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.

(Washington Post)   So if Congress doesn't act, half of America can't get a tax refund until late March   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 164
    More: Fail, congresses, Alternative Minimum Tax, tax refunds, income taxes  
•       •       •

3852 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-13 11:50:02 PM

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


You are so incompetent that people who take out pay-day loans think you are an idiot.

Down's syndrome victims take up a collection to ensure you live through the day.

Pigeons wonder if you have developmental retardation.

People who are outraged at the previous three lines *still* agree you are a retard.

Please report to the nearest waste protein recycling center.
 
2012-11-13 11:50:11 PM
What do the Republicans in congress care about people getting refunds?They're just takers and leeches right?
 
2012-11-13 11:52:28 PM
us9.memecdn.com
 
2012-11-13 11:53:49 PM
Ever wonder why Congress continues to enact temporary patches to things like the AMT, the Medicare "doc fix", etc.? Because A) a sense of impending crisis lets those in power sneak in other less-palatable things to the must-pass new "fixes", and B) it ensures that the campaign donations continue to flow because not to kick in risks pissing off the guy you need to make sure your fix or your unpalatable law gets enacted.
 
2012-11-13 11:54:25 PM

Blue_Blazer: As long as they aren't taxing DMT.


Or ATM.


skullkrusher: moefuggenbrew: Blame the dumb lbieral Socialist tax monster.
[i.imgur.com image 600x486]

40%?


OK, 39.6%. Picky, picky.
 
2012-11-13 11:55:55 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: fusillade762: Getting sick of this "Fiscal cliff" boogeyman. I get the feeling we're being coaxed into a panic to make it easier to screw us when the time comes.

Your feeling is absolutely correct. Related: Neuroscientists find human brains can make fast decisions, and accurate decisions - but not at the same time. Quick, let's greenlight this

And a bit of extended reading:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x302]


Seconded on The Shock Doctrine. That should be required reading. Though I thought her torture/brainwashing analogy was a bit on the tenuous side the rest of it is spot on. And scary as hell.
 
2012-11-13 11:57:35 PM

idsfa: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

You are so incompetent that people who take out pay-day loans think you are an idiot.

Down's syndrome victims take up a collection to ensure you live through the day.

Pigeons wonder if you have developmental retardation.

People who are outraged at the previous three lines *still* agree you are a retard.

Please report to the nearest waste protein recycling center.


holipsism.com

Approves
 
2012-11-13 11:59:41 PM

fusillade762: Blue_Blazer: As long as they aren't taxing DMT.

Or ATM.


skullkrusher: moefuggenbrew: Blame the dumb lbieral Socialist tax monster.
[i.imgur.com image 600x486]

40%?

OK, 39.6%. Picky, picky.


well that's not true either ;)

idsfa: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

You are so incompetent that people who take out pay-day loans think you are an idiot.

Down's syndrome victims take up a collection to ensure you live through the day.

Pigeons wonder if you have developmental retardation.

People who are outraged at the previous three lines *still* agree you are a retard.

Please report to the nearest waste protein recycling center.


3 references to mental disabilities yet no

idsfa: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

You are so incompetent that people who take out pay-day loans think you are an idiot.

Down's syndrome victims take up a collection to ensure you live through the day.

Pigeons wonder if you have developmental retardation.

People who are outraged at the previous three lines *still* agree you are a retard.

Please report to the nearest waste protein recycling center.


if you allow for an off the bat deduction of cost of living expenses + some level of disposable income suitable for your area and tax the remainder of all sources of income above that at a flat rate, you'd still have an effectively progressive tax
 
2012-11-14 12:00:25 AM
well that was a clusterfark of bad html and incomplete thoughts ^
 
2012-11-14 12:03:16 AM

skullkrusher: well that was a clusterfark of bad html and incomplete thoughts ^


It was moderately awesome. Choose your own adventure, response style.
 
2012-11-14 12:06:16 AM
I'd reply to what I think he said, but I doubt I could construct a better argument to his comments than he did. 

If I could even parse them.
 
2012-11-14 12:07:34 AM

skullkrusher: if you allow for an off the bat deduction of cost of living expenses + some level of disposable income suitable for your area and tax the remainder of all sources of income above that at a flat rate, you'd still have an effectively progressive tax


We're close to that now. If we changed it to, say 40% after 100K, would that make you happy?
 
2012-11-14 12:07:42 AM

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


Flat 90% over 500k income. Everyone else gets a nice percentage rate based on income (including capital gains). No deductions. No bullshiat. Everyone pays the rate posted.
 
2012-11-14 12:09:05 AM

nmemkha: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

Flat 90% over 500k income. Everyone else gets a nice percentage rate based on income (including capital gains). No deductions. No bullshiat. Everyone pays the rate posted.


Don't bother, he's jerking off to Steve Forbes / Herman Cain bukkake porn.
 
2012-11-14 12:12:25 AM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: skullkrusher: if you allow for an off the bat deduction of cost of living expenses + some level of disposable income suitable for your area and tax the remainder of all sources of income above that at a flat rate, you'd still have an effectively progressive tax

We're close to that now. If we changed it to, say 40% after 100K, would that make you happy?


We're not close to that now but anyway, 40% is rather high. I was thinking 25% on all income beyond whatever the deduction is on all sources of income - no deductions except for the off the bat one. We could still do things like 401ks and IRAs where dividends and caps gains are not taxed until withdrawal.
 
2012-11-14 12:14:04 AM

idsfa: I'd reply to what I think he said, but I doubt I could construct a better argument to his comments than he did. 

If I could even parse them.


that didn't sound as witty as you thought it was going to
 
2012-11-14 12:14:48 AM
Meh. Your tax return will be the least of your worries. You'll be lucky to have a job during the Great Teabag Recession.
 
2012-11-14 12:17:44 AM

Dougie AXP: impaler: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

Which one?

He's just doing republican math to make himself feel better.


He'd be happier if he just jerked off more.
 
2012-11-14 12:20:20 AM

skullkrusher: idsfa: I'd reply to what I think he said, but I doubt I could construct a better argument to his comments than he did. 

If I could even parse them.

that didn't sound as witty as you thought it was going to


Sometimes I think you're dead inside. Have you tried yoga? I haven't tried yoga. But I bet after a few sessions, you could do the literal thing with your dick instead of just the usual figurative.
 
2012-11-14 12:25:01 AM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: idsfa: I'd reply to what I think he said, but I doubt I could construct a better argument to his comments than he did. 

If I could even parse them.

that didn't sound as witty as you thought it was going to

Sometimes I think you're dead inside. Have you tried yoga? I haven't tried yoga. But I bet after a few sessions, you could do the literal thing with your dick instead of just the usual figurative.


sorry, I didn't find his comment amusing. If I did, I'd gladly say so. The "you did a better job arguing against your point than I could" especially with an admitted html and preview farkup just isn't very good
 
2012-11-14 12:29:41 AM
Okay, me screams into the void:

A flat tax means that we change from the current progressive tax schedule (those who make more pay a greater share) to a flat tax schedule (everyone pays the same share of what they make).


Basically, the government needs $X to provide services that cost $Y.

In an ideal world, X>Y.

Currently, X<Y

We collect taxes where X increases with the tax rate on the highest income parts of the nation.

Reduce (or flatten) that increase, and you reduce X. (Unless you raise the burden on the lower income folks)

X is already too low.

So either you must reduce Y (nominally Republican), or you must increase X (nominally Democrat), or you must increase the share on lower incomes to offest the reduction on higher incomes (nominally Tea Party) 


Compare this logic problem to the results of the recent election.
 
2012-11-14 12:31:28 AM
So there is a problem that all the people who voted because "they wanted to make everyone pay their fair share" suddenly realize that means that everyone actually has to pay something?
 
2012-11-14 12:35:41 AM

Zandor: So there is a problem that all the people who voted because "they wanted to make everyone pay their fair share" suddenly realize that means that everyone actually has to pay something?


Define "their fair share" and we can discuss.
 
2012-11-14 12:37:56 AM

idsfa: A flat tax means that we change from the current progressive tax schedule (those who make more pay a greater share) to a flat tax schedule (everyone pays the same share of what they make).


this is false if you have a deduction for X dollars off the bat and a rate of 25% beyond that.
If that deduction is $100k, someone who makes $50k pays 0%
A person making $200k pays 12.5% of their income in taxes
On and on as the effective rate approaches 25%

idsfa: We collect taxes where X increases with the tax rate on the highest income parts of the nation.

Reduce (or flatten) that increase, and you reduce X. (Unless you raise the burden on the lower income folks)


also false if you broaden the base

idsfa: Compare this logic problem to the results of the recent election.


no idea what this is supposed to mean
 
2012-11-14 12:44:39 AM

idsfa: Zandor: So there is a problem that all the people who voted because "they wanted to make everyone pay their fair share" suddenly realize that means that everyone actually has to pay something?

Define "their fair share" and we can discuss.


Isn't that the magic trick that needs to be performed? According to Obama and several of the people I know that support him, it's only those making above $250k a year that need to see an increase, those that aren't are already paying enough. Meanwhile, you have people making over $100k a year that with normal deductions (children, mortgage, charity) wound up with a negative tax percentage, getting back more than they paid in during the year.

Realistically, for something to be "fair" it means everyone contributes, at least something. How much that something is... that answer seems to be floating endlessly in the void.. Maybe it's something related to the number 42...'
 
2012-11-14 12:45:48 AM

skullkrusher: idsfa: A flat tax means that we change from the current progressive tax schedule (those who make more pay a greater share) to a flat tax schedule (everyone pays the same share of what they make).

this is false if you have a deduction for X dollars off the bat and a rate of 25% beyond that.
If that deduction is $100k, someone who makes $50k pays 0%
A person making $200k pays 12.5% of their income in taxes
On and on as the effective rate approaches 25%


You have failed to parse. $X is the cost of services. This is fixed unless you argue that services should be reduced, which is NOT an element of the flat tax platform.

idsfa: We collect taxes where X increases with the tax rate on the highest income parts of the nation.
Reduce (or flatten) that increase, and you reduce X. (Unless you raise the burden on the lower income folks)
also false if you broaden the base


Not false. As I said: Unless you raise the burden on the lower income folks

Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

idsfa: Compare this logic problem to the results of the recent election.
no idea what this is supposed to mean


Okay, in simple words: The majority of American think your philosophy is shiat.
 
2012-11-14 12:49:07 AM

Summoner101: babygoat: Summoner101: Well it's only people that pay federal income taxes, so no Obama supporters will be affected!

You're making an asshole out of yourself.

Mission accomplished!

/I mean really, someone was going to say it eventually. Might as well get it out of the way in jest.


I saw that post, and thought: That guy done Poeslawed hisself.
 
2012-11-14 12:51:46 AM
I could get behind a 25% flat tax with the first 100k being exempt, as long as this includes capital gains and I can still get my Child credit refund.
 
2012-11-14 12:51:53 AM
Who's getting "overtaxed"?
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-14 12:52:23 AM

idsfa: You have failed to parse. $X is the cost of services. This is fixed unless you argue that services should be reduced, which is NOT an element of the flat tax platform.


No, I just defined X differently in my example.
It wasn't a failure to parse. I think I use X once in a while in development too. I'll be sure to send you some royalties for the variable X

idsfa: Not false. As I said: Unless you raise the burden on the lower income folks

Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.


No, it's still false. If you increase the amount of $ that is taxable by eliminating all deductions except for the first Z (happy?) dollars of income, you broaden the base while eliminating income taxes for the poor.

Just admit, you're just the same as every other 2 bit hack lurker.
 
2012-11-14 12:53:07 AM

jso2897: Who's getting "overtaxed"?
[i18.photobucket.com image 480x480]


Let's try that again, JSO, ya dumbass:
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-14 12:53:27 AM
I take no deductions on my paystubs. I find it easier to save a bunch of money coming at once vs. 20 or so per paycheck. I still do save a portion from each paycheck into savings, but getting a huge lump sum each year and putting savings makes it easy to resist spending


Oooh .25% interest rate my ass
 
2012-11-14 12:53:42 AM

Blue_Blazer: I could get behind a 25% flat tax with the first 100k being exempt, as long as this includes capital gains and I can still get my Child credit refund.


fark your crotch fruit freebie!

/I hate the term
//used for entertainment purposes only
 
2012-11-14 12:56:58 AM
Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?
 
2012-11-14 12:57:43 AM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: I could get behind a 25% flat tax with the first 100k being exempt, as long as this includes capital gains and I can still get my Child credit refund.

fark your crotch fruit freebie!

/I hate the term
//used for entertainment purposes only


Yeah I've seen you say you have at least 1 kid. I won't cry like some people.
 
2012-11-14 12:58:13 AM

anwserman: I take no deductions on my paystubs. I find it easier to save a bunch of money coming at once vs. 20 or so per paycheck. I still do save a portion from each paycheck into savings, but getting a huge lump sum each year and putting savings makes it easy to resist spending


Oooh .25% interest rate my ass


you'd get quite a bit more in the long run investing in an S&P index fund. Not the place for funds you might need immediately but since you're letting the government hold it just to give it back to you, it doesn't seem like you need it to prep for emergencies so it's something you should definitely consider

Here's a chart of rolling 10 year returns for the S&P
 
2012-11-14 12:59:00 AM

Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: I could get behind a 25% flat tax with the first 100k being exempt, as long as this includes capital gains and I can still get my Child credit refund.

fark your crotch fruit freebie!

/I hate the term
//used for entertainment purposes only

Yeah I've seen you say you have at least 1 kid. I won't cry like some people.


just the one. I found it eyeroll-worthy before we had him anyway
 
2012-11-14 12:59:23 AM

skullkrusher: idsfa: You have failed to parse. $X is the cost of services. This is fixed unless you argue that services should be reduced, which is NOT an element of the flat tax platform.

No, I just defined X differently in my example.


So you are deciding that the services should be reduced. This is NOT an element of the cannonical flat tax argument.

Please publish your complete tax/expenditure model and I will gve a shiat what you have to say.
 
2012-11-14 01:02:13 AM

idsfa: skullkrusher: idsfa: You have failed to parse. $X is the cost of services. This is fixed unless you argue that services should be reduced, which is NOT an element of the flat tax platform.

No, I just defined X differently in my example.

So you are deciding that the services should be reduced. This is NOT an element of the cannonical flat tax argument.

Please publish your complete tax/expenditure model and I will gve a shiat what you have to say.


nah, you can't even farking read man. I am not giving you a complete model. Actually, your illiteracy is convenient for me because I don't have a complete tax/expenditure model. No one reading what you have written is nodding at your sagacity. Lurk moar
 
2012-11-14 01:02:28 AM

Zandor: Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?


The poor already pay - sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes - and they take a MUCH larger share of their meager incomes. The original purpose of the income tax was to attempt to equalize that situation a little. But even that much fairness is too much for the righty-Americans. They still want the poor to pay more, and the rich to pay less. If the rich are being "unfairly" taxed, then why:
i18.photobucket.com
Hmmmm?
 
2012-11-14 01:03:10 AM

Zandor: Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?


No, the poors do not use the roads as much as anyone. Huge trucks (for industry and commerce) use roads the most, and that's why the pay the most for them. Most poors don't go much farther than a few miles from their house, and if they do it's probably only once or twice a year.
 
2012-11-14 01:08:43 AM

Blue_Blazer: Zandor: Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?

No, the poors do not use the roads as much as anyone. Huge trucks (for industry and commerce) use roads the most, and that's why the pay the most for them. Most poors don't go much farther than a few miles from their house, and if they do it's probably only once or twice a year.


But they still have to buy gas - and pay taxes on it. Taxes that are large in the context of their small incomes.
 
2012-11-14 01:10:30 AM

skullkrusher: idsfa: skullkrusher: idsfa: You have failed to parse. $X is the cost of services. This is fixed unless you argue that services should be reduced, which is NOT an element of the flat tax platform.

No, I just defined X differently in my example.

So you are deciding that the services should be reduced. This is NOT an element of the cannonical flat tax argument.

Please publish your complete tax/expenditure model and I will gve a shiat what you have to say.

nah, you can't even farking read man. I am not giving you a complete model. Actually, your illiteracy is convenient for me because I don't have a complete tax/expenditure model. No one reading what you have written is nodding at your sagacity. Lurk moar




Bare Sir Robin ran away ....
 
2012-11-14 01:11:03 AM

jso2897: Blue_Blazer: Zandor: Just admit you want to make the poor pay for the services that the rich use and you are fine.

I think it's more that people want everyone contributing to what they all use. The poor use the roads as much as anyone. One could argue that they didn't use the school system as much, or at least didn't use it to their advantage, but that's not always the case either... They still live in a society which benefits from an educated populace, so why shouldn't they (and everyone) be expected to contribute?

No, the poors do not use the roads as much as anyone. Huge trucks (for industry and commerce) use roads the most, and that's why the pay the most for them. Most poors don't go much farther than a few miles from their house, and if they do it's probably only once or twice a year.

But they still have to buy gas - and pay taxes on it. Taxes that are large in the context of their small incomes.


Oh I agree with you, I was just pointing out the flaw in suggesting that poors use the roads the most. I think that consumption taxes are in general bad, and I would not support the U.S. taking on a VAT or some kind of Federal Sales Tax. I don't know anybody who is serious and argues that consumption taxes are progressive.
 
2012-11-14 01:11:10 AM
s/Bare/Brave/


sigh
 
2012-11-14 01:14:17 AM

skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: skullkrusher: Blue_Blazer: I could get behind a 25% flat tax with the first 100k being exempt, as long as this includes capital gains and I can still get my Child credit refund.

fark your crotch fruit freebie!

/I hate the term
//used for entertainment purposes only

Yeah I've seen you say you have at least 1 kid. I won't cry like some people.

just the one. I found it eyeroll-worthy before we had him anyway


Yeah that phrase is disgusting, just has that terrible ring to it. I also only have the 1, for now.
 
2012-11-14 01:35:08 AM
No subby, half of TAXPAYERS, 26.5 percent of americans.
 
2012-11-14 01:57:56 AM

GAT_00: Half of all taxpayers don't even file their returns before April 1st.


Later. Many file for an extension.
 
2012-11-14 02:41:35 AM
"When Congress doesn't act, half of America can't get a tax refund until late March."

Fixed that for ya, subby.
 
2012-11-14 03:27:48 AM
Wow, I'm actually seeing a reasonable discussion in a Politics Tab thread...

img.photobucket.com
 
Displayed 50 of 164 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report