Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

3854 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Nov 2012 at 10:08 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-13 04:55:00 PM  
Maybe we should just get rid of the AMT completely since it undermines the tax code with a "GOTCHA!". If you want people to pay more tax, raise taxes and close loopholes instead of hiding it like a hotel does with their "resort fees".
 
2012-11-13 05:05:47 PM  
Half of all taxpayers don't even file their returns before April 1st.
 
2012-11-13 05:21:30 PM  
The hell you say. Give me back my monies!
 
2012-11-13 05:50:07 PM  
So does that mean that the IRS will collect a bunch of extra taxes from middle-class families (thus raising much-needed revenue), without having to broach the painful subject of whether we should raise taxes on the rich, or the middle-class? 'Cause it sounds like a Republican wet dream...
 
2012-11-13 08:32:27 PM  
Late March?

www.elitemusical.com.br
 
2012-11-13 08:36:42 PM  
There are really no words to describe my stunned disappointment that people have been commenting in this thread for almost four hours now, it's going green in less than two, and yet nobody has made any comment to the effect that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple or some other variant of the term. What the hell is this. Sometimes I don't think I even know who the hell you people are anymore.
 
2012-11-13 08:49:35 PM  
Time for a flat tax. A fair tax
 
2012-11-13 09:07:11 PM  
MY BEANBAG CHAIR, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
2012-11-13 09:12:20 PM  

Pocket Ninja: There are really no words to describe my stunned disappointment that people have been commenting in this thread for almost four hours now, it's going green in less than two, and yet nobody has made any comment to the effect that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple or some other variant of the term. What the hell is this. Sometimes I don't think I even know who the hell you people are anymore.


Welcome to Obama's America.
 
2012-11-13 09:14:18 PM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


Which one?
 
2012-11-13 09:16:04 PM  

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

Which one?


He's using the Fox News definition of "fair".
 
2012-11-13 09:30:36 PM  
I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.
 
2012-11-13 10:12:47 PM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith
 
2012-11-13 10:13:49 PM  

mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.


What the hey, eh?
 
2012-11-13 10:14:45 PM  
400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined
"But somebody might abuse welfare if we raise taxes on the rich!"
 
2012-11-13 10:14:52 PM  

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

Which one?


He's just doing republican math to make himself feel better.
 
2012-11-13 10:14:52 PM  

mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.


The government needs it more than me, anyway.
 
2012-11-13 10:15:29 PM  
Well it's only people that pay federal income taxes, so no Obama supporters will be affected!
 
2012-11-13 10:16:15 PM  
Half of America is subject to AMT?
 
2012-11-13 10:17:47 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-13 10:21:51 PM  
Blame the dumb lbieral Socialist tax monster.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-13 10:26:24 PM  

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


I like the cut of your jib good sir.
 
2012-11-13 10:28:22 PM  
Maybe this guy could stop insider trading long enough to help out.

i97.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-13 10:29:38 PM  

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
 
2012-11-13 10:31:05 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 10:31:41 PM  

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

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith


Socialist! 
 
2012-11-13 10:31:49 PM  
Fark the AMT with a rusty railroad spike but who the hell files their taxes before the very last minute? March? I haven't even started putting it off at that point.
 
2012-11-13 10:33:00 PM  
I've come close to AMT the last few years. It would be about $5k more for me, Can't say I'd be happy about that.

But; 28 million new taxpayers subject to AMT would be about 10% of the total taxpaying population or about 20% of the people who pay federal income tax.

It would mean 100 billion in additional revenue for 2012, but it would just about start a revolution.
 
2012-11-13 10:34:10 PM  
I'm confused. Why does Congress have until the end of 2012 to decide what the taxes are for all of 2012 anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it so the status quo is in effect unless/until it's specifically changed, and to have any changes go into effect for the next tax year, not the one that's ending?
 
2012-11-13 10:34:29 PM  

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


40%?
 
2012-11-13 10:35:57 PM  

apoptotic: I'm confused. Why does Congress have until the end of 2012 to decide what the taxes are for all of 2012 anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it so the status quo is in effect unless/until it's specifically changed, and to have any changes go into effect for the next tax year, not the one that's ending?


the tax hikes refer to the rates for 2013. They don't apply to this year, just the tax return you'll be filing in 2014
 
2012-11-13 10:37:21 PM  

skullkrusher: Fark the AMT with a rusty railroad spike but who the hell files their taxes before the very last minute? March? I haven't even started putting it off at that point.


I imagine it's a scenario where they expect a refund (and therefore want the money back ASAP) and then discover (or the IRS does, anyway) they are subject to the AMT.
 
2012-11-13 10:38:12 PM  

mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.


Right. Because a $30 refund is so significant.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:23 PM  

Nuclear Monk: skullkrusher: Fark the AMT with a rusty railroad spike but who the hell files their taxes before the very last minute? March? I haven't even started putting it off at that point.

I imagine it's a scenario where they expect a refund (and therefore want the money back ASAP) and then discover (or the IRS does, anyway) they are subject to the AMT.


the AMT is an unpleasant farking suprise, no diggity.
 
2012-11-13 10:39:42 PM  

skullkrusher: apoptotic: I'm confused. Why does Congress have until the end of 2012 to decide what the taxes are for all of 2012 anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it so the status quo is in effect unless/until it's specifically changed, and to have any changes go into effect for the next tax year, not the one that's ending?

the tax hikes refer to the rates for 2013. They don't apply to this year, just the tax return you'll be filing in 2014


So why do the IRS Commissioner and the Tax Policy Center think the potential change to the AMT applies to the 2012 tax year?
 
2012-11-13 10:43:22 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-13 10:43:41 PM  

cmunic8r99: mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.

Right. Because a $30 refund is so significant.


The other fallacy is that it isn't a "year-long interest-free loan" - its more like a month or two tops.

/despite my best efforts - I'll be getting a refund this year
//but I'll file in January and get my refund the first or second week in Feb
 
2012-11-13 10:49:28 PM  

apoptotic: So why do the IRS Commissioner and the Tax Policy Center think the potential change to the AMT applies to the 2012 tax year?


Because they do and skullkrusher doesn't know what he is talking about. Basically every year - Congress attempts to 'patch' the AMT rules. But they are only temporary and the last set of 'patches' expired. So a whole lot of people will get a surprise when they calculate their 2012 taxes.
 
2012-11-13 10:49:47 PM  

apoptotic: So why do the IRS Commissioner and the Tax Policy Center think the potential change to the AMT applies to the 2012 tax year?


When the AMT was created they set the income levels staticly based on incomes from 3 decades ago. Each year congress passes a bill that adjusts the AMT threshold for that year but they haven't done that yet, so the AMT threshold will drop to the 1980s version of "rich".
 
2012-11-13 10:50:18 PM  

apoptotic: skullkrusher: apoptotic: I'm confused. Why does Congress have until the end of 2012 to decide what the taxes are for all of 2012 anyway? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it so the status quo is in effect unless/until it's specifically changed, and to have any changes go into effect for the next tax year, not the one that's ending?

the tax hikes refer to the rates for 2013. They don't apply to this year, just the tax return you'll be filing in 2014

So why do the IRS Commissioner and the Tax Policy Center think the potential change to the AMT applies to the 2012 tax year?


good question - I don't know how you can tell people what their tax rate will be after they've already earned the money. Seems that people should know what sort of rules they're operating under at the time.
 
2012-11-13 10:51:35 PM  

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.


Call me.
 
2012-11-13 10:55:54 PM  
Can we just wordfilter "If Congress doesn't act, <bad thing>" to "<bad thing>".

I already do it mentally.
 
2012-11-13 11:03:10 PM  

Mr. Eugenides: apoptotic: So why do the IRS Commissioner and the Tax Policy Center think the potential change to the AMT applies to the 2012 tax year?

When the AMT was created they set the income levels staticly based on incomes from 3 decades ago. Each year congress passes a bill that adjusts the AMT threshold for that year but they haven't done that yet, so the AMT threshold will drop to the 1980s version of "rich".


Ah, got it, thanks (and thanks to you too, gingerjet). It sounds to me like they've gone about this completely ass backwards from the beginning, and instead should be setting the AMT threshold for the coming year instead of the current year, and should they fail to do so have it automatically extend the current patch instead of reverting all the way back to the original bill's figures.
 
2012-11-13 11:09:02 PM  
As long as they aren't taxing DMT.
 
2012-11-13 11:11:14 PM  
I just want to know what lens the photographer used for that photo. Seriously. It's lovely.
 
2012-11-13 11:30:28 PM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


Wow, I blew that call, I figured a 2 year deep sleep on that handle after 11/6.

But anyway bro, look at the actual taxes people pay. Deductions incentivize consumer participation. I know, I know, liberty to be a wealth-hording hermit that does nothing for the economy including job creation.

But hey, if you think the income of the 1% can continue to climb while everyone else stays stagnant, I've got a few Panic Rooms to sell you before 2020.
 
2012-11-13 11:34:17 PM  

Pocket Ninja: There are really no words to describe my stunned disappointment that people have been commenting in this thread for almost four hours now, it's going green in less than two, and yet nobody has made any comment to the effect that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple or some other variant of the term. What the hell is this. Sometimes I don't think I even know who the hell you people are anymore.


Heh, except the government doesn't put taxes in a bank. They simply remove it from the money supply. The truth is that they don't get the chance to keep it in a bank until paying it.
 
2012-11-13 11:34:33 PM  

babygoat: 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.

Call me.


So THAT'S what whiplash feels like
 
2012-11-13 11:35:54 PM  
If my taxes have to go up to get the ones at the top to go up, then raise mine. I'll survive with a lower refund.
 
2012-11-13 11:36:16 PM  

Summoner101: babygoat: 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.

Call me.

So THAT'S what whiplash feels like


What happened?
 
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
 
2012-11-14 04:12:31 AM  

fusillade762: Wow, I'm actually seeing a reasonable discussion in a Politics Tab thread...

[img.photobucket.com image 250x208]


Hah.
A reasonable discussion of tax reform and national debt isn't reasonable until you start to cogitate on the population bubble of the boomer moving out of the labour force and into dependency. There needs to be a new bracket, adjustment of the old ones, and I would be seriously surprised if top rates don't reach 70% in the next 20 years.

More simply put, it is going to likely be impossible to balance the budget until the boomers die off. Period. And that's something everybody needs to accept and start thinking about, especially those bastards in Congress.

And from a moral-less, Vulcan-like standpoint, the health care reform was the worst thing to enact just preceding it. Health insurers are going to go bankrupt. Which is why the country needs single payer.
 
2012-11-14 05:58:56 AM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


How about the Automated Payment Transaction tax? (PDF)
 
2012-11-14 06:08:51 AM  

starsrift: More simply put, it is going to likely be impossible to balance the budget until the boomers die off. Period. And that's something everybody needs to accept and start thinking about, especially those bastards in Congress.


Enact a 100% estate tax and kill 'em all?
 
2012-11-14 06:43:05 AM  

skullkrusher: Fark the AMT with a rusty railroad spike but who the hell files their taxes before the very last minute? March? I haven't even started putting it off at that point.


Responsible Americans file it early. Like Romney.
 
2012-11-14 06:46:27 AM  

Blue_Blazer: 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.


Every year (usually at tax time) they drag the spavined old "flat tax" bandwagon out and parade it down Main Street. The people bombard it with rotten fruit, and they roll it back to the garage for another year, muttering darkly about what fools their fellow Americans are for seeing through the idiocy of their "cunning plan".
 
2012-11-14 06:55:25 AM  
Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.
 
2012-11-14 07:01:00 AM  

shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.


You're gonna run into one of two very bad situations. Pensioners don't get paid, and they die of starvation or temperature extremes as a result. Or, problem two is that the military doesn't get paid... History is replete with examples of what happens after that.
 
2012-11-14 07:01:39 AM  

shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.


That won't work. Kansans like cutting taxes to zero and abolishing government...well, government that helps the proletariat at least.
 
2012-11-14 07:12:44 AM  
Two things:
a) The AMT patch is just as stupid as the debt ceiling debate. OMG LIFE IS GOING TO BE RUINED UNLESS WE DO THE SAME THING WE'VE BEEN DOING FOR 20 YEARS. It is a contrived congressional controversy. There is no reason it can't be fixed permanently.
2) anyone who argues for a flat tax is an idiot. It is amazingly regressive and makes a massive shift of the tax burden. The only way to avoid this is to include specific deductions and refunds to ease the transition on the poor. So, you end up lessening the strain on upper incomes, keeping the transition the same for lower incomes, and screwing over the middle class. Every version of the flat tax I've seen discussed ends up being a poorly formed progressive tax structure with a huge bump in the middle for people to get beat up.
D) The "people need to have skin in the game" argument as it relates to income tax is idiotic (which makes sense because it is related to the idiots from my previous point). Poor people pay sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, and payroll taxes and they take up a far greater percentage of their income than rich people. And, they make so little income that they don't have enough to reasonably live while also paying income tax. That's the people that you are demonizing with the "they don't pay income tax!" (Which gets intentionally distorted by people leaving off the income part) Rich people are afforded more protection in society. They are far and away benefitted more by a strong government and functioning America. Their companies are similarly protected. But, god forbid that family of four with a total pretax income of 37k get a break on income tax. Those bastards are cheating the system!
 
2012-11-14 07:25:07 AM  
Only suckers get tax refunds. Why would you want to give the government a no-interest loan when you can get a no-interest loan from the government? Yes, I'll be paying again this year, just like every year. Thanks for the no-interest loan.
 
2012-11-14 07:27:53 AM  

Spaced Lion: "When Congress doesn't act, half of America can't get a tax refund until late March."

Fixed that for ya, subby.


Wouldn't be a first, they are usually late at approving forms, taxes, ect. Two years ago you couldn't itemize till February due to this same crap.
 
2012-11-14 07:28:17 AM  

jjorsett: 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.


There is also the fact that the projected budget has to be balanced 10 years out, so Congress keeps laughable assumptions on the books that they will "sunset" certain policies they have no intention of doing so.
 
2012-11-14 07:30:10 AM  

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.


Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.
 
2012-11-14 07:43:35 AM  

DrPainMD: 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.

Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.


No. I don't give two shiats about the deficit. It effects me exactly ZERO. Interest rates are still quite low in historical terms. Call me a Keynisian but austerity is best saved for times of plenty.
 
2012-11-14 08:10:17 AM  
I don't think that any of you understand that we're on a fiscal cliff. A FISCAL CLIFF!!!!! I can't emphasize how much of a fiscal cliff we're on. It's not a real cliff, it's a metaphor, or palindrome.
 
2012-11-14 08:23:16 AM  

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

40%?


39 rounded up? Maybe it's out of date? I didn't get that either. Point remains of course.
 
2012-11-14 08:28:06 AM  

EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax


Flat tax would only be "fair" in the purportional amount taxed to earned but in reality places an unfair burden on lower income earners. 20% of a minimum wage earner's wages would be devastating in relation to the cost of living, 20% of a high income earners wages would go relatively unnoticed. For someone who earns $100 weekly, a tank of gas may make up 33% of their post taxed earnings, as opposed to ~ 3% for someone earning $1000 weekly.

Farkers are already upset with the highest income earners are only paying 20% of their income on taxes- would you now expect the lowest wage income earner to pay their share as well? Why you hate the poor?

The real issue isn't about trying to target the highest wage earners to extract their wealth but rather to prevent the hoarding and keep the money in circulation. Why not put a cap on wealth and earnings, a cap on bonuses, tax capital gains on all earnings made by investors who are under 60 years of age, make derivatives from offshore accounts taxable, and treat all products manufactured offshore as imports, regardless of where the parent company resides.

Capping wealth. - Do you believe that capping wealth at 50M per family will cause "undue hardship" or discourage innovation? Think again! Any income over 50M cap could be credited (in case of "tough times") while the rest in reinvested into the new innovators willing to step up to the plate for their share of the 50M pie. Don't worry about the money train pulling in the station at 50M- you'll be receiving a small stipend of untaxed 1-2% earnings on any capitol investment above 50M. Plus you have the government's word (promissary notes?) that you will be covered in time of need. As for the rest of that wealth- it will be circulating about the economy instead of holed up in a vault or private investment somewhere.

Cap earnings and bonuses. A ceiling on the highest earnings would be win-win for the business who will no longer have to financially compete with other businesses to retain their top wage earners, and for top wage earners to retain their positions instead of feeling the need to seek higher wages elsewhere. As the pay will be capped and bonuses, smaller business will be able compete for more skilled labor. Again, don't worry about losing innovators as they will be attracted by the top dollar, capped or not.

Capital gains. If they make up a bulk of your earnings, they should be taxed as regular income. If capital gains make up less than earned income they are taxed purportionally to that income. The exception would be for students over 16 or attending college (presumeably earnings would be going toward tuition or future business venture) and retirees over 55. I'm inclined to say 64, however I do not see the point of penalizing anyone who has remained fiscally responsible and were able to retire earlier at 55.

Socking money away in foreign accounts- If you live in America, share in the benefits and protections of being an American, then why not pay your share of the burden as well.

Penalizing business that take their business outside the country. Self evident. You sought the benefits of running your business outside this country, your products will be taxed as any other foreign good. By the way foreign investors- have we got a tax break for you should you choose to start up a business in our country.

Of course with all this new found wealth and cash floating around, they'll be a heavy demand on limited natural resources so out of control inflation will be inevitable
 
2012-11-14 08:38:54 AM  

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

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith


Luxury taxes! Unpossible!!!!

I'm assuming this tax could be applied to any luxury item regardless of the consumer's income.
 
2012-11-14 08:46:44 AM  

mrshowrules: I would just like to say that people who get tax refunds are essentially giving the government a year-long interest-free loan and are, therefore, financially incompetent sheeple.


Would you prefer we pay higher taxes to cover the lost interest in lieu of a refund? It's relatively painless to provide the government with much needed interest free revenue as well as affords the tax payer an opportunity to save money where most would otherwise squander it along the way. This is also an opportunity for the low wage income earner to step up to the plate and make a small contribution by at least providing interest free revenue before getting it all back in the form of a refund.

In short, I don't have a problem with this.
 
2012-11-14 08:59:50 AM  
not the better half.
 
2012-11-14 09:16:50 AM  

Pocket Ninja: financially incompetent sheeple or some other variant of the term.


Since the IRS limits the exemptions you can claim, in many cases you can't balance your withholding properly. I used to claim 10-11 dependents and had small refunds. Now that isn't an option and I get large refunds.
 
2012-11-14 09:34:00 AM  
A fair system in which everyone plays by the same rules. A flat tax could indeed be fair, if coupled with widely-applicable deductions for necessities (rent/mortgage payments on one's own residence, health care expenses, educational expenses, and so on, some limited deduction for debt payments, and so on).
 
2012-11-14 09:39:38 AM  

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


It's that kind of thinking that led to the Republicans gobsmacked surprise on election night.
 
2012-11-14 09:44:51 AM  

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

Wow, I blew that call, I figured a 2 year deep sleep on that handle after 11/6.

But anyway bro, look at the actual taxes people pay. Deductions incentivize consumer participation. I know, I know, liberty to be a wealth-hording hermit that does nothing for the economy including job creation.

But hey, if you think the income of the 1% can continue to climb while everyone else stays stagnant, I've got a few Panic Rooms to sell you before 2020.


Sorry- I think he already has a panic room.
 
2012-11-14 10:04:40 AM  
I'm not too worried. If there is one thing the current congress is known for, it's an ability to get shiat done!
 
2012-11-14 10:05:03 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.


The only 'Fair' way to do it is a consumption tax. Exempt food and medical, 8% on everything else. $100 item $8, $500 item $40, $1M yacht $80,000.
 
2012-11-14 10:06:11 AM  

fusillade762: DrPainMD: 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.

Of course. What they're really trying to do is scare people into changing their minds. Most people WANT the government to spend less and reduce (or eliminate) the deficit, which is what the fiscal cliff is. Bring it on. Anybody with a brain knows that they can't keep borrowing our prosperity for ever, and the day they stop it all comes crashing down. Let's get it over with so we can start to rebuild.

No. I don't give two shiats about the deficit. It effects me exactly ZERO. Interest rates are still quite low in historical terms. Call me a Keynisian but austerity is best saved for times of plenty.


You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?
 
2012-11-14 10:07:41 AM  
PS. Unless we fix the economy, there will be no more "times of plenty."
 
2012-11-14 10:40:05 AM  
This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.


So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.
 
2012-11-14 10:52:55 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.


You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?
 
2012-11-14 11:08:25 AM  

Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?


"death tax" is an ooga booga term and decades old. If a tax cut is massive, rolling it back it massive. This is just run-of-the-mill mealy mouthed bullshiat
 
2012-11-14 12:09:32 PM  

Serious Black: shotglasss: Easy solution. Government can only spend what they take in. No more unless in time of war that has been declared by Congress.

Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending.

Solution: Nuke DC from orbit and start over in Kansas.

That won't work. Kansans like cutting taxes to zero and abolishing government...well, government that helps the proletariat at least.


My town just elected to have a tax increase just so we can have a new pool.

/A lot of people who wanted the tax also voted for Romney
//They will probably never see the irony
 
2012-11-14 12:32:33 PM  

clowncar on fire: elchip: EnviroDude: Time for a flat tax. A fair tax

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith

Luxury taxes! Unpossible!!!!

I'm assuming this tax could be applied to any luxury item regardless of the consumer's income.


He wasn't proposing luxury taxes, but taxes on house-rents. Because then as now, the wealthiest individuals in a highly developed society are thoroughly invested in land and its utility.

However, now we have an alternative venue which encompasses even that type of activity. The equivalent to Smith's argument of 1776 would be Increased Capital Gains taxes.
 
2012-11-14 12:42:19 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: Debeo Summa Credo: This may be apropos of nothing, but this was on at the barbershop last week and really irritated me, and the transcript just became available:

Jay Carney, press conference last week:

MR. CARNEY: What I will say is that he will not sign an extension of the tax cuts -- the Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent, and that he has put forward principles to tax reform -- reforming our tax code. That's something he's committed to doing. And he certainly recognizes that there are ways to address the issue of the need for the wealthiest to pay a little bit more that include cutting deductions, and we've put that in our own plans. But I don't want to get into what the details will look like or draw lines around proposals that work and others that don't, because this is fairly complex in nature.

.........

MR. CARNEY: No. His plan actually cuts spending by $4 trillion, and it does it in a way that allows us to continue to invest in aspects of the economy that are essential to our competitiveness and our long-term growth, and that make sure that the middle class is not bearing the burden of getting our fiscal house in order.

And that's the problem with an approach that gives massive tax cuts to the wealthy, and it's also the problem with an approach that arbitrarily cuts spending for in the way that the sequester does, because it causes great harm to people who should not be bearing the burden of this on their own. This is something that can be addressed in a smart way, and that's the balanced approach the President has put forward.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

You're going to complain about language when Frank Luntz single-handedly created the phrase "death tax"?

"death tax" is an ooga booga term and decades old. If a tax cut is massive, rolling it back it massive. This is just run-o ...


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?
 
2012-11-14 12:51:16 PM  

Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?


they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?
 
2012-11-14 01:04:18 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?


No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.
 
2012-11-14 01:08:57 PM  

Serious Black: No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


I guess the difference is that he's not directly contradicting himself.
 
2012-11-14 01:13:55 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


Yeah, the analogy fails. The "death tax" thing is applying a negative term to something Luntz unequivocally dislikes. He's not contradicting himself, just applying a term, appropriate or not.

Carney is contradicting himself within the same press conference by calling the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich "a little bit more", while calling the extension of those same cuts "massive".

It would be the equivalent to
Luntz, or anyone in the GOP, calling a planned cut in spending a "very modest reduction" but 5 minutes later describing the notion of not making that exact cut a "massive increase in wasteful spending"
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2012-11-14 01:27:49 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.


Yes. Usually this is called "Orwellian." Words have meanings and a lot of conservatives have been wanting to change those meanings to fit their own agenda.

Saying "small business" is anything under 1000 employees is a classic example.
 
2012-11-14 01:31:38 PM  

d23: Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

No, my point was that people use language to shape how people think all the time. If I call it the estate tax, people think it's okay. If I call it the death tax, people think it's bad. Same thing with Mr. Carney's comments. He says it's a small tax hike, so it's okay, but not doing what Mr. Obama wants would be a massive tax cut, which is bad. Frank Luntz is the master at this, and he is a big part of why conservative policies have been so popular since he came into prominence. The Democrats are trying to apply his lessons more thanks to folks like Drew Westen, George Lakoff, Eric Liu, and Nick Hanauer, but it's still in its early stages.

Yes. Usually this is called "Orwellian." Words have meanings and a lot of conservatives have been wanting to change those meanings to fit their own agenda.

Saying "small business" is anything under 1000 employees is a classic example.


or equal changes in tax policy being simultaneously "massive" and "a little bit more". Ya know, as we're discussing.
 
2012-11-14 01:51:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?


More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.

What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.
 
2012-11-14 01:59:46 PM  

BeesNuts: More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."


if we assume he was speaking about EV votes when talking about Romney's "landside" prediction despite the fact that the context of the video in which he makes the comment seems to indicate he was referring to popular vote then yes.

BeesNuts: If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.


this is true. Good point.

BeesNuts: What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.


wasn't me who posted the quote.
 
2012-11-14 02:25:05 PM  

BeesNuts: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.


Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earnings.).

In your mind, or at least in your justification of whatever's going on in Carney's mind, a 4% increase in total revenue is 'massive', but a 10% increase in individual taxes is 'a little bit', because you are looking at the $80b vs. the smaller amounts that each individual taxpayer's taxes will increase.

Be sure to let the GOP know about that thought process when they start talking entitlement reform. I'm sure each EITC, WIC, medicaid, social security, and medicare recipient can do fine with a 8 or 10% cut in benefits. After all, that's just a little bit. But the savings to society would be massive!!
 
2012-11-14 02:48:27 PM  

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

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -Adam Smith


Pfft. Commie. What would our founding fathers say about such tripe?
 
2012-11-14 03:38:53 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

if we assume he was speaking about EV votes when talking about Romney's "landside" prediction despite the fact that the context of the video in which he makes the comment seems to indicate he was referring to popular vote then yes.


Wut?

Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.


BeesNuts: If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

this is true. Good point.


Thanks! I just literally hadn't read his quote the way you did, and so the affront you found seemed way out of left field.

BeesNuts: What's interesting to me is that you chose to ignore the other hundred or so words in that statement in lieu of identifying an imaginary rhetorical transgression. I mean, par for the course for you, but a little forced this time, don't you think.

wasn't me who posted the quote.


Really? *checks*. Well fark me... no idea what happened. Carry on.
 
2012-11-14 03:48:23 PM  

BeesNuts: Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.


that's certainly an EC prediction. In the interview he did with GVS on FNC he focuses almost entirely on the popular vote and talks about how he is able to look into polls unlike other people and see what they "really" say. Hadn't seen his written prediction before this
 
2012-11-14 03:55:30 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: BeesNuts: skullkrusher: Serious Black: I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Is "death tax" worse, better, or the same as what Mr. Carney was doing?

they're not really comparable. Frankly, I have no idea why you even brought it up. Is your point that the phrase "Death Tax" is meant to confuse people into thinking that everyone pays a tax when they die?

More comparable to "Romney's gonna win in a landslide with 310 EVs => Obama *squeaked* by with 330 EVs."

But from a practical perspective, I actually don't think Carney is making the abominable contradiction you think he is.

So which is it, Jay? In Obama's plan the rich are asked to pay "a little more", but if we extend the tax cuts its "a massive tax cut to the wealthy"? Make up your mind, you lying POS.

If I'm "rich" and you increase my marginal tax rate by 3.5%, I'm paying "a little more" in the scheme of my personal finances.

If our government isn't making revenue, then keeping those tax rates low in effect provides a tax cut that potentially equates to billions of dollars of lost revenue. That's massive.

Therefore, the impact on the individuals in question is "little" and the cost of the alternative, to society, is "massive". Carney is not a "Lying POS".

QED.

Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earnings.).

In your ...


Never took calculus, did you?

We're discussing the difference between a principle and a derivative here. And until you can stop talking about percentage increases and decreases you're going to miss the point. Abandoning $80b is massive. If I made 300k and my taxes were 35% above 250, I'd be paying 35%*50k = 17.5k At 40% we're talking 20k. that's an increase of 2.5k across 300k income or a net increase of 0.8% and has "little" effect on the individual or household.

$80b of revenue, by contrast, is 2.75% of our total yearly revenue.

since 2.75% is THREE TIMES BIGGER than 0.83%, one might very well be justified in calling the former MASSIVE and the latter LITTLE. You can disagree with the semantics, but the fact is that no matter how badly you wanted to make Carney out to be some spinster on par with those Bush employed over his tenure, he's not a "Lying POS" because of what he said there.

This isn't spin. This is farking simple.
 
2012-11-14 03:57:15 PM  

skullkrusher: BeesNuts: Prediction: Romney 325, Obama 213
By Dick Morris - 11/05/12 07:21 PM ET

Yup. That's right. A landslide for Romney approaching the magnitude of Obama's against McCain. That's my prediction.

that's certainly an EC prediction. In the interview he did with GVS on FNC he focuses almost entirely on the popular vote and talks about how he is able to look into polls unlike other people and see what they "really" say. Hadn't seen his written prediction before this


Not gonna lie. I had to dig for that cocksucker. All that turned up were his vague retractions. I had to reduce the search to articles from 11/5/2012 only and boom, there it was. I'm honestly not sure if he was retracting his written statement or his verbal one, so we'll call that one a draw :p
 
2012-11-14 04:24:09 PM  
wtf is a refund.. what are all you guys poor
 
2012-11-14 04:41:07 PM  

jso2897: The poor already pay - sales taxes, gas taxes, property taxes, payroll taxes


Sales taxes are levied by states and counties to pay for necessary services, as are gasoline taxes levied by the federal, state and local government to pay only for roads. Property taxes are levied at the county level, usually to pay for schools and municipal services. Payroll taxes are Supposed to be us stashing our money away to the federal government to pay for social security.

None of these are the Federal Income tax. - which pays for the Military, court system, parks, patent offices and a littany of other departments along with the national debt, foreign aid, etc...

A poor person shopping at Wal-mart and paying sales tax is contributing to the operation his or her state/county. That sales tax does not go towards the operation of the federal government.

shotglasss: Problem with that: Politicians use our money to buy votes. They won't stop themselves from spending


Although debate rages as to whether or not he actually said it, you've just described the Tytler cycle.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.
 
2012-11-14 04:53:52 PM  

DrPainMD: Only suckers get tax refunds. Why would you want to give the government a no-interest loan when you can get a no-interest loan from the government? Yes, I'll be paying again this year, just like every year. Thanks for the no-interest loan.


I kinda like my county and would like to do whatever i can to help out...i'm not self centered like some
 
2012-11-14 05:35:13 PM  

DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?


I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.
 
2012-11-14 06:55:23 PM  

fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.


Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet
 
2012-11-14 09:36:20 PM  

tbhouston: fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet


A proud member of the 47%.
 
2012-11-14 10:08:48 PM  
BeesNuts:
Preposterous and shameful dodge! You are choosing to look at the dollar value related to the tax cuts/tax hikes to the country and individuals on an absolute basis. The possible tax increases/tax cuts are, relatively speaking, a higher percentage of income of the people affected than the government revenues as a whole. So while they may raise total income tax revenue by 4% for the treasury next year (assuming $80b increase on $2.5t in current revenues - very rough estimate), because they are only falling on the 2% top earners it would increase their taxes by a larger amount, say on average 10% (39.6% of income is 13% more than 35%, but adjusted downward because it wont affect the taxes paid on the 2%s first $250k in earn ...

Never took calculus, did you?

We're discussing the difference between a principle and a derivative here. And until you can stop talking about percentage increases and decreases you're going to miss the point. Abandoning $80b is massive. If I made 300k and my taxes were 35% above 250, I'd be paying 35%*50k = 17.5k At 40% we're talking 20k. that's an increase of 2.5k across 300k income or a net increase of 0.8% and has "little" effect on the individual or household.

$80b of revenue, by contrast, is 2.75% of our total yearly revenue.

since 2.75% is THREE TIMES BIGGER than 0.83%, one might very well be justified in calling the former MASSIVE and the latter LITTLE. You can disagree with the semantics, but the fact is that no matter how badly you wanted to make Carney out to be some spinster on par with those Bush employed over his tenure, he's not a "Lying POS" because of what he said there.

This isn't spin. This is farking simple.


You arbitrarily chose $300k as the individuals income to make your point. Sure, it would increase such a person's taxes by a small amount (actually, less than 0.83% because you omitted the taxes they'd pay on their first $250k in earnings). It would increase someone makeing $250k by zero percent! Why didn't you choose that person?

By mathematical definition, if total revenues increase by a certain percentage, and 98% of the taxpayers dont see any increase at all, the weighted average increase among the 2% who are affected has to be greater than the increase in total revenues.

If you look at someone making $1m, it would increase their taxes on income over $250k by $750k*(.396-.35)=$37,200. If they were paying $317k in total taxes before (assume 20% on the first 250k), their taxes went up by over 11%!

If you look at someone making $10m, their total taxes would go up from about $3.5m to $3.9m, a 'massive' 13% increase.

Did they teach you in any of your calculus classes which is greater, 13% or 2.75%?

This isn't difficult. I don't know if you are innumerate or merely blindly partisan, but you are wrong. Carney is full of shiat.
 
2012-11-14 10:09:18 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: tbhouston: fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet

A proud member of the 47%.


Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me.
 
2012-11-14 10:16:40 PM  

fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me


The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.
 
2012-11-14 11:06:07 PM  

fusillade762: Debeo Summa Credo: tbhouston: fusillade762: DrPainMD: You really think that the deficit doesn't affect you? Really? Where do you think the money comes from to service all that debt?

I don't make enough to pay federal taxes. Try again.

Lol @ bragging about that...hah internet

A proud member of the 47%.

Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me.


future debt means less money to give you more free stuff with?
 
2012-11-14 11:59:02 PM  

o5iiawah: fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.


img2.statista.com

Yeah, look at that inflation rate. It's CRAZY!
 
2012-11-15 12:06:06 AM  

skullkrusher: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me.

future debt means less money to give you more free stuff with?


What's your idea of "free stuff"?
 
2012-11-15 03:27:05 AM  

fusillade762: o5iiawah: fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.

[img2.statista.com image 850x605]

Yeah, look at that inflation rate. It's CRAZY!


When you make inflation a component of housing and average it with treasury-level financial instruments, inflation is low. To the rest of us who buy stuff on a daily basis, prices are up with means our dollar is worth less. Money simply represents goods and services so when you increase the money supply, you simply make things more expensive.

I'm not a foreign bank buying notes from the treasury via electronic transaction, I'm buying gas, milk, eggs and paying rent.

Where it matters most, Food, Gas, Rent, Utilities, Education and healthcare, prices are up. that is inflation.
 
2012-11-15 09:17:25 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: You arbitrarily chose $300k as the individuals income to make your point. Sure, it would increase such a person's taxes by a small amount (actually, less than 0.83% because you omitted the taxes they'd pay on their first $250k in earnings). It would increase someone makeing $250k by zero percent! Why didn't you choose that person?


Ok. 500k then?

35% of 250k = 87.5k = 17.5% of total income
40% of 250k = 100k = 20% of total income.

2.5% effective tax rate increase.
Total 12.5k income tax hike.

That's "little"

80b? Still big. Massive, possibly.

**********************
If you look at someone making $1m, it would increase their taxes on income over $250k by $750k*(.396-.35)=$37,200. If they were paying $317k in total taxes before (assume 20% on the first 250k), their taxes went up by over 11%!

If you look at someone making $10m, their total taxes would go up from about $3.5m to $3.9m, a 'massive' 13% increase.


Let's look at a 1m earner, in raw, real, terms. Assuming every dollar of that is regular income. And ignoring all other taxes owed, and any loopholes. We will assume s/he is single.

In 2012, they'd have owed $326,759.60. 32.68% Effective Tax Rate

If their marginal rate goes up from 35 to 40%, they will owe $357,342.10. 35.73% Effective Tax Rate

Net Increase In Effective Tax Rate: 3.05%

You think this is spin. I think you're being disingenuous. The impact is small on the individual. Losing that revenue is... not small anymore.

You are trying to make Carney out to be a liar of this minutia of language. It's just not there, and even if it was, it doesn't farking matter. This entire conversation is a red herring, and I'm done with it. Carry on with your bad self.
 
2012-11-15 02:47:15 PM  

fusillade762: o5iiawah: fusillade762: Still waiting for someone to explain how the Federal debt affects me

The resulting inflation caused by the Federal reserve conjuring money out of thin air to borrow to service the debt causes prices to rise.

So unless you post from a cave and live in the bush, hunting your food like Ted Nugent, enjoy that.

[img2.statista.com image 850x605]

Yeah, look at that inflation rate. It's CRAZY!


It is higher if you include the decrease in wages over the same period.
 
2012-11-17 02:38:55 AM  

pxsteel: 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.

The only 'Fair' way to do it is a consumption tax. Exempt food and medical, 8% on everything else. $100 item $8, $500 item $40, $1M yacht $80,000.


In other words, drasticly shift the tax burden to those with a lower income.

Thanks, no.
 
Displayed 164 of 164 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report