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.

(Orange County Register)   We are Not facing the fiscal cliff because the rich are not paying their fair share. It's because you want too many freebies   (ocregister.com) divider line 505
    More: Unlikely, Mark Steyn, American Love, sissy, Charles Schumer, surrender monkeys, government expenditure, syndicated columnist, Party leaders of the United States Senate  
•       •       •

3571 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Dec 2012 at 2:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-03 03:44:54 PM

sweetmelissa31: [i194.photobucket.com image 350x350]

[i194.photobucket.com image 400x300]


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-03 03:44:59 PM

garron: un4gvn666:

What a colossal dumbfark you are.

Ah yes. The most precious debate tool in the arsenal of the enlightened liberal is name calling. My argument is completely invalid because I'm a "colossal dumbfark".

Oh please, please - I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark. I want to be like you. Thinking is such a waste - and working!! sheesh - who needs to do that? I want Obama to give me everything for free. He's such a savior - he can even forgive my sins, heal my diseases, stop global warming and cause everybody to share all they have with each other. Only the true sinners think they deserve what they work for. They didn't build that!!

I love you Obama!! I don't want to be a colossal dumbfark anymore!! Please save me!!! Please save us ALL!!  Please forgive me for thinking!!!


oops. looks like garron just ran out of "substantive arguments".

/look it up
//and possibly study on it
///slashies come in threes
 
2012-12-03 03:45:01 PM

Tman144: un4gvn666: fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: While I am being facetious, there are many people for whom this will be true. If the option is to scrape by on a tiny amount of help from the government or turn to illegal activities, many people will suffer through it. If the option is starvation or crime, crime will increase. Even if we were able to stop each of these people before they hurt someone the cost of law enforcement and taking their kids into the system would be higher than the cost of food stamps.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.

Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.


Thank God, I thought I was going crazy.


Let this be a lesson to all of you: never allow your weed stash to deplete before the work week begins. Horrible things will ensue.
 
2012-12-03 03:45:23 PM

Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?


Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....
 
2012-12-03 03:45:36 PM

PsiChick: InmanRoshi: PsiChick: verbaltoxin: Europe makes use of the VAT a lot more than we do, also. It makes goods more expensive but it does feed back into social spending.

Strangely enough the European countries doing the worst, are the ones who borrowed cheaply on high risk, and created bubbles in their economies. Libertarians like to point out Greece but the fact is, Greece doesn't print its own money, and it is an example of spending run amok at the cost of production. The US isn't Greece but pointing out reality doesn't penetrate the gold bug's bubble.

Greece also considers it a social virtue to cheat tax collectors.

Yep. Cheating and not paying your taxes is such an accepted practice in Greece, they're afraid that they'll see a mass exodus of doctors and other white collar professionals if they ever start cracking down on tax fraud (as the EU has been pressuring them to do) and requiring them to pay rates competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.

That's why I never accept Greece as a statistic relevant to the USA. We all have a very clear work ethic and find cheating on taxes childish. It'd be like if someone claimed America was going to turn into feudal Japan. We just don't have the right cultural conditions for that to happen.


OMFG!!1! IF WE RAISE TAXES WE'LL BE JUST LIKE THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE!!eleven1!!
 
2012-12-03 03:45:56 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: No he did not.

His company had private assets. They valued those assets as close to zero he paid NO TAXES on those. He gave them to kids they paid NO TAXES. Now those "worthless assets" are worth 100 million dollars and him nor his kids paid no taxes.

Why are you against people working for their own money? And you want people to get hand outs?

I believe in people working for their money.


you just keep kicking the can farther down the road. His company that he had that was his. Right?


Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:15 PM
I spent Thanksgiving in the OC with relatives. Laughed my way through the Register editorials. I'm sending a case of Preparation H for Christmas.
 
2012-12-03 03:46:41 PM

ghare: InmanRoshi: PsiChick: verbaltoxin: Europe makes use of the VAT a lot more than we do, also. It makes goods more expensive but it does feed back into social spending.

Strangely enough the European countries doing the worst, are the ones who borrowed cheaply on high risk, and created bubbles in their economies. Libertarians like to point out Greece but the fact is, Greece doesn't print its own money, and it is an example of spending run amok at the cost of production. The US isn't Greece but pointing out reality doesn't penetrate the gold bug's bubble.

Greece also considers it a social virtue to cheat tax collectors.

Yep. Cheating and not paying your taxes is such an accepted practice in Greece, they're afraid that they'll see a mass exodus of doctors and other white collar professionals if they ever start cracking down on tax fraud (as the EU has been pressuring them to do) and requiring them to pay rates competitive with the rest of the industrialized world.

So, they're going to flee Greece for places with even higher tax rates?


Yeah, that was my reaction as well.

When your country asks you to pay taxes, the only correct response is "fark off, I'd rather pay taxes in another country than give you anything."
 
2012-12-03 03:46:58 PM

garron: un4gvn666:

All those words and not a single shred of logic to back up the colossal dumbfarkery of claiming that welfare and food stamps are "stupid" entitlements.

Don't worry, I forgive you.

Welfare programs and food stamps are a waste for healthy people who choose not to work. There was no need to back that up since it was in the original statement. Maybe you missed that part.



How do you cut it for just that subset? How large is that subset as a percentage of the whole?


Difficulty: It can't cost more to determine who they are than it saves in benefits extended.

Please show your work.
 
2012-12-03 03:47:07 PM

sprawl15: Corvus: I don't know why you are saying the same thing I said and trying to pretend I said something different.

I'm not pretending you said something different. I'm agreeing with you, and offering a bit of insight. Maybe you should dial your persecution complex down from 12.


This coming from the guy who insults me in threads from out of the blue.
 
2012-12-03 03:47:44 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Marcus Aurelius: Percentages, how the fark do they work? Are you on some kind of special taxation system where you pay a set amount? Because I personally have to pay this thing known as a "percentage".

There's a good article on Wikipedia about it, you should check it out.


And that's how we pay for roads and bridges, wages for employees and national defense? Do we pay for them with percentages?! No, we pay for them with dollars. Dollars are what count. Romney pays more dollars for you. Gratitude wouldn't be uncalled for.

gilgigamesh: Hey, if you don't ever have the occasion to use those federally regulated air traffic routes for your private jet, that's on you.

Actually you have to pay extra for that.


I pay more than you and you've never so much as sent me a card.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:06 PM

un4gvn666: Tman144: un4gvn666: fracto: un4gvn666: fracto: While I am being facetious, there are many people for whom this will be true. If the option is to scrape by on a tiny amount of help from the government or turn to illegal activities, many people will suffer through it. If the option is starvation or crime, crime will increase. Even if we were able to stop each of these people before they hurt someone the cost of law enforcement and taking their kids into the system would be higher than the cost of food stamps.

Surely, in an age where the food stamp rolls are the highest we've ever seen, yet crime has been steadily declining for the past 20 years, you can come up with some other rationale besides this ridiculous horseshiat.

Your numbers would support my assertion. My giving more assistance fewer people are turning to crime.

Ok, WHOA, I had a severe reading-comprehension-brain fart there. I misread your post. Yes, I agree with you. I thought you were arguing the other way.

My apologies.


Thank God, I thought I was going crazy.

Let this be a lesson to all of you: never allow your weed stash to deplete before the work week begins. Horrible things will ensue.


Amen
 
2012-12-03 03:48:14 PM

graggor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?

Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....


So, you want more taxes on people who already make so little they can't afford to pay taxes and still eat? That's not real good thinkin' there, son.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:33 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.


Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:56 PM

graggor: Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?


No, if anything we should be spending more on that. Those payments provide huge amounts of stimulus to the economy. The rest are indeed way too high.

graggor: Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?


Yes, which is why Obama proposed that exact course of action. The one Republicans believe is "not serious" and are crying their eyes out over.

graggor: I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)


This would defeat the purpose of a progressive tax system. Like it or not, progressive taxation is meant to be redistributive: it pulls money from the wealthy to provide to those below. It has always been like that, and if we want a stable, modern society, it has to stay that way.

We are all redistributionists now. All of us.
 
2012-12-03 03:48:59 PM
i got an idea, we pay the principle off and say fark the rest

if you want it, come collect I dare you
 
2012-12-03 03:49:50 PM

eraser8: TFA noted that the USA is much more redistributionist in its tax structure. My point is that could largely be attributed to the fact that the USA is much more unequal in its income and wealth distribution. That is, the USA doesn't tax the top quintiles because it's US policy to soak the rich; the top quintiles are taxed highly because that's where the overwhelming amount of money is. The implication is that if income and wealth were more evenly distributed, taxation would be, too.



I did not RTFA because I assumed it was drivel that ignored the fact that while our taxation, maybe more regressive we tend to spend that money on things that have no value (air craft carriers, bombs, etc.) so it doesn't really matter. I only responded to your comment because it was clearly wrong. Wealth distribution in the US isn't significantly different than Sweden (it is better than Denmark).
 
2012-12-03 03:50:39 PM

Jackson Herring: When rich people get freebies, it's subsidies for job creators.


Which, if they really do create jobs, (a) they don't need subsidies, and (b) any subsidy we give them doesn't generate enough extra revenue to pay for itself. So STOP DOING IT, CONGRESS.
 
2012-12-03 03:50:49 PM

Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh


It wouldn't matter. We're in a period of high unemployment.

Let's say that there's 107 people and 100 jobs available.

If 7 people choose not to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
If everybody chooses to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
The only change is that in the first case the unemployed are self-selected.

If we get down to the point that everybody who wants a job has a job, we'll see serious wage inflation. Until we get that, there's no reason to worry about whether some people choose to be unemployed.
 
2012-12-03 03:50:50 PM

Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh


because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!
 
2012-12-03 03:52:29 PM

slayer199:
You can raise taxes to 90% on everyone above $100k and it's not going to do a damn thing unless BOTH sides can significantly cut spending. Budgets, how do they work?


Lolwut? Go on and find me a cite. Find the total income over 100K in the US, take 90% of that, and tell me its not even a trillion dollars. In an economy of $16 trillion GDP, tell me that all salary and hourly workers over $100K a year put together don't add up to even $1.2 trillion a year .

Show me that or STFU, you lying sack of right wing hyperbole
 
2012-12-03 03:52:33 PM

Corvus: Wow you have such no clue on how you are being ripped off. You should just voluntarily donate you social security and medicare you paid for to hand over to rich people since you are so for it.


No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

And I'm not ripped off when someone does a legal maneuver to get out of paying taxes. I dont have a legal claim on those dollars. I'm ripped off when someone who could be providing for themselves is instead living off the government. I'm ripped off when members of Congress grossly overpay for services that should cost pennies on the dollar.

Tax cuts, loops, and shelters don't cost the government money as long as they are legal. They (We) dont have a right to that money.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:02 PM

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: No he did not.

His company had private assets. They valued those assets as close to zero he paid NO TAXES on those. He gave them to kids they paid NO TAXES. Now those "worthless assets" are worth 100 million dollars and him nor his kids paid no taxes.

Why are you against people working for their own money? And you want people to get hand outs?

I believe in people working for their money.


you just keep kicking the can farther down the road. His company that he had that was his. Right?

Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.


And even if he did, money gets taxed when it changes hands.
When it goes into Bain's checkbook, it should get taxed. When Bain writes a check to one W. Mitt Romney, he should pay tax on it. When a million dollars goes from Mitt's bank account into Tagg's why shouldn't it also be taxed?
 
2012-12-03 03:53:12 PM

Corvus: This coming from the guy who insults me in threads from out of the blue.


You're acting like a 14 year old upset that his Dad likes his music.

I tend not to treat that kind of person like an adult.

There's a simple solution here.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:21 PM

bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.


None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.
 
2012-12-03 03:53:39 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Jackson Herring: garron: healthy people who choose not to work

hahahhahaahhahhahahahahahah ahhhhh

It wouldn't matter. We're in a period of high unemployment.

Let's say that there's 107 people and 100 jobs available.

If 7 people choose not to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
If everybody chooses to work, then 100 people work and 7 people are unemployed.
The only change is that in the first case the unemployed are self-selected.

If we get down to the point that everybody who wants a job has a job, we'll see serious wage inflation. Until we get that, there's no reason to worry about whether some people choose to be unemployed.


It's not even that complicated. In the right-wing mind, we are both in a time of high unemployment because of P. Fart Baracka's policies, AND millions of people are also too lazy to get a job.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:01 PM

joonyer: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Here at FARK we encourage readers to READ the post they are quoting. Have a great day.


I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:01 PM

sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

What, exactly, does a blind trust contribute to the economy?

Trust.


And blind.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:17 PM

BHShaman: The Stealth Hippopotamus: But I'm going to make a crazy guess and say Romney pays a hell of a lot more money than you do.

What does the amount of money have to do with taxation? It is a representative percent of income/wealth not the fiscal note that means something. If I paid 100% of my wages in taxes, Romney could pay 1% and still pay more than I do. Would that make it 'fair' to Romney?


because he still paid MORE than you did.. is that hard to understand? your $6,500 in taxes don't mean fark
 
2012-12-03 03:54:25 PM
Government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That's adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and, yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print?

When you spend 30X as much as them on military, you get skewed numbers like that.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:48 PM
OK thats fine. I still think taxes could go up on everyone. Maybe not the lowest group. Or even make the lowest group 5% which in effect would lower taxes on everyone on that first 30 thousand or whatever. then do the thing were you cant receive more than you paid.

Whatever.

Think everyone should have to pay more once the economy gets better. (not right now obviously with a weaker economy)

But the top can easily pay 500-5000 more and not notice it.
 
2012-12-03 03:54:52 PM

You're the jerk... jerk: I only responded to your comment because it was clearly wrong. Wealth distribution in the US isn't significantly different than Sweden (it is better than Denmark).


Well, it is different. But, you're right that I should have looked into the numbers more closely and made a distinction between wealth and income.
 
2012-12-03 03:55:45 PM

urbangirl: because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!


i194.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-03 03:55:48 PM

urbangirl: sprawl15: cameroncrazy1984: tenpoundsofcheese: But he contributed a lot more to the economy than you, so don't complain.

What, exactly, does a blind trust contribute to the economy?

Trust.

And blind.


I - I need my man
To feel like he's a man
To feel the need for questioning
Where he is or who he's with
He's more than my man
He's my best friend
To feel the need for checkin' in
Cause we got blind trust
Trust, trust, trust
We got blind trust
 
2012-12-03 03:55:51 PM

bradkanus: joonyer: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Here at FARK we encourage readers to READ the post they are quoting. Have a great day.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.


What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?
 
2012-12-03 03:56:07 PM

PsiChick: It'd be like if someone claimed America was going to turn into feudal Japan. We just don't have the right cultural conditions for that to happen.


cdn1.screenrant.com

Quinton is working on it
 
2012-12-03 03:56:45 PM
These farkclowns in Washington DC just need to use the NY Times Balanced Budget calculator and we can avoid all the fiscal cliff nastiness. Its only been around for the last 2 years...

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits- gr aphic.html(Pops Like a motherfarker)
 
2012-12-03 03:57:16 PM

tbhouston: i got an idea, we pay the principle off and say fark the rest

if you want it, come collect I dare you


Interest rates on bonds are at about 0%. We are buying back our bonds and reissuing them with no interest.

So, in effect, we're already doing that.
 
2012-12-03 03:58:02 PM

sweetmelissa31: urbangirl: because life on welfare is SWEET!!!!

[i194.photobucket.com image 641x362]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-03 03:58:03 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: Wow you have such no clue on how you are being ripped off. You should just voluntarily donate you social security and medicare you paid for to hand over to rich people since you are so for it.

No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.

And I'm not ripped off when someone does a legal maneuver to get out of paying taxes. I dont have a legal claim on those dollars. I'm ripped off when someone who could be providing for themselves is instead living off the government. I'm ripped off when members of Congress grossly overpay for services that should cost pennies on the dollar.

Tax cuts, loops, and shelters don't cost the government money as long as they are legal. They (We) dont have a right to that money.


So if I skip out on my bill that's not ripping someone off?

Where do you think that money is going to come from? It's going to come from the money you were going to get back, the money you already paid into. You don't mind people taking the money that you paid so they can pay less?


If you don't mind why not just give back your social security and medicare so that rich people can still pay so little in taxes? It's their money right?
 
2012-12-03 03:59:21 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Why does Romney get to pay 13% while the rest of us have to pay 30? Especially considering that he does no work.

Because the wealthy men who instituted the income tax in the early 1900s knew the difference between earnings and wealth. Protecting their wealth was their first priority. farking over high earners looking to join their ranks was the second priority. And third on the list was securring the country against a major disaster like the fire in San Francisco that inspired their need for an income tax.

None of that explains why the capital gains rate was lowered to 15% by the Republicans.


Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.
 
2012-12-03 04:00:22 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: No, I really wished they would means test for both social security and medicare. Bill Gates doesn't need a social security check but he gets one. But until they do he gets to collect it just alike everyone else.


So then you will voluntarily give back your social security check so rich people can keep their taxes low?

Will you give up your police service. your fire services, roads, public schools so you can keep their taxes low? Because you say it's their money. Or do you want only OTHER people to give things up?
 
2012-12-03 04:00:43 PM

eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]


Is there a version of that graph that explains what each color represents? As it is presented now it is a meaningless set of charts, since I have to guess at what I'm looking at.
 
2012-12-03 04:00:44 PM

Corvus: Bane Capital is an LLC so it's is a separate legal and taxable entity than Mitt Romney is.

Or are you against incorporation and limited liability?

You were wrong and you keep trying to move the goal posts. He NEVER paid taxes on that money. You said he did and you are wrong.



Ok one more time and that's it for you.

He paid taxes on those items and he paid taxes on his income. Unless you are saying that Bane Capital was set up as a church.

Tigger: I pay more than you and you've never so much as sent me a card.


Maybe, maybe not. But I'll say thank you anyway. And I wont ask for more!
 
2012-12-03 04:02:52 PM

cameroncrazy1984: bradkanus: joonyer: bradkanus: Marcus Aurelius: Mitt Romney pays half of what I pay. Maybe taxing that farker at my rate won't balance the budget, but it would be a start.

You pay $6million in taxes? My God that must suck.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-releases-tax-retur n s/2012/01/23/gIQAj5bUMQ_story.html

Here at FARK we encourage readers to READ the post they are quoting. Have a great day.

I would take your own advice before giving it to others. Obviously you're sticking up for someone who was not clear or consistent in their claim. Two stupids can't save a dumb comment. You have great day too, sir.

What's not clear about that? Romney pays 13-15%. He likely paid 30%. What's so hard to understand about that?


You're purposely forgetting that his first sentence was a pure lie. He does not pay twice what romney pays. It's a fact. His rate compared to the rate romney pays is greater (in a basic sense) -
 
2012-12-03 04:03:24 PM

bradkanus: Cap gains are different than income taxes all togehter and that percentage is available to you as well. I see what you are trying to argue here, but lower cap gains was supposed to inspire you to invest.


Except if you are hedge fund manager like Mitt where you can get paid in assets where you get to pay capital gains on your income (or even less),

And why should we encourage investing? That has shown to lead to bubble economies. Besides most of the money is not even used for the company it is to pay off someone else who owns the stock not for new investments.

That is such a BS excuse.
 
2012-12-03 04:03:50 PM
Everything is falling to shiat because of the goddamn bush tax cuts. Don't start making shiat up.
 
2012-12-03 04:03:57 PM

manimal2878: eraser8: FTFA: We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe, in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of 1 percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed.

Could that be, perhaps, because in Europe wealth and income are more even distributed? In Norway, does the top 10% control 80% of the wealth?

Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):

[apt46.net image 615x396]

Is there a version of that graph that explains what each color represents? As it is presented now it is a meaningless set of charts, since I have to guess at what I'm looking at.


Dude, they're not pie-graphs. They're potato-graphs. Potato-graphs don't have labels.
 
2012-12-03 04:04:05 PM

ghare: graggor: Zeb Hesselgresser: Couldn't be BOTH right?

Cannot tell with your horrible english but yeah this is what I am saying.
Aren't we spending too much on defense entitlements, welfare entitlements, energy entitlements, corporate entitlements and other things like this?

And aren't we not taxing enough since our percentage of tax revenue per the GDP is at the lowest it has been in quite a while?

Shouldnt we just raise taxes a little and also cut spending too?

I mean personally I think taxes should go up on all Americans and no American can receive more than they paid in taxes back. So a poor person could end up with exactly what came out of their check but nothing more than that. (although it is a very tiny percentage that do this it still adds up)

anyway I dont see why we cant do both....

So, you want more taxes on people who already make so little they can't afford to pay taxes and still eat? That's not real good thinkin' there, son.


but the English was tasty
 
2012-12-03 04:04:14 PM
I really wish someone would show me where I can get these "gifts" the right keeps talking about, because so far all I have is a lot of student loans.
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report