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  
•       •       •

3575 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 04:04:59 PM  

Corvus: What someone who gets hundreds of billions in government handouts might look like:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x42]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x62]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 176x30]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x22]
[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x39]


Hmmm...as much as Id like to complain about the recent nearly useless wars, my employer makes parts for a couple of those companies, so Im not gonna complain.
 
2012-12-03 04:05:49 PM  

Corvus: 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?


Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:01 PM  

Elzar: 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)


Done. Completely balanced and no significant impact to employment or entitlements.

Thanks for the link.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.


NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:33 PM  
Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz
 
2012-12-03 04:06:49 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.


The graph comes from a paper written by Michael I. Norton of the Harvard Business School and Dan Ariely of Duke University (PDF). But, with the exception of the top quintile in the USA, the pie sections aren't particularly well labeled even in the paper.

Also, it's important to point out, as You're the jerk... jerk noted, that Norton and Ariely are comparing US wealth with Swedish income. So, not exactly apples to apples.
 
2012-12-03 04:06:51 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: 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.


When Republicans talk about "gifts" they are probably referring to "rape babies".
 
2012-12-03 04:08:32 PM  

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


If they said that if you did something else you didn't have to pay, then no you didn't rip anyone off. You played by the rules.

Corvus: 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?


The money is coming from China right now. There is no connection between what we pay and what the government spends. Zero! I wish this wasn't true but it is.

Corvus: 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?


I'm not even 40 yet. I have never seen a dime of Social Security or Medicare and I dont plan on seeing a dime of it. It's gone. Just another tax like all the others.

Corvus: 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?


Most of those things are provided on the state level and what isn't should be.
 
2012-12-03 04:08:36 PM  

Jackson Herring: Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz


US Dept. of They Spinnin
 
2012-12-03 04:09:50 PM  

Corvus: The Stealth Hippopotamus: 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.

NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.


Well he perfected this when he was in charge of Mariott's. It was illegal when he did it for them but he must have figured out how to protect his ass somehow when he tried it himself.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:17 PM  

bradkanus: 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.


Since that theory has been proven incorrect, we should be able to raise the rates to the same as income taxes, and add Social Security / Medicare taxes too, since, well, income is income.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:43 PM  

bradkanus: 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) -


Everyone else was able to comprehend the original statement quite easily. You're the only one here that's pedantic enough to try to correct it. Unless of course, you were just being disingenuous? Say it ain't so.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:44 PM  

bradkanus: Corvus: 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?

Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.


No I pay a higher tax rate than people who are hedge fund managers. You are wrong. Because they can count there income as capital gains. I can't.

Even the company stock I get I have to pay income tax on while hedge fund managers get to pay capital gains on most of their income.

Really read this:

Carried interest

Hedge fund managers who are making hundreds of millions a year are paying less percent than I do. And less than many Americans.

You don't seem to get it.
 
2012-12-03 04:10:55 PM  

Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).


Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:10 PM  

Corvus: 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.


Please don't pin that on me - I'm just relating what we were all told.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:14 PM  

Elzar: 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)


Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.
 
2012-12-03 04:11:21 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: So if I skip out on my bill that's not ripping someone off?

If they said that if you did something else you didn't have to pay, then no you didn't rip anyone off. You played by the rules.


So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?
 
2012-12-03 04:12:31 PM  

sprawl15: Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.


Yes but we are maxed. He for all intents and purposes is not. so he gets a tax break we don't get.
 
2012-12-03 04:13:17 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: 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.


Yeah... but those loans are all yours... you get to keep them even if you go bankrupt!
 
2012-12-03 04:13:21 PM  

mrshowrules: When Republicans talk about "gifts" they are probably referring to "rape babies".


is that getting rape babies or making rape babies?

cause I don't want to get me no rape babies

/I said rape thrice
 
2012-12-03 04:14:22 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: Source: US Dept. of Rimzzzzz

US Dept. of They Spinnin


oh my gosh
 
2012-12-03 04:15:16 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: The money is coming from China right now. There is no connection between what we pay and what the government spends. Zero! I wish this wasn't true but it is.


So you have no problem with deficits? Or only when rich people need to help out?

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Most of those things are provided on the state level and what isn't should be.


So then you have no problem with states taxing rich people? How does that have any bearing they still cost money. And no roads are paid a lot be the federal government. You seem completely clueless if you don't know that.

So will you answer my questions:

Will you voluntarily give up your government services so rich people can pay less in taxes or are you just asking for others to do so?
 
2012-12-03 04:15:24 PM  

Corvus: bradkanus: Corvus: 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?

Rich people pay more in taxes than you do. Wealthy people don't. You keep mixing that up. We are talking earnings, not assets.

No I pay a higher tax rate than people who are hedge fund managers. You are wrong. Because they can count there income as capital gains. I can't.

Even the company stock I get I have to pay income tax on while hedge fund managers get to pay capital gains on most of their income.

Really read this:

Carried interest

Hedge fund managers who are making hundreds of millions a year are paying less percent than I do. And less than many Americans.

You don't seem to get it.


I get it just fine. Is it fair? Nope, but our laws were written more than 100 years ago on income taxes and they don't cover what they should. No tax increase on the rich is going to reach the bulk of what hedge fund managers make.

Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?
 
2012-12-03 04:15:26 PM  

The_Gallant_Gallstone: Yeah... but those loans are all yours... you get to keep them even if you go bankrupt!


hurrah, I have a piece of the american dream!
 
2012-12-03 04:16:03 PM  

vernonFL: We've spent $4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus thousands killed and tens of thousands injured.


Hundreds of thousands killed, when you actually consider brown people.
 
2012-12-03 04:16:15 PM  

Phil Moskowitz: Everything is falling to shiat because of the goddamn bush tax cuts. Don't start making shiat up.


Oh, come on, two wars "off the books" were ALSO bad!
 
2012-12-03 04:16:25 PM  

Corvus: sprawl15: Corvus: He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

Money in a 401k is only tax deferred. Not tax free. He has to pay taxes when he takes the money out. What the 401k does is allow him to withdraw that money at a far lower rate.

Yes but we are maxed. He for all intents and purposes is not. so he gets a tax break we don't get.


"Getting a tax break we don't get", or even "paying far lower taxes than he should" is a world of difference from "paying no taxes", which is what you're claiming. He pays taxes on any money withdrawn from the 401k, and he pays them as if it was ordinary income.
 
2012-12-03 04:16:52 PM  
every day it becomes more and more obvious that Abraham Lincoln farked up and should have let the South go.
 
2012-12-03 04:17:48 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I'm as liberal as they come, and entitlements are certainly a problem. Of course, any plan that discusses only cutting those programs that help liberal and/or poor people while ignoring the things that help Republican's cronies in industry (and which, BTW, are the largest expenditures by our government) is a disingenuous plan.


You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:10 PM  

Corvus: NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.




Hey! Be care here! He did pay taxes. Income tax was payed at one point and sales tax were paid at some point. Odds are they were depreciated on a legal GAAP schedule and there for valued at zero. But taxes were paid along the way.

Now if you say that doesn't count you really open yourself up to some nasty problems on future tax debates.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:17 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Elzar: 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)

Wow, I picked:
Eliminate Earmarks
Reduce Federal workforce by 10% and cut 250,000 government contractors.
Reduce Military to pre-Iraq War size, Reduce Navy and Air Force Fleets, Cancel or Delay some weapons programs.
Reduce the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to 30,000
President Obama's proposals on the taxes.
Reduce mortgage deduction for high-income households
And the bank tax.

And that virtually balanced the budget. I thought it would take a lot more than that.


If you don't increase defense spending, every year, no matter what, you're a filthy commie.
 
2012-12-03 04:18:28 PM  
STFU. We all know rich people deserve special tax rates. They are special.
 
2012-12-03 04:19:14 PM  
In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska.

Enjoy china!!!
 
2012-12-03 04:20:10 PM  

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


Yes, a safety net is SOOOOO damaging.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:48 PM  

graggor: In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska Florida.

Enjoy china!!!


We can't give up Alaska. Too many natural resources.
 
2012-12-03 04:21:49 PM  

garron: Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism


I know right? Look at that vile shiathole going on over there in Scandinavia.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:17 PM  

pacified: STFU. We all know rich people deserve special tax rates. They are special.


Frankly, asking them to pay more just seems rude to me.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:24 PM  
I am seriously gonna *SMACK* the next stupid farking idiot who talks to me about Obama's gifts and freebies.

and I'm gonna keep doing this until I get MY freebies. I aint got nothing yet.

of course, my freebie might be room and board at the local jail
farking freeloader, that's what I'll be.
 
2012-12-03 04:22:34 PM  
Some Republicans have expressed concern over the amount of U.S. debt owned by China. Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, a 2012 presidential hopeful, joked that when it came to the debt "Hu's your daddy," a reference to Chinese President Hu Jintao.

Despite such joking, the truth is the bulk of the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt - $9.8 trillion in all - is owned by the American people and its government.

So we own almost 65% of the debt and China is our daddy?
 
2012-12-03 04:22:41 PM  

bradkanus: I get it just fine. Is it fair? Nope, but our laws were written more than 100 years ago on income taxes and they don't cover what they should. No tax increase on the rich is going to reach the bulk of what hedge fund managers make.

Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?


WTF are you talking about? We pass budget bills every year!

So you are saying "thigns are broken so let's not ever try to fix it"? What a stupid ass statement that is. You made a comment and you were wrong. you made statement and you were wrong now you are trying to move the goal posts.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:24 PM  

sprawl15: "Getting a tax break we don't get", or even "paying far lower taxes than he should" is a world of difference from "paying no taxes", which is what you're claiming. He pays taxes on any money withdrawn from the 401k, and he pays them as if it was ordinary income.


Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes on that money. My comment was correct.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:30 PM  
IM sorry almost 69% of the debt. dang math in my head.
 
2012-12-03 04:23:50 PM  

graggor: In total, China owns about 8 percent of publicly held U.S. debt. Of all the holders of U.S. debt China is the third-largest, behind only the Social Security Trust Fund's holdings of nearly $3 trillion and the Federal Reserve's nearly $2 trillion holdings in Treasury investments, purchased as part of its quantitative easing program to boost the economy.

China owns 8% of the country!!!

they can take alabama, mississippi, arkansas, missouri and alaska.

Enjoy china!!!


My employer just sent his son to a partner company in China to train, even though there are several people within the company here in the USA that could train him...apparently the Chinese are far better at it than anyone we employ. Take that as you may.
 
2012-12-03 04:24:32 PM  

eraser8: Here's the wealth distribution in the USA v. wealth distribution in Sweden (although, it's facetiously called "Equalden" in the chart):


Um, what do the colors represent? Without that information, this chart is very uninformative. The numbers are clearly the size of each pie slice, but what fraction of the US controls 84% of the wealth?
 
2012-12-03 04:25:29 PM  

garron: Lord Dimwit: I'm as liberal as they come, and entitlements are certainly a problem. Of course, any plan that discusses only cutting those programs that help liberal and/or poor people while ignoring the things that help Republican's cronies in industry (and which, BTW, are the largest expenditures by our government) is a disingenuous plan.

You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.


Look, no matter how much you scream and cry, Solyndra is not a scandal
 
2012-12-03 04:25:45 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]


Somehow they always leave this fact out of the equation. It's almost like they're always intellectually dishonest in their arguments in order to rationalize the exploitative wealth of the ruling class.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:28 PM  

garron: Lord Dimwit: I'm as liberal as they come, and entitlements are certainly a problem. Of course, any plan that discusses only cutting those programs that help liberal and/or poor people while ignoring the things that help Republican's cronies in industry (and which, BTW, are the largest expenditures by our government) is a disingenuous plan.

You are rare. This is a reasoned approach and I agree. Cuts need to be made on both sides of the equation. Corporatism and cronyism is just as damaging as Socialism. But I do have to take exception to one thing you said. Republican cronies are not the only ones benefiting. Solyndra is a prime example.


He's rare? Are you daft? Who do you talk to that says cuts don't need to be made on both sides? I engage in political discussions as often as I can, with libs and cons alike. I've never ever heard anyone say that taxes need to be raised but spending needs to remain the same.

Who says this? Do you have proof that a significant portion of the populace feels this way?
 
2012-12-03 04:26:48 PM  

Corvus: So are people on welfare right? They are playing by the rules too. Or is that magically different?


We allow them to have it. I can't blame anyone for working the system! If they really do need it I want them to have it. And because of that, and I know human nature there will be some people who take it that do not need it. I can get mad about it, and sometimes I do, but at the end of the day I understand that in order for people to get the help they need we are going to have bottom feeders
.
 
2012-12-03 04:26:58 PM  

bradkanus: Maybe it's time for a consumption tax?


Because the poor and middle class aren't getting screwed over enough as it is?
 
2012-12-03 04:27:22 PM  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Corvus: NO HE DID NOT.

He had Bane declare the assets as being worthless (or close to worthless) then he had Bane give it to him (he paid no taxes) and then he put them in his 401k and gave it to his kids (paying no taxes).

HE PAID ZERO TAXES ON HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

He used a loop hole to make on paper assets to be worthless so he could pay no taxes on them. How many times does this need to be explained to you.

And on his income he paid capital gains on most of it even though he risked none of his own money.



Hey! Be care here! He did pay taxes. Income tax was payed at one point and sales tax were paid at some point. Odds are they were depreciated on a legal GAAP schedule and there for valued at zero. But taxes were paid along the way.

Now if you say that doesn't count you really open yourself up to some nasty problems on future tax debates.


So you believe if something is legal it's ok to do?

So you have no problem with people who legally get more from the government through medicare or welfare?
 
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 archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report