will dictates that a certain percentage of the population are not honest actors. Same reason Communism doesn't work.
 
2012-09-19 06:11:45 PM

whidbey: BMulligan: No, the problem is capitalism - an economic system based on the idea that capital should be artificially overvalued relative to labor.

Well, I don't know. Seems that you should be able to mark up what you're selling to do more than just break even.


Of course. Economic activity requires both capital and labor, and both ought to be able to prosper, but neither ought to prosper at the expense of the other.
 
2012-09-19 06:14:58 PM

cameroncrazy1984: A Dark Evil Omen: Why do you feel that it is necessary to have rulers?

How else do we measure things that are a foot long?

Seriously though, human nature rules out anarchy because free will dictates that a certain percentage of the population are not honest actors. Same reason Communism doesn't work.


I don't see how that follows. Indeed, the fact that some people are not honest or cooperative actors should tend to lead one to want to eliminate structures that can - in fact, are likely - to put those people in positions of power over great numbers of other people. This is sort of the problem we're dealing with right now, none of the people in power in any area of public life are dealing honestly.
 
2012-09-19 06:20:36 PM
Millions of envious poor would do the same thing with their taxes as the envied rich were the envious poor the envied rich.
 
2012-09-19 06:20:45 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: I see what you're saying but outside of having better regulation I can't think of a system that will work better that doesn't either completely control means of production and employment (authoritarianism, communism, fascism) or isn't just complete chaos (anarchy). Even in a chaotic system human nature will tend towards social structure which means that really total control is the only permanent solution to the problem you speak of.

Why? Even in a context that retains the state, why is it impossible to change the economic incentives and convert from a capitalist system to a democratic one? This is not a natural situation by any means, merely a series of societal constructs. Do you think that it is impossible to have a worker-owned and democratically-operated "company" make iPods? Do you think it is unreasonable for the dentist and the three other people that work there to structure compensation differently?

Further to that, anarchism doesn't imply or require pure chaos. Neither I nor any other collectivist anarchist of any sort wants to do away with all societal structure. On the contrary, I would assert that a truly democratic and voluntary system is the only real path to order. Why do you feel that it is necessary to have rulers?


To your first question:

Yes, I think that it's impossible to have a democratically owned and run business. Think of a Credit Union, which is the best example I can think of the most resembles your ideal. On paper the financial institution is wholly owned by the share holders, but most have no interest in being bothered to run the place; either because of lack of expertise, drive, interest, and their own responsibilities. Basically the fact that workers have lives outside of the company they would need to run means that some people would inherently spend more time on the well-being of the enterprise and would thus deserve more money. If they didn't get more they would leave for another company or they get paid more, either way we're suddenly talking about capitalism. Ironically the only way your situation works is if the company becomes the controlling factor in the employee's lives and at that point we're talking about company towns. Albeit likely more egalitarian than 1890's coal towns, but then we're talking about corporatism. The reason why your ideal doesn't and won't work is because no one is equal at home. Some people have a wife and kids to deal with, some people want to spend money on their lawn, some people want to vacation to the beach, it's never going to be a situation with fair compensation because it's never going to be an equal amount of input or effort from everyone. You would have to raise each person from birth to only care about this one specific company and not to open the nature/nurture debate science proves that some people are just hardwired to care about some things more than others.

And I don't feel it's necessary to have leaders, society does. There wasn't a philosophical debate on the relationship between governed and leaders 100,000 years ago in human history, we tended towards that because we could separate work loads and mutually benefit. It's a natural event in human evolution. If we threw 100 people on an island and left them equal amounts of supplies and equally far distances apart and left them for a year we'd come back and find at most three or four different groups (and likely only one) as they would have found each other and worked out a system to keep each other alive and focus on their own unique skills. There might be one or two stragglers but by and large they would band together, even if they all spoke different languages.
 
2012-09-19 06:24:45 PM

A Terrible Human: Well since Romney is bringing up income taxes then I'd like to see 10 years of his returns.


THIS

SHOW US THE TAX RETURNS!
 
2012-09-19 06:30:22 PM

Lunchlady: To your first question:

Yes, I think that it's impossible to have a democratically owned and run business. Think of a Credit Union, which is the best example I can think of the most resembles your ideal. On paper the financial institution is wholly owned by the share holders, but most have no interest in being bothered to run the place; either because of lack of expertise, drive, interest, and their own responsibilities. Basically the fact that workers have lives outside of the company they would need to run means that some people would inherently spend more time on the well-being of the enterprise and would thus deserve more money. If they didn't get more they would leave for another company or they get paid more, either way we're suddenly talking about capitalism. Ironically the only way your situation works is if the company becomes the controlling factor in the employee's lives and at that point we're talking about company towns. Albeit likely more egalitarian than 1890's coal towns, but then we're talking about corporatism. The reason why your ideal doesn't and won't work is because no one is equal at home. Some people have a wife and kids to deal with, some people want to spend money on their lawn, some people want to vacation to the beach, it's never going to be a situation with fair compensation because it's never going to be an equal amount of input or effort from everyone. You would have to raise each person from birth to only care about this one specific company and not to open the nature/nurture debate science proves that some people are just hardwired to care about some things more than others.


That's a rather overcomplex justification given that your premise is wrong. There are worker-owned and democratically-operated businesses, quite a few of them. Argentina has an entire major segment of its national industry based on what amount to occupied factories that are operated democratically. The much-vaunted "liberalization of industry" in the SFRY under Tito in the 70s led to a conversion to this sort of system, not to private capitalism, to great effect. I could go on, the list is not over-long but it is substantial enough to show that this method of operation can and does work.

And I don't feel it's necessary to have leaders, society does. There wasn't a philosophical debate on the relationship between governed and leaders 100,000 years ago in human history, we tended towards that because we could separate work loads and mutually benefit. It's a natural event in human evolution. If we threw 100 people on an island and left them equal ...

Again, social organization does not necessarily imply hierarchy or formal leadership. Why do you make this false conflation? There is nothing in your factitious example that requires a leadership hierarchy, and one reasonably expects, in fact, that leadership struggles would - as they often do - lead to a breakdown in organization, not improvements.
 
2012-09-19 06:32:12 PM

Lunchlady: Yes, I think that it's impossible to have a democratically owned and run business.


Obviously, I disagree with this.
 
2012-09-19 06:33:00 PM
Whoops. I meant DEO.
 
2012-09-19 06:34:11 PM

whidbey: Whoops. I meant DEO.


Nope, you were right the first time.
 
2012-09-19 06:35:18 PM
what a mess
 
2012-09-19 06:35:32 PM

whidbey: skullkrusher: whidbey: EighthDay: I'm pretty far-left, extreme liberal, and even I don't think the full-on totalitarian socialist society is a good idea.

Nobody's arguing for that.

Right now, it would make sense for us to acknowledge that all our utilities and basic public services should be socialized, and take it from there.

even I can get on board with that, to some degree

[buzzworthy.mtv.com image 330x261]

Whoa. Good on you.


And farkin' cable. Not cable TV or cable internet, the actual fiber optic network. Then you can buy cable whatever from anybody, and they can rent lines as they need it, much the way air bandwidth works.
 
2012-09-19 06:36:55 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: whidbey: Whoops. I meant DEO.

Nope, you were right the first time.


Oh. So I was. :)
 
2012-09-19 06:48:00 PM

Tigger: If you're dependent on the government to manipulate the tax code in your favor, provide you amnesty for tax evasion and ignore derivatives fraud then it's a different type of dependent on the government.

Because for this type of dependent on the government you contribute to campaigns.


Princeps legibus solutus est.
 
2012-09-19 06:48:13 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: To your first question:

Yes, I think that it's impossible to have a democratically owned and run business. Think of a Credit Union, which is the best example I can think of the most resembles your ideal. On paper the financial institution is wholly owned by the share holders, but most have no interest in being bothered to run the place; either because of lack of expertise, drive, interest, and their own responsibilities. Basically the fact that workers have lives outside of the company they would need to run means that some people would inherently spend more time on the well-being of the enterprise and would thus deserve more money. If they didn't get more they would leave for another company or they get paid more, either way we're suddenly talking about capitalism. Ironically the only way your situation works is if the company becomes the controlling factor in the employee's lives and at that point we're talking about company towns. Albeit likely more egalitarian than 1890's coal towns, but then we're talking about corporatism. The reason why your ideal doesn't and won't work is because no one is equal at home. Some people have a wife and kids to deal with, some people want to spend money on their lawn, some people want to vacation to the beach, it's never going to be a situation with fair compensation because it's never going to be an equal amount of input or effort from everyone. You would have to raise each person from birth to only care about this one specific company and not to open the nature/nurture debate science proves that some people are just hardwired to care about some things more than others.

That's a rather overcomplex justification given that your premise is wrong. There are worker-owned and democratically-operated businesses, quite a few of them. Argentina has an entire major segment of its national industry based on what amount to occupied factories that are operated democratically. The much-vaunted "liberalization of industry" in the ...


Your example from the first paragraph invalidates the first. Even if they are elected by a group who all have equal say there is a still a group in a leadership position elected to run such co-ops. Again, a credit union elects the president and board to see after their money. You can not find me a single example of a co-op company that attempts to exist within a larger system that does not have leaders or figure heads to represent the company. Again, there are people who make their job their life and there are others who just use it to make money. You will never get the latter to care as much as the former. New England town government is a good example. Every single voting age person has a vote, but still depends on elected leadership because the simple fact is that a baker in town is much to busy to worry about school funding appropriations and would rather spend part of his taxes paying someone else to deal with it.

Frankly I think your views come more from pessimism than equality. Leadership does not necessarily lead to a breakdown in organization. Incompetent, unfair, disconnected leadership? Yes, sometimes. But in times of good leadership everyone prospers, of which there are many many examples. I'll admit that our system is far far from perfect and needs a long look in the mirror but your solution relies upon isolated systems. It has to or there are going to be too many opportunities for the most talented in a cooperatively owned enterprise to leave and do better for themselves.
 
2012-09-19 06:53:35 PM

highendmighty: Millions of envious poor would do the same thing with their taxes as the envied rich were the envious poor the envied rich.


So vote Republican!
 
2012-09-19 06:58:09 PM

Lunchlady: Your example from the first paragraph invalidates the first. Even if they are elected by a group who all have equal say there is a still a group in a leadership position elected to run such co-ops. Again, a credit union elects the president and board to see after their money. You can not find me a single example of a co-op company that attempts to exist within a larger system that does not have leaders or figure heads to represent the company.


FaSinPat is one easy example. You're wrong, do you get that? Do you understand that you are factually wrong? I can't discuss this with you when you're not willing to acknowledge reality.

Lunchlady: Frankly I think your views come more from pessimism than equality.


What's this even supposed to mean? If I were pessimistic I'd be spouting the same defeatist "well, we can't do better than the current disaster so we shouldn't even try" rhetoric as most people.
 
2012-09-19 07:06:33 PM

Muta: Antimatter: They are taxed at a different rate for some reason, which makes absolutely no sense. Income is income, regardless of the source, and should be taxed to the same rate.

Haven't you been paying attention?

If capital gains income is taxed at the same rate as income from working, job creators wouldn't create jobs.


Nope, but the government would then have the money to create some.
 
2012-09-19 07:12:18 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: Your example from the first paragraph invalidates the first. Even if they are elected by a group who all have equal say there is a still a group in a leadership position elected to run such co-ops. Again, a credit union elects the president and board to see after their money. You can not find me a single example of a co-op company that attempts to exist within a larger system that does not have leaders or figure heads to represent the company.

FaSinPat is one easy example. You're wrong, do you get that? Do you understand that you are factually wrong? I can't discuss this with you when you're not willing to acknowledge reality.

Lunchlady: Frankly I think your views come more from pessimism than equality.

What's this even supposed to mean? If I were pessimistic I'd be spouting the same defeatist "well, we can't do better than the current disaster so we shouldn't even try" rhetoric as most people.


From a wikipedia source:

On winning a court action: "This is incredible, we are happy. The expropriation is an act of justice," said Alejandro Lopez the General Secretary of the Ceramists Union
Link: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2052/1/

From another source he's not even the first general secretary, back in 2009 they had a Raul Godoy as spokesman.

Again, these are officials who are elected and appointed by the co-op. Your example invalidates your point, there will always be those elected to represent the issues of many. Perhaps not lead, but there is a disparity in responsibility and always will be in representation if not leadership.

Look I'm not arguing this isn't a great system. Good for them and if it works for them then awesome. But you can't structure a society like that. There will always be have nots, in a good society the government focuses on making sure they're concerns are also cared for. I imagine that's also a consideration of the factory in Argentina. However no matter how harmonious the factory is they aren't hiring people who can't actually work so they don't need to worry about those who can't carry their own weight, the old, sick, or weak. Yes they help the surrounding communities but a ceramics company isn't growing food or policing the streets. They don't just exist in a vacuum.

What I mean is the factory, as harmonious as it is, doesn't need to care for every single human in the society. A good government is there to catch those who fall through the cracks.

I don't mean defeatist, but the thought that all government necessarily turns to shiat at some point is pretty darn pessimistic.
 
2012-09-19 07:14:27 PM

DarwiOdrade: highendmighty: Millions of envious poor would do the same thing with their taxes as the envied rich were the envious poor the envied rich.

So vote Republican!


Hey now, I'm not saying that things couldn't change for the better; they will have to. I'm just saying what is what.
 
2012-09-19 07:26:20 PM

Biological Ali: sweetmelissa31: vpb: Did one of those 3,000 have a dancing horse and magic underwear?

There are 47 percent of the people who believe that they are entitled to tap-dancing horses, to car elevators, to the Presidency of the United States, to you-name-it.

If you give a poor person a horse, you feed him for a day (because he'll just club it over the head and eat it, that's what poor people do).

If you teach the horse to dance... well, I'm not sure how that actually helps anyone but you've got to admit it's kinda cool.


Maybe you could teach it to sing while you're at it
 
2012-09-19 07:29:27 PM

Lunchlady: On winning a court action: "This is incredible, we are happy. The expropriation is an act of justice," said Alejandro Lopez the General Secretary of the Ceramists Union
Link: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2052/1/

From another source he's not even the first general secretary, back in 2009 they had a Raul Godoy as spokesman.

Again, these are officials who are elected and appointed by the co-op. Your example invalidates your point, there will always be those elected to represent the issues of many. Perhaps not lead, but there is a disparity in responsibility and always will be in representation if not leadership.


The Ceramists' Union and the factory themselves are two entirely distinct entities.

What I mean is the factory, as harmonious as it is, doesn't need to care for every single human in the society. A good government is there to catch those who fall through the cracks.

I don't mean defeatist, but the thought that all government necessarily turns to shiat at some point is pretty darn pessimistic.


It's only pessimistic if you can't conceive of any different way to do things. I mean, look, first off, let's consider those people who "fall through the cracks".

First off, the cracks are there by design. We have the resources to feed every person, to clothe every person, to shelter every person. It would, in fact, cost a fraction of what we spend to make sure those people can't get food or shelter in this country to get them fed, sheltered and clothed and on their way to being able to participate in society. But we don't. We don't because it makes more money for our leaders. It is worth more to our "representatives" and "business leaders" to send perfectly good food to rot and let perfectly good houses stand empty until they collapse. What does it matter? It's not their stomachs that are empty. They're not the ones that are sitting under a bridge to try and stay dry.

The thing is, this is supposed to be the great "feature" of leadership, distance and thoughtfulness and an ability to make the "tough choices". This isn't a failure of leadership, this is what leaders are for.

So, let's assume you're right. Let's assume we must have a leadership class and that they must, to some extent, not be answerable to the rest of us for their decisions. How does it follow that this makes it more likely that people will have their needs met by society? How does it follow that people who are necessarily distanced from these problems will have a better understanding of them than the people who are actually struggling with them? I think it is more likely - far more likely - that a system of collective organization will meet society's needs than one that deliberately and intentionally puts the decision-making into the hands of the very people who most profit from creating societal stratification and poverty.
 
2012-09-19 07:33:09 PM
Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore
FreeLoaders
 
2012-09-19 07:34:10 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: Your example from the first paragraph invalidates the first. Even if they are elected by a group who all have equal say there is a still a group in a leadership position elected to run such co-ops. Again, a credit union elects the president and board to see after their money. You can not find me a single example of a co-op company that attempts to exist within a larger system that does not have leaders or figure heads to represent the company.

FaSinPat is one easy example. You're wrong, do you get that? Do you understand that you are factually wrong? I can't discuss this with you when you're not willing to acknowledge reality.



Put another way:

Who handles finances? Surely not everyone all at once. No they have a few guys in a department handling bills, payroll, utilities etc. So they make their decisions and do they call in all 400 employees to a meeting to show recommendations and then vote on them? No surely not because they are busy actually making ceramics to make money so the finance guys have money to actually dole out.

Is every floor worker an expert at every task? One day if your kiln operator called in sick could a random guy from the design floor fill in?

There are inequalities rampant everywhere and the group will elect spokesmen to speak on their behalf, hire a lawyer to go to court for them, appoint financial advisers to keep them in business etc. Even if pay is democratically decided and the focus is on the community the group will never be truly equal. And because their system isn't closed I will bet every single dollar to my name that there won't be at least one member of the co-op who doesn't leave for higher pay when an opportunity comes along.

I asked you to find me an example of a company with zero figureheads or leaders, and you gave me one where five minutes found me two names of their union leaders, showing that they at least have elections. Separation of responsibility if not leadership is inherent to the human condition.
 
2012-09-19 07:36:50 PM

mrshowrules: pxsteel: mrshowrules: pxsteel: The owner of the company I work for is a 1%Jobber8742: vpb: cchris_39: Making that kind of money and not owing any taxes is crazy. Undoubtedly opportunist monsters, like these guys:

Link

So? They shouldn't have to pay taxes because they give some money to charity? Is that your point?

Wealthy people should pull their weight.

The top 1% pays 40% of the taxes
The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes

Looks to me like they are already pulling more than thier weight.

Are they making their vast wealth from labour or are they shiatting gold bricks?

If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.

Well they aren't really "making it" by themselves are they? They are not actually shiatting gold bricks. They are "making it" on the backs of the workers and if we want them to pay 90% in taxes, they should shut the fark up and pay it.


This is what fark liberals actually believe.
 
2012-09-19 07:45:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: On winning a court action: "This is incredible, we are happy. The expropriation is an act of justice," said Alejandro Lopez the General Secretary of the Ceramists Union
Link: http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2052/1/

From another source he's not even the first general secretary, back in 2009 they had a Raul Godoy as spokesman.

Again, these are officials who are elected and appointed by the co-op. Your example invalidates your point, there will always be those elected to represent the issues of many. Perhaps not lead, but there is a disparity in responsibility and always will be in representation if not leadership.

The Ceramists' Union and the factory themselves are two entirely distinct entities.

What I mean is the factory, as harmonious as it is, doesn't need to care for every single human in the society. A good government is there to catch those who fall through the cracks.

I don't mean defeatist, but the thought that all government necessarily turns to shiat at some point is pretty darn pessimistic.

It's only pessimistic if you can't conceive of any different way to do things. I mean, look, first off, let's consider those people who "fall through the cracks".

First off, the cracks are there by design. We have the resources to feed every person, to clothe every person, to shelter every person. It would, in fact, cost a fraction of what we spend to make sure those people can't get food or shelter in this country to get them fed, sheltered and clothed and on their way to being able to participate in society. But we don't. We don't because it makes more money for our leaders. It is worth more to our "representatives" and "business leaders" to send perfectly good food to rot and let perfectly good houses stand empty until they collapse. What does it matter? It's not their stomachs that are empty. They're not the ones that are sitting under a bridge to try and stay dry.

The thing is, this is supposed to be the great "feature" of leadership ...


If they are separate entities why have one represent the other? Clearly they are aware that there is a separation of responsibilities and thus acknowledge they cannot take care of some issues on their own.

I agree with you. Honestly I do. I can't stand that we think nothing of spending billions every year on blowing each other up and not fractions of that on our own populace. I hate that the unspoken reality of the health care debate or social security is that there are those who argue with a straight face that we pay taxes so the government doesn't actually spend the money on us.

I like to think that we strive for a system that doesn't leave any behind but there are simply too many of us and we are so spread out that without representatives we couldn't start to take care of ourselves.

I'm reminded of that episode of South Park with the hippie festival. They're talking about starting their own community and they say, "One guy will make bread, he'll be the bread maker. One guy will keep everyone safe. One guy will grow things." The ideal you're talking about requires everyone to buy into the system and work for the greater good. If that was going to happen it would have, but it just won't. Especially in a global society where transportation is so easy. If you work for the group and make sacrifices but your co-worker sees that they can make triple for themselves if they drive 30 minutes down the road it's not hard to see what they'll pick.

You say the "cracks" are a design, I think the "cracks" are an unfortunate, but also unavoidable symptom. I think that's our divergence.
 
2012-09-19 07:45:30 PM

Cataholic: Dr Dreidel: Ugh. We really need a "if your taxable income" (whatever the bottom line is on that farking form. The one that says how much of your income - from whatever source, minus family and first-home deductions - is subject to taxation before credits) "is more than 10x the median US salary" (that'd be $26,364 in 2010, 10x which would be $263,640), you pay a minimum of 5% tax on that figure. No credit or deduction (other than family and first/primary home) can get you out of paying that 5%.

It's really crazy that we still expect poor people to fork over payroll taxes - 4% of their salary (unless they're self-employed, in which case it's 10.2%), yet some rich people (who, it must be noted, don't pay a dime in payroll taxes after they earn their 110,100th dollar - Mitt hit that number in the first week of January last year) can't be bothered to fork over dime #1.

So how would you deal with casualty/theft loss for those folks?

I'm guessing a good chunk of those 3,000 who paid no tax would have used that as a deduction. However, I'm confused as to how they are using 2011 data when returns under extension aren't due until October.


I just find it interesting he wants to fark over municipalities and states by making the interest on their debt at least partially taxable. How should states and municipalities pay the extra interest that will result? Layoff teachers, cops, disregard road repair, raise tuition at state colleges, what?
 
2012-09-19 07:47:40 PM

Lunchlady: You say the "cracks" are a design, I think the "cracks" are an unfortunate, but also unavoidable symptom. I think that's our divergence.


So, "can't fix, don't try"? I mean, that's one place we split, but your argument really is defeatist. It's the George Carlin argument. "The people suck, fark hope." If that's where you're at, well... I'm sorry.
 
2012-09-19 07:48:00 PM
I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?
 
2012-09-19 07:57:12 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: You say the "cracks" are a design, I think the "cracks" are an unfortunate, but also unavoidable symptom. I think that's our divergence.

So, "can't fix, don't try"? I mean, that's one place we split, but your argument really is defeatist. It's the George Carlin argument. "The people suck, fark hope." If that's where you're at, well... I'm sorry.


No not at all. I think the cracks are made by societal trends and because some people are more apt to be better at some things and others are left behind. Look at the increasing deregulated systems of the 2000's. The less the government does, the more people get left behind by those only concerned with profit. We create government and rules to limit those cracks. Ideally you eliminate said cracks but I also acknowledge some people will create them for themselves.

Hell I could get a Canadian passport fairly easily but I'm not about to give up on my life in America. Most people are genuinely good, ignorance is what keeps us down, not apathy.
 
2012-09-19 07:58:50 PM

JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?


The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.

Forget it, go back to the the soviet discussion group. This thread is like the last third of an upton Sinclair book.
 
2012-09-19 08:02:45 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?

The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.


Yes.
 
2012-09-19 08:11:07 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.


You've been a far-right toolbag as long as I've been here. Come off it.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Yes, those imaginary people are bastards. Come off it.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.

Sounds fine to me, let's do it.

Forget it, go back to the the soviet discussion group. This thread is like the last third of an upton Sinclair book.

I reiterate my first statement. Come off it.
 
2012-09-19 08:12:38 PM
I guess I was wrong....
 
2012-09-19 08:24:33 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.


I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?
 
2012-09-19 08:26:23 PM

The Muthaship: I guess I was wrong....


First correct thing I've ever seen you post on Fark.

Jesus, what is with all the strawmen tonight.
 
2012-09-19 08:28:47 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.


Ironically that's how I feel about Romney and his ilk when they complain about having to pay too much taxes while simultaneously exploiting the tax code to get out of paying as little tax as possible.
 
2012-09-19 08:29:31 PM
Echo echo echo.....
 
2012-09-19 08:35:42 PM

GodsTumor: Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore
FreeLoaders


That's where your tax cuts go. For the most part they don't go to make jobs in the US. If tax cuts were directly tied to job creation, I'd be all for them. They have to close the loopholes that the Romneys of the world use to take their money out of the economy. Why do you think that China has such strict rules on overseas investment? They know how important it is to keep that money at home.
 
2012-09-19 08:51:40 PM

JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?


You know that if healthcare were provided to everyone, your taxes would go down?

Well, they would if the US did it in the same way that every other industrialized nation does it...
 
2012-09-19 08:53:31 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Debeo Summa Credo: The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

You've been a far-right toolbag as long as I've been here. Come off it.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Yes, those imaginary people are bastards. Come off it.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.

Sounds fine to me, let's do it.


Same.

How much would I be willing to spend of my own money so that all of my friends that are unemployed would have work? Everything but the minimum I need to live.

As long as my taxes go to the right things, I don't mind paying a lot. What are the right things? Health care, infrastructure, and education, also known as jobs, jobs, and jobs.
 
2012-09-19 09:02:58 PM

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?


Ugh:

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/09/18/breakdown3-06-17-11-01_cus t om-a75c8687649851cb34253472a5005ecb6a99a436-s3.jpg

The vast majority of the 47% either are paying or have paid and are taking advantage of payroll taxes, thus they actually ARE entitled to the programs they draw from. Only 7% of the working US population pay neither income or payroll taxes.
 
2012-09-19 09:07:09 PM

The Muthaship: Echo echo echo.....


An accurate depiction of what must go on in your head.... whose unfunny, brainless alt are you, anyway? I'm guessing you're an offspring of AfternoonDelight.
 
2012-09-19 09:07:15 PM

KarmicDisaster: GodsTumor: Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore
FreeLoaders

That's where your tax cuts go. For the most part they don't go to make jobs in the US. If tax cuts were directly tied to job creation, I'd be all for them. They have to close the loopholes that the Romneys of the world use to take their money out of the economy. Why do you think that China has such strict rules on overseas investment? They know how important it is to keep that money at home.


Yep, I say confiscate it and pay off the debt.
 
2012-09-19 09:12:36 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The Muthaship: Echo echo echo.....

An accurate depiction of what must go on in your head.... whose unfunny, brainless alt are you, anyway? I'm guessing you're an offspring of AfternoonDelight.


That is a fine song, but no.

I was just amused that after I pointed out that the vast majority of Fark posters are, in fact, raving socialists, the socialist fantasies absolutely flowed. Quite comical.

Now, as ALTs go, accounts which start so recently as 2012-06-28 09:08:08, are immediately suspect.
 
2012-09-19 09:27:44 PM

The Muthaship: That is a fine song, but no.


So, yea, you're AfternoonDelight. Thanks for the confirmation. Now kindly fark off.

The Muthaship: Now, as ALTs go, accounts which start so recently as 2012-06-28 09:08:08, are immediately suspect.


I've never made it a secret this isn't my original account. I'm an idiot and I locked myself out of my regular account after I moved a few months ago and couldn't reset my password because it was with my old ISP. Unlike you who finally pissed off the wrong person with your relentless garbage posts and got banned.

But good attempt at a retort, douchenugget

/ not really
 
2012-09-19 09:28:08 PM

The Muthaship: Vegan Meat Popsicle: The Muthaship: Echo echo echo.....

An accurate depiction of what must go on in your head.... whose unfunny, brainless alt are you, anyway? I'm guessing you're an offspring of AfternoonDelight.

That is a fine song, but no.

I was just amused that after I pointed out that the vast majority of Fark posters are, in fact, raving socialists, the socialist fantasies absolutely flowed. Quite comical.

Now, as ALTs go, accounts which start so recently as 2012-06-28 09:08:08, are immediately suspect.


Simply raising taxes isn't socialist.
 
2012-09-19 09:36:32 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: But good attempt at a retort, douchenugget


So, what is your old login?

I must say, in order to be fair to Afternoon Delight, that I have no affiliation with him/her at all. It would not be right to attribute my posts to that person for good or for ill.
 
2012-09-19 09:48:42 PM

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?


On fark? It's closer to 80%.
 
2012-09-19 09:53:38 PM

Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?

The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.


Yes.


Really, no qualifications?

Hmm, ok. Internet fist bump. The bush tax cuts were, IMO, the most irresponsible act of an extremely irresponsible administration.
 
2012-09-19 10:09:55 PM
by TONY LEE 18 Sep 2012

On the one-year anniversary of the fizzling "Occupy" movement that tried to pit the so-called 99% against the 1%, and on the day in which a video of Mitt Romney talking about the 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes drove liberals and the mainstream media into fits, Foster Friess on Monday made an argument that society is better off with more rich people.

Friess is one of the wealthiest and most generous people in the world, and he wrote a piece arguing the world would be better off if there were more "fat cats" like him, less government, and more reliance on the free market.

Friess made many valid points, but his arguments became more significant after a video of Romney's comments at a fundraiser in May was leaked to the left-wing publication Mother Jones.

Under President Barack Obama, the United States has seen more government and less wealth creation and, according to Friess, that has made the country worse off.

"What do wealthy people do with their money?," Friess asked in the Newsweek column. "They can only buy so many cars, houses, and steak dinners. So we either give it away or invest it."

Friess wrote that David Koch - a figure liberals love to vilify - gave $100 million for cancer research at MIT, Bill Gates more than $28 billion for global health programs, and Mark Zuckerberg more than $100 million to New Jersey's public education system.

Compare those generous donations to how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars, which Friess says divides Americans by creating "animosities." This is a system in which citizens dependent on government fight amongst themselves to get government benefits that will continue to diminish as the country goes more into debt and is unable to afford various government programs and services.

Friess cites some egregious examples of government waste: $700,000 to Thailand so study of pig flatulence could be used as a renewable energy source; $500,000 to study shrimp on a treadmill; $1.9 million to China to study the drinking habits of prostitutes on the job.

And he denounces Obama for bailing out Egypt to the tune of $1 billion, only to see a government headed by the Muslim Brotherhood that is "far less favorable to the United States."

"The collusion of big business, big labor, and big government threaten the spirit of small business that makes America great," Friess writes. "Success should stem from entrepreneurial creativity, not political connectivity."
The crony capitalism Friess mentions has been rampant in the Obama administration. And under Obama, who told small business owners across the land, "you didn't build that," it is more difficult for Americans to have enough financial security to invest or become more charitable.

Those like American Enterprise Institute President Arthur Brooks have also written about how conservatives are more liberal givers than liberals and how the free enterprise system is the more moral than any other. But with Obama's economic policies, the free market system is eroding, and, as a consequence, there will be fewer people who will be able to create wealth and jobs and generously donate some of their profits to charity.
 
2012-09-19 10:12:06 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: skullkrusher: that sort of thing makes sense. Utilities are monopolistic by nature of physical constraints. Unless we can get an efficient way to beam power over distances, it makes sense for everyone if it is non-profit.

I can't wait until we figure out a way to do that. Solar station with array hookups on the ground = free power for everyone forever. Well, minus the cost of upkeep for the space station solar arrays and the power receiving stations and all the infrastructure to get it to your house. So. Relatively cheap power for everyone forever!


would be pretty farking sweet.
 
2012-09-19 10:25:26 PM

tony41454: words


th563.photobucket.com Reprehensible cock makes unsupportable assertion, says lots of weasel words
 
2012-09-19 10:39:51 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?

The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.


Yes.

Really, no qualifications?

Hmm, ok. Internet fist bump. The bush tax cuts were, IMO, the most irresponsible act of an extremely irresponsible administration.


I'd argue the tax cuts coupled with Medicare Part D and the two wars was worse. My biggest problem wasn't that the Iraq War was voluntary, it was that no one had to sacrifice a single thing for it except for troops and their families. That is criminal.
 
2012-09-19 11:10:09 PM
I think the problem, if you watch Mitt's whole video, is that he thinks that having any taxes and government will invariably lead you to a 100% tax rate... if you ponder the alternative, his argument is advocacy not of responsible government, but of no government, of anarchy.
 
2012-09-19 11:13:08 PM
Stewart just killed it for 12 minutes straight on TDS. Bravo.
 
2012-09-19 11:15:21 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?

On fark? It's closer to 80%.


I see. Just so we're clear - you're making essentially the same dismissive generalization that Romney just did, all the while expecting others to believe that you're really a disgruntled Democrat being "pushed to the right" due to unspecified comments by unknown people on Fark?
 
2012-09-19 11:33:51 PM

Debeo Summa Credo:
I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.


I see the problem. You are operating from the false premise that federal income taxes are the only way to "pay something toward our society."
 
2012-09-19 11:47:33 PM

THX 1138: Jackson Herring: holy fark, a new one

where did you find that

I learned some cool tricks in google images that i didn't know about before. I was so pleased I just had to take a photo of myself:

[www.precisionacademics.com.au image 389x308]


Then you may interested in knowning a woman named Maxine Lawson is offering a plethora of your images

Link
 
2012-09-20 12:25:55 AM

tony41454:
Under President Barack Obama, the United States has seen more government and less wealth creation


If that were true then you and he would still be wrong, but at least you would not be liars.
 
2012-09-20 12:29:09 AM

pxsteel: If they are making it legally, what difference does it make how they are earning it. A 1%er buys a home, he pays more taxes for that one house than than I will pay in my entire lifetime.



Good lord. The strange mix of jealousy, greed, and hatred for the poor people who dare stand in your way of also buying that mansion in the future has gone beyond sane levels.
 
2012-09-20 02:47:29 AM

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?

On fark? It's closer to 80%.

I see. Just so we're clear - you're making essentially the same dismissive generalization that Romney just did, all the while expecting others to believe that you're really a disgruntled Democrat being "pushed to the right" due to unspecified comments by unknown people on Fark?


Nice.
 
2012-09-20 06:44:44 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Then you may interested in knowning a woman named Maxine Lawson is offering a plethora of your images


You are my hero. I promise to use those images only for good.

/Well, maybe a bit of evil too.
//Who am I kidding? We all know it's going to be evil.
 
2012-09-20 09:13:18 AM

Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: Lunchlady: Debeo Summa Credo: JerkStore: I pay taxes. My tax bill last year scared the shiat out of me and was the single largest check I've ever written. And you know what? I don't mind. I don't feel angry that some poor guy or some old couple out there aren't paying for what they're getting from the government. I'm definitely paying my fair share and I don't care if you're not.

In fact, I'd be happy to kick in a little more if it meant everyone could get healthcare. I think it's society's purpose to keep its weaker members from slipping through the cracks, and as a country that consumes more Ferraris, Lear jets, and champagne than any other, I think it's kind of shameful that we still have people going hungry every night.

This is the same reason why I don't care if two men want to marry each other. Live your life, enjoy yourself, do the best you can. I'll do the same.

This "fark you, I've got mine" attitude is something to be ashamed of, not trumpeting like it's some kind of bootstrappy virtue. Helping others, even if it's just by paying your taxes, probably makes the country as a whole a better place. Why does everyone need to keep score?

The "fark you, gimme" attitude displayed daily on fark is far far worse. I used to consider myself liberal and am still a registered Dem. The idiots of the left of fark push me further right every day.

I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

Any liberals here in favor of letting ALL the Bush and Obama tax cuts expire? After all that'd do 5x as much good in reducing the long term deficit than Obama's plan.


Yes.

Really, no qualifications?

Hmm, ok. Internet fist bump. The bush tax cuts were, IMO, the most irresponsible act of an extremely irresponsible administration.

I'd argue the tax cuts coupled with Medicare Part D and the two wars was worse. My biggest problem wasn't that the Iraq War was voluntary, it was that no one had to sacrifice a single thing for it except for troops and their families. That is criminal.


Wow, are you my alt?

Actually I happen to have thought that Afghanistan was necessary. We just couldn't let the Taliban shield bin laden after 9/11. Hindsight might argue that it wasn't worthwhile, but it really is nice to have gotten OBL.

I'm 100% behind you on Medicare part D and Iraq, though. #s 2 and 3 in my Bush Irresponisibility rankings.
 
2012-09-20 10:38:50 AM

Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?

On fark? It's closer to 80%.

I see. Just so we're clear - you're making essentially the same dismissive generalization that Romney just did, all the while expecting others to believe that you're really a disgruntled Democrat being "pushed to the right" due to unspecified comments by unknown people on Fark?


I guess in light of the fact that 3 liberal people here pretty much agreed that we should phase out or eliminate all the Bush and Obama tax cuts, maybe I was too harsh.

In general, however, the sentiment on fark is that we should spend more on social services and we should tax the rich more to pay for them, and ignore the fact that the rich subsidize all the general spending the government does now.
 
2012-09-20 12:41:32 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: Lunchlady: You say the "cracks" are a design, I think the "cracks" are an unfortunate, but also unavoidable symptom. I think that's our divergence.

So, "can't fix, don't try"? I mean, that's one place we split, but your argument really is defeatist. It's the George Carlin argument. "The people suck, fark hope." If that's where you're at, well... I'm sorry.


I'd like to see it fixed, but I don't think "more freedom" will work the way you think it will. Look at Venezuela, for example. Their constitution was written to give far more power to the people than the U.S. constitution--they can even change the constitution with a simple majority vote. And what did the people do with that power? They voted to surrender most of their freedoms to a charismatic dictator, i.e. Hugo Chavez.
 
2012-09-20 02:14:39 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: Biological Ali: Debeo Summa Credo: I don't mind paying taxes but I dont want someone whose paying nothing toward our society to whine to me that I should pay more to support them, when they don't want to pay more themselves.

I see. And roughly what proportion of the population of the population would you say these people represent? Around 47%, perhaps?

On fark? It's closer to 80%.

I see. Just so we're clear - you're making essentially the same dismissive generalization that Romney just did, all the while expecting others to believe that you're really a disgruntled Democrat being "pushed to the right" due to unspecified comments by unknown people on Fark?

I guess in light of the fact that 3 liberal people here pretty much agreed that we should phase out or eliminate all the Bush and Obama tax cuts, maybe I was too harsh.

In general, however, the sentiment on fark is that we should spend more on social services and we should tax the rich more to pay for them, and ignore the fact that the rich subsidize all the general spending the government does now.


Nope, your generalization is incorrect. No wonder you speak as though you are so intellectually superior to everyone you add extra assumptions to everyone's posts.
 
2012-09-20 03:31:42 PM

Smackledorfer: Nope, your generalization is incorrect. No wonder you speak as though you are so intellectually superior to everyone you add extra assumptions to everyone's posts.


I think you need to update your Poe's Law app.
 
2012-09-20 10:20:10 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: In general, however, the sentiment on fark is that we should spend more on social services and we should tax the rich more to pay for them, and ignore the fact that the rich subsidize all the general spending the government does now.



Do the wealthy subsidize all the social spending on medicare and social security?
 
Displayed 347 of 347 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report