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.

(Huffington Post)   Top 2% to GOP: Tax us, you dolts   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 286
    More: Obvious, GOP, human beings, United Technologies Corp., National Press, Pratt & Whitney, Scott DesJarlais, John Thune, aerospace industry  
•       •       •

6054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 1:07 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-12-06 09:24:15 AM
They're just the ones that are so lazy they want the government to take care of their noblesse oblige for them. Farking slackers, sucking on the government teat.
 
2012-12-06 09:34:10 AM
They're the ones who've already found their loopholes of choice.
 
2012-12-06 09:49:51 AM
"We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."
 
2012-12-06 09:51:37 AM
This calls for tax cuts.
 
2012-12-06 09:53:16 AM
To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.
 
2012-12-06 09:54:35 AM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


I hear that a lot and it's really a bad argument. These people are obviously saying that ending the tax cuts would help the economy and the nation. One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.

/doesn't care what the 2% pays personally
 
2012-12-06 09:56:55 AM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


Hey, it's what Jesus would do.

"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars. But not more than what he asks. Seriously, fark that guy. You gotta eat too. Now watch me turn these loaves and fishes into jobs!"
 
2012-12-06 10:00:11 AM
I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.
 
2012-12-06 10:01:28 AM

Mugato: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

I hear that a lot and it's really a bad argument. These people are obviously saying that ending the tax cuts would help the economy and the nation. One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.

/doesn't care what the 2% pays personally


I nonconcur there, Mugato, about not caring with the 2% pay. I found it offensive that Mitt Romney paid less of a percentage of his income that I do.

While I understand why President Obama is only seeking to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more at this time, I would like to see the 2003 Bush tax cuts expire for all of us. They should have never been passed, especially after starting a second war by invading Iraq. 

/Very unpatriotic, IMHO.
//Totally self-serving for the party and its base; not America.
 
2012-12-06 10:04:49 AM

AirForceVet: I nonconcur there, Mugato, about not caring with the 2% pay. I found it offensive that Mitt Romney paid less of a percentage of his income that I do.


I guess I agree with that. I don't like it either, to be honest. But these people find ways to not pay taxes anyway. I just get tired of them crying "envy" and "class warfare" whenever anyone brings it up so that was just me throwing up my hands and saying fark it.
 
2012-12-06 10:06:51 AM
"In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some," Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we're not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we've fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up."

translation: look, they're on to our little scam. we'll kick in a few extra bucks and rearrange the deck chairs a bit then play nice nice with the peasants for a little while until they calm down and get distracted by the next shiny object. then once things are calm, we'll activate a contingency plan, get our money back and go right back to screwing over everyone else. tell Grover to STFU for a while, its all part of the plan.
 
2012-12-06 10:09:59 AM

DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.


%2 of the population constitutes a base?
 
2012-12-06 10:10:03 AM
fark the GOP. fark them totally. Start campaigning against your Congresscritters. It's not that hard to get a deal. Obama has put a ton on the table and the best the GOP can do is 'nuh-uh.'

Hell Obama is even offering to raise tax rates by a smaller amount, maybe 3% instead of almost 5%.

Guillotine: 2014.
 
2012-12-06 10:11:47 AM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


My dad always brought this up as the reason why we shouldn't. I now know what to counter it with.

/Fark: The more you know....
 
2012-12-06 10:11:53 AM

sammyk: %2 of the population constitutes a base?


There are poor republicans who worship the rich and side with them on the tax issue. Many of them are Farkers.
 
2012-12-06 10:12:24 AM

sammyk: DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.

%2 of the population constitutes a base?


Yes, when they have the money necessary to fund elections.
 
2012-12-06 10:27:51 AM

Mugato: I hear that a lot and it's really a bad argument. These people are obviously saying that ending the tax cuts would help the economy and the nation. One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.


So you are saying if it is not going to make a difference, it is not worth doing? Even you believe strongly it is the right thing to do?

Mark Cuban said he would not mind the tax increase. He can pay it and it would not bother him much. However, he is not for paying more and having it thrown into the same spending black hole everything is currently feeding. He wants to feel like it is doing something. Putting it that way seems more honest to me.
 
2012-12-06 10:47:47 AM

Mugato: One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.


Not to mention the idea of rich people giving voluntarily while those of lesser means contribute under compulsion is inherently disgusting. If you're already paying an effective rate lower than your secretary, there is no need to grandstand over voluntary giving other than earning a series of cockpunches.
 
2012-12-06 10:52:24 AM
If we go over the fiscal cliff, the amount the rich lose in the stock market is going to be a hell of a lot more than 4% of their income.

Anyone who isn't a Koch-level asshole can see that.
 
2012-12-06 10:54:56 AM
j.wigflip.com
 
2012-12-06 11:06:56 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


Um...
 
2012-12-06 11:10:45 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

 

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-06 11:15:13 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


Added to my collection, thanks.
 
2012-12-06 11:16:42 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-06 11:20:38 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


Sexy and surreal. I like it.
 
2012-12-06 11:20:48 AM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


Is it wrong that I now have a diamond cutter?
 
2012-12-06 11:22:44 AM

Mugato: sammyk: %2 of the population constitutes a base?

There are poor republicans who worship the rich and side with them on the tax issue. Many of them are Farkers.


My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.
 
2012-12-06 11:30:36 AM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


Taxation only works when it is applied consistently to an income bracket. The argument of "You can always write a check for as much as you want to the IRS and they'll take it" is smug, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
 
2012-12-06 11:32:46 AM
GOP has a pretty good point. Just check out the math:

Take home pay after taxes (no deductions) on $250,000 per year:
Obama $187,000
GOP $187,000

Taxes (no deductions) on $500,000 per year
Obama $337,000
GOP $350,000

I think it's pretty clear from these staggering numbers that no small business owner making over $250,000 a year can afford to hire more workers. It's not like the number of customers (demand) is relevant to how many workers (supply) you need.

HISTORY'S GREATEST MONSTER
 
2012-12-06 11:33:35 AM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

Taxation only works when it is applied consistently to an income bracket. The argument of "You can always write a check for as much as you want to the IRS and they'll take it" is smug, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.


You said it better than I did. One millionaire writing a bonus check to the IRS isn't going to make a difference. But millionaires advocating everyone pay their fair share might. Probably not but it's something.
 
2012-12-06 11:37:29 AM

CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.


My Father in Law is like that. His family struggled by for decades trying to pay his mortgage. He finally just recently paid it off, so in a discussion with him about Romney's tax plan versus Obama's he said "yeah but I don't need the mortgage deduction anymore so I prefer Romney's plan." It's like, yeah, aren't you glad someone like Romney wasn't in office 10 years ago? And what about all of the people like you including your daughters and son who haven't yet paid theirs off? It really was a "I got mine, fark you" kinda moment.

I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.
 
2012-12-06 12:00:40 PM
[Unlikely] tag last seen at a GOP fundraising event.
 
2012-12-06 12:02:51 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

Taxation only works when it is applied consistently to an income bracket. The argument of "You can always write a check for as much as you want to the IRS and they'll take it" is smug, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.


...and usually parroted by the same jackasses who demanded "we" invade Iraq, from the safety of their couches.
 
2012-12-06 12:05:09 PM

lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.

My Father in Law is like that. His family struggled by for decades trying to pay his mortgage. He finally just recently paid it off, so in a discussion with him about Romney's tax plan versus Obama's he said "yeah but I don't need the mortgage deduction anymore so I prefer Romney's plan." It's like, yeah, aren't you glad someone like Romney wasn't in office 10 years ago? And what about all of the people like you including your daughters and son who haven't yet paid theirs off? It really was a "I got mine, fark you" kinda moment.

I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.


The whole premise of the Romney/Ryan Medicare reform was, you will be OK, we are going to fark-up the next round of people. Presumably they forgot that the younger people also get a vote.

Makes me think of that Simpsons episode where Homer evacuates the Nuclear Power plant first so he jams a door against the exit so no one can follow him.
 
2012-12-06 12:09:05 PM
FTFA: Still, some Republicans have broken with their party and indicated their support for accepting President Barack Obama's proposal to extend tax cuts only for the first $250,000 of income. Last week, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) urged fellow Republicans to agree to the president's tax plan, and since then a number of Republicans have made similar statements, including Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.).

Funny how when there's news of even a slight bit of sanity in the GOP, either Snowe or Collins is somehow linked to it.

That being said, I wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives on Fark truly understand the basics of how income tax works. I know *I* didn't for the longest time. There's no "hole" between tax brackets. The tax isn't on your total income, it's an increase on taxes OVER a certain dollar amount. I.e., if you were taxed 15% on $20k (just under the top of that bracket), and now you're in the $30k range with 20%, that's 15% on $20k PLUS 20% on the *additional* $10k.

I think I explained that right. My mother used to work for the IRS; but taxes bore the shiat out of me, so I probably wasn't listening very well that day.
 
2012-12-06 12:11:37 PM

lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.


That level of self-interest is pretty common in *any* species. Humans aren't unique to it. It's part of the survival instinct. But, in humans, since we DO have so much bounty, it's gone out of control and now you have people who hoard money/food/power/garbage in their house (it manifests in different ways) when there's no need to.
 
2012-12-06 12:32:27 PM

xanadian: lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.

That level of self-interest is pretty common in *any* species. Humans aren't unique to it. It's part of the survival instinct. But, in humans, since we DO have so much bounty, it's gone out of control and now you have people who hoard money/food/power/garbage in their house (it manifests in different ways) when there's no need to.


Self-interest is normal and healthy but only when balanced with empathy. Most Conservatives have tremendous difficulty experiencing any empathy unless it is for something that effects someone very close to them or if they have personal experience with such as:

-Cheney supporting same sex marriage because of lesbian daughter
-McCain against torture because he suffered torture
-Rubio for ideas within the Dream Act because he is the son of immigrant parents
-Dole supporting disability equality
-Christie supporting FEMA/President when his State needs them
-James Brady for gun control

Self interest with empathy only when they can draw a direct connection to themselves.
 
2012-12-06 12:51:41 PM

lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.


We all have our own sets of empirical evidence to draw particular conclusions... there's simply been tons of it recently, I suppose. In the case of my own father, it can't even be described as a "I got mine, fark you" because he doesn't even has his. He is currently sucking of the government teet himself while complaining about big government, welfare queens, people on unemployment, planned parenthood, people with disabilities, and the poverty stricken simply not using bootstraps.

Of course he holds no empathy, he doesn't give a damn about his own family, or himself for that matter; it's become an issue of complete disconnect. Disconnect that the very thing he complains about the loudest is exactly what he himself is doing. Disconnect from the world that surrounds him and his own family for fark's sake. He doesn't the the utter oxymoron when he flies the Don't Tread On Me flag next to the American flag.

And of course his heros are Rand, Beck, Limbaugh and the like.

Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.
 
2012-12-06 12:53:01 PM

mrshowrules: xanadian: lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people. I have no idea how generalizable that one is, just a CSB I guess.

That level of self-interest is pretty common in *any* species. Humans aren't unique to it. It's part of the survival instinct. But, in humans, since we DO have so much bounty, it's gone out of control and now you have people who hoard money/food/power/garbage in their house (it manifests in different ways) when there's no need to.

Self-interest is normal and healthy but only when balanced with empathy. Most Conservatives have tremendous difficulty experiencing any empathy unless it is for something that effects someone very close to them or if they have personal experience with such as:

-Cheney supporting same sex marriage because of lesbian daughter
-McCain against torture because he suffered torture
-Rubio for ideas within the Dream Act because he is the son of immigrant parents
-Dole supporting disability equality
-Christie supporting FEMA/President when his State needs them
-James Brady for gun control

Self interest with empathy only when they can draw a direct connection to themselves.


Experience is the best teacher, I guess. But, yeah.
 
2012-12-06 12:53:09 PM

CapeFearCadaver: He doesn't the SEE the utter oxymoron


ftfm
 
2012-12-06 12:55:43 PM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


How do you know how much they give and to whom or what? You don't.

They're giving their opinion that people like them should pay more in taxes and that doing so would not adversely effect the economy.

What they personally do or do not do with their money is irrelevant at best.
 
2012-12-06 01:02:31 PM
What's funny is given the options available, the 2% should be JUMPING at the Obama plan on the condition the sequester gets downsized. A forced austerity that cuts like a drunken, machete-wielding butcher across all kinds of budget areas would hurt the economy (and their portfolios, which are consistently correlated around market movements rather than tax rates) far more than a controlled (and predictable) rise in tax rates. The rich would still be rich, it's just that the plebes would no longer be b****ing about it.

There is WAY more to be gained (or alternatively, not lost) by paying a little more in taxes rather than hurting companies you personally invest in.
 
2012-12-06 01:10:56 PM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


Um, private donations will do nothing to close the budget gap.
 
2012-12-06 01:12:35 PM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


That is the absolute dumbest argument about taxes: "If you want to pay more, just write a check!"

A few people voluntarily paying extra is not as effective as everyone in the group doing so. It's the difference between a few million and billions of dollars.
 
2012-12-06 01:13:20 PM

Jim_Callahan: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

Um, private donations will do nothing to close the budget gap.


Forget it, Jake. This is Derpatown.
 
2012-12-06 01:14:18 PM

Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]


p.twimg.com
 
2012-12-06 01:14:55 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.


I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?
 
2012-12-06 01:15:22 PM
"In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some," Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we're not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we've fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up."

DING DING DING DING! This really should end all arguments right there. But, potato.
 
2012-12-06 01:16:40 PM
If six people constitute the 2% then the population must have really declined.
 
2012-12-06 01:16:56 PM
You'll notice that the ones who are calling for a tax increase are the ones who worked their way up and earned their fortune.

It's the spoiled-rotten Trust Fund Brats like Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who have never, ever, had to spend a single day in their pampered lives going hungry, that are the ones screaming & whining like stabbed pigs about paying their fair share.
 
2012-12-06 01:18:22 PM

DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.


Not to burst your bubble, but they aren't listening to their base. Among other things:

- Only 15% of Republicans believe that it is a good idea for Congressmen to pledge never to raise taxes under any cirumstances. 77% of Republicans think it is a bad idea.
- Among Americans who make more than $250,000 a year, 87% think it a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstances is a bad idea.
- 54% of Americans who make more than $250,000 a year think it is a good idea to reduce the deficit by raising income tax rates on people who make more than $250,000 a year.
- 52% of these Americans believe it is a good idea to reduce the deficit by raising the capital gains tax rate. This result is especially strange because it is the highest level of support of any income bracket, and the lowest support comes from people who make less than $50,000 a year.
 
2012-12-06 01:18:22 PM

DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.


I was thinking the same thing--and it being published in the Huffington Post doesn't exactly scream out credibility.

Though I do wish it did.
 
2012-12-06 01:18:45 PM

lennavan: Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?


Wow.
 
2012-12-06 01:21:34 PM

sammyk: DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.

%2 of the population constitutes a base?


No 2% of the base is wealthy and 98% of the base is retarded.
 
2012-12-06 01:21:43 PM
Lol, the ultra rich stand to lose substantially more from the GOPs fiscally-irresponsible temper tantrum than they do from the taxes. That is so awesome, soon only the God botherers will be voting GOP. If the markets tank and the rich lose A LOT of money they won't even vote for the GOP anymore and more importantly they wn't donate money. I love it, the GOP is slowly hurting the people it's "protecting". And then telling them it's in their best interest. No, no... I know better than you, this is for your own good; trust me.
 
2012-12-06 01:21:44 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]


Can we get a "Hai guys, what's going on here?" stingray photobomb shop for that?
 
2012-12-06 01:22:44 PM
Is there anything better than the GOP melting completely down in the face of a growing majority of people who think they are idiots that know nothing about the economy?

This is glorious. I don't want to get too excited, but the party is going into its death throes, right? Factions are fighting for the party's soul while, right there on the national stage, they fiddle actively start more fires as Rome burns.
 
2012-12-06 01:23:29 PM
I amazed that ~ 150 or so people in the House can hold the economy hostage, increase the deficit and debt through inaction (by allowing the credit rating to decrease, increasing our debt servicing costs), for something that a majority of the US and very many people who will be impacted directly say we should do, and that is increase the tax rates on the top 2%.

Carn: DING DING DING DING! This really should end all arguments right there. But, potato.


But those wars will pay for themselves! We really should have enacted a war tax to pay for them and to give Americans a direct financial reminder every two weeks that yes, we are still at war.
 
2012-12-06 01:23:57 PM

CapeFearCadaver: lennavan: Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?

Wow.


Is he biatching because he doesn't get ENOUGH govt money? Maybe he doesn't know that he owns that shirt.
 
2012-12-06 01:25:11 PM

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.


That's only if you overpay. You can give money directly to the US treasury to reduce the public debt. It's different that just sending a check to the IRS. In FY12 only $7.7 million or so was gifted in this manner which is more than the last two years combined, but still relatively pitiful compared to the Federal budget.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:03 PM

Pinner: rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]

Can we get a "Hai guys, what's going on here?" stingray photobomb shop for that?


I was thinking a "Welcome to Washington/Minnesota/Maine/Maryland" sign.
 
2012-12-06 01:26:12 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Lol, the ultra rich stand to lose substantially more from the GOPs fiscally-irresponsible temper tantrum than they do from the taxes. That is so awesome, soon only the God botherers will be voting GOP. If the markets tank and the rich lose A LOT of money they won't even vote for the GOP anymore and more importantly they wn't donate money. I love it, the GOP is slowly hurting the people it's "protecting". And then telling them it's in their best interest. No, no... I know better than you, this is for your own good; trust me.


The Ultra-Rich have done better with Republicans out of the way for decades. What they gain in tax breaks from the GOP in control, they more than lose with their investments stagnating / tanking.

i27.tinypic.com

I'm surprised more of them haven't figured this out yet. But then again, a lot of them didn't have to work for their money. Just wait for daddy to die, and pass yourself off as a 'Job Creator'...
 
2012-12-06 01:28:36 PM

Serious Black: Not to burst your bubble, but they aren't listening to their base.


Actually, they are. This is their base:

i159.photobucket.com

These guys (and a few more like them) provide the means to fool, scare and cajole stupid people to vote for them.
 
2012-12-06 01:28:43 PM

Pinner: Maybe he doesn't know that he owns that shirt.


Okay, this made me laugh a bit too loudly.
 
2012-12-06 01:28:52 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]


Well that was disturbing.
 
2012-12-06 01:29:26 PM

Smelly McUgly: Is there anything better than the GOP melting completely down in the face of a growing majority of people who think they are idiots that know nothing about the economy?

This is glorious. I don't want to get too excited, but the party is going into its death throes, right? Factions are fighting for the party's soul while, right there on the national stage, they fiddle actively start more fires as Rome burns.


I wish that was true. It seems like it's true--but articles about the Republican meltdown from the Huffington Post may be just a bit skewed. It is compelling though, when I see polls that show more people for marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and pro-choice stances I'm pretty happy. It seems social conservatism is dying.

But--I also see a ton of people who feel like socially conservative views are morons. And they still vote for conservative lawmakers who openly support these views.
 
2012-12-06 01:31:30 PM

DamnYankees: Rich people do want tax cuts.


More like: Rich greedy a-holes want tax cuts....who happen to vote Republican.
 
2012-12-06 01:31:42 PM
Your Eyes (on national TV) say Yes, Yes, Yes.

But your Lobbyists (in the back room) say No, No, No...
 
2012-12-06 01:34:14 PM
Anyone else notice the difference between many self made men and the ones that had everything handed to them by daddy?
 
2012-12-06 01:35:35 PM

AirForceVet: I nonconcur there, Mugato, about not caring with the 2% pay. I found it offensive that Mitt Romney paid less of a percentage of his income that I do.


You should be offended. Hell, every American should be offended. Mitt Romney claims he never paid below 14%, which is a lower overall tax rate than the average person in the lowest quintile of income. Source: When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average.

Yes, that's comparing his income tax rate to their total taxes, but since he averaged $20 million a year income for the past decade, adding in his state and local taxes is unlikely to change the total percent he pays by much. Now, you tell me who is the one here who feels he is entitled to "free stuff"?

Fark Romney.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:03 PM
Even the bomb makers and babby killers know you have to have taxes to buy their bullets.
 
2012-12-06 01:37:12 PM

Jackpot777: Uchiha_Cycliste: Lol, the ultra rich stand to lose substantially more from the GOPs fiscally-irresponsible temper tantrum than they do from the taxes. That is so awesome, soon only the God botherers will be voting GOP. If the markets tank and the rich lose A LOT of money they won't even vote for the GOP anymore and more importantly they wn't donate money. I love it, the GOP is slowly hurting the people it's "protecting". And then telling them it's in their best interest. No, no... I know better than you, this is for your own good; trust me.

The Ultra-Rich have done better with Republicans out of the way for decades. What they gain in tax breaks from the GOP in control, they more than lose with their investments stagnating / tanking.

[i27.tinypic.com image 850x1100]

I'm surprised more of them haven't figured this out yet. But then again, a lot of them didn't have to work for their money. Just wait for daddy to die, and pass yourself off as a 'Job Creator'...


I think this time they may not come out ahead. The market seems to be much more in tune with the GOP farkery. A couple percent of income versus several percent on their investments strikes me as worse. Are their *incomes* that big?
 
2012-12-06 01:37:18 PM

TimonC346: Smelly McUgly: Is there anything better than the GOP melting completely down in the face of a growing majority of people who think they are idiots that know nothing about the economy?

This is glorious. I don't want to get too excited, but the party is going into its death throes, right? Factions are fighting for the party's soul while, right there on the national stage, they fiddle actively start more fires as Rome burns.

I wish that was true. It seems like it's true--but articles about the Republican meltdown from the Huffington Post may be just a bit skewed. It is compelling though, when I see polls that show more people for marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and pro-choice stances I'm pretty happy. It seems social conservatism is dying.

But--I also see a ton of people who feel like socially conservative views are morons. And they still vote for conservative lawmakers who openly support these views.


I have a friend who has lived in poverty his entire life. His family has managed to exist almost entirely because of government assistance. He recognizes and openly admits that this is true. He supports gay marriage. He loves science and technology. He supports space travel and researching climate change. He is an atheist.

But--he likes guns and hates abortion, so he votes republican.
 
2012-12-06 01:39:09 PM

lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?


Back off, he has no idea what his shirt says.
 
2012-12-06 01:41:00 PM

GiantRex: TimonC346: Smelly McUgly: Is there anything better than the GOP melting completely down in the face of a growing majority of people who think they are idiots that know nothing about the economy?

This is glorious. I don't want to get too excited, but the party is going into its death throes, right? Factions are fighting for the party's soul while, right there on the national stage, they fiddle actively start more fires as Rome burns.

I wish that was true. It seems like it's true--but articles about the Republican meltdown from the Huffington Post may be just a bit skewed. It is compelling though, when I see polls that show more people for marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and pro-choice stances I'm pretty happy. It seems social conservatism is dying.

But--I also see a ton of people who feel like socially conservative views are morons. And they still vote for conservative lawmakers who openly support these views.

I have a friend who has lived in poverty his entire life. His family has managed to exist almost entirely because of government assistance. He recognizes and openly admits that this is true. He supports gay marriage. He loves science and technology. He supports space travel and researching climate change. He is an atheist.

But--he likes guns and hates abortion, so he votes republican.


I know a lesbian like that. She's a former cop, that quit under pressure after she came out, that loves guns and thinks Democrats are too soft on crime. She's said that keeping her firearms is more important than marrying her partner.
 
2012-12-06 01:41:33 PM

TV's Vinnie: You'll notice that the ones who are calling for a tax increase are the ones who worked their way up and earned their fortune.

It's the spoiled-rotten Trust Fund Brats like Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who have never, ever, had to spend a single day in their pampered lives going hungry, that are the ones screaming & whining like stabbed pigs about paying their fair share.


That Papa John's guy earned his fortune, and he sure is being a big dick over the ACA's supposed tax increases.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:08 PM

xanadian: FTFA: Still, some Republicans have broken with their party and indicated their support for accepting President Barack Obama's proposal to extend tax cuts only for the first $250,000 of income. Last week, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) urged fellow Republicans to agree to the president's tax plan, and since then a number of Republicans have made similar statements, including Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.).

Funny how when there's news of even a slight bit of sanity in the GOP, either Snowe or Collins is somehow linked to it.

That being said, I wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives on Fark truly understand the basics of how income tax works. I know *I* didn't for the longest time. There's no "hole" between tax brackets. The tax isn't on your total income, it's an increase on taxes OVER a certain dollar amount. I.e., if you were taxed 15% on $20k (just under the top of that bracket), and now you're in the $30k range with 20%, that's 15% on $20k PLUS 20% on the *additional* $10k.

I think I explained that right. My mother used to work for the IRS; but taxes bore the shiat out of me, so I probably wasn't listening very well that day.


When someone wants to have a serious discussion on taxes, federal debt, etc., there are two things I ask him. First is if he understands the basics of marginal taxes (which you explained) and the other is, very simply, who owns most of the U.S. debt (which it turns out Social Security combined with private U.S. citizens and institutions own about 67% of the U.S. debt; China owns about $1T, or around 5% and isn't even the largest foreign stakeholder). If the person gets those questions right, then we can proceed with the discussion.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:09 PM

meat0918: Anyone else notice the difference between many self made men and the ones that had everything handed to them by daddy?


There are people who, no matter how they came into success, will look down from the hilltop, see the others who haven't made it, and say, "Hmph. If I could do it, why couldn't you? There must be something wrong with you if you didn't make it up here."

In my own experience it was some enlisted guys who became officers in the military, and suddenly freaked on anyone who didn't render a proper salute to them. It's not every guy who'd do that, but those would be in the bunch for sure.

Sometimes all a sociopath needs is a way to be one, and it all comes storming right out.
 
2012-12-06 01:45:11 PM

Gulper Eel: They're the ones who've already found their loopholes of choice.


Raising taxes on them is the only way to motivate the lazy slacking wealthy elite who haven't been bootstrappy enough to find those loopholes. By taxing them we are doing them a favor!
 
2012-12-06 01:45:47 PM

verbaltoxin: TV's Vinnie: You'll notice that the ones who are calling for a tax increase are the ones who worked their way up and earned their fortune.

It's the spoiled-rotten Trust Fund Brats like Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who have never, ever, had to spend a single day in their pampered lives going hungry, that are the ones screaming & whining like stabbed pigs about paying their fair share.

That Papa John's guy earned his fortune, and he sure is being a big dick over the ACA's supposed tax increases.


He's backed off it claiming it was just an example of what some businesses would do.

To be honest, cutting employee's hours back won't work in the long run. You'll lose the good employees, increase turnover, but on the plus side, you'll probably have to hire an extra body or two to fill the gaps in your service you created when you cut hours for people.

More people working is a good thing, even it if is at a shiatty minimum wage (or less for some food service workers but hey, at least they get tips).
 
2012-12-06 01:48:17 PM

meat0918: I know a lesbian like that. She's a former cop, that quit under pressure after she came out, that loves guns and thinks Democrats are too soft on crime. She's said that keeping her firearms is more important than marrying her partner.


On the one hand, it was a GOP-affiliated group behind the Prop 8 lawsuit. On the other, Democrats like Jon Tester (D-MT) will be damned to the Muslim hell and back before they'll let some lily-livered Ivy-educated East Coast pointy-headed cracker-croaker take his guns.

So she's dumb from both ends?
 
2012-12-06 01:48:51 PM

CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.


Ever point this out to him?
 
2012-12-06 01:50:59 PM
Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.
 
2012-12-06 01:51:17 PM

meat0918: verbaltoxin: TV's Vinnie: You'll notice that the ones who are calling for a tax increase are the ones who worked their way up and earned their fortune.

It's the spoiled-rotten Trust Fund Brats like Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers, who have never, ever, had to spend a single day in their pampered lives going hungry, that are the ones screaming & whining like stabbed pigs about paying their fair share.

That Papa John's guy earned his fortune, and he sure is being a big dick over the ACA's supposed tax increases.

He's backed off it claiming it was just an example of what some businesses would do.

To be honest, cutting employee's hours back won't work in the long run. You'll lose the good employees, increase turnover, but on the plus side, you'll probably have to hire an extra body or two to fill the gaps in your service you created when you cut hours for people.

More people working is a good thing, even it if is at a shiatty minimum wage (or less for some food service workers but hey, at least they get tips).


I think the guy who runs Costco gets it right. He pays a higher wage, keeps workers happy and loyal, and this saves him money in the long run. If min. wage goes up, he doesn't sweat it, because he already pays above it, and has factored that into his overhead.
 
2012-12-06 01:51:37 PM

Gulper Eel: They're the ones who've already found their loopholes of choice.


I'm a 2.5% to 3% (based on income) household and I'll tell you that once you get into Alternative Minimum Tax space, there really aren't a whole lot of loopholes to take advantage of. I don't live on dividends or capital gains, so my income is taxed at regular rates. But I make too much to be eligible for pretty much any of my favorite loopholes.

I can't deduct my or my kid's educational fees. I can't deduct child care. I don't get child tax credits. I'm basically left with my mortgage deduction, sales tax deductions, and business use of my house. I still only paid about 20%, so I'm not complaining too much.

Romney's "close the loophole" plan, which was to basically cap all deductions at about $20K would have been a massive tax increase for me, and would have been for pretty much any family that holds a mortgage or files schedule A. It would also mean an effective tax hike every time the prime rate moved.

That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.
 
2012-12-06 01:52:27 PM

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.


It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.
 
2012-12-06 01:52:53 PM

SurfaceTension: xanadian: FTFA: Still, some Republicans have broken with their party and indicated their support for accepting President Barack Obama's proposal to extend tax cuts only for the first $250,000 of income. Last week, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) urged fellow Republicans to agree to the president's tax plan, and since then a number of Republicans have made similar statements, including Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine.), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Rep. Kay Granger (R-Texas) and Rep. Robert Dold (R-Ill.).

Funny how when there's news of even a slight bit of sanity in the GOP, either Snowe or Collins is somehow linked to it.

That being said, I wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives on Fark truly understand the basics of how income tax works. I know *I* didn't for the longest time. There's no "hole" between tax brackets. The tax isn't on your total income, it's an increase on taxes OVER a certain dollar amount. I.e., if you were taxed 15% on $20k (just under the top of that bracket), and now you're in the $30k range with 20%, that's 15% on $20k PLUS 20% on the *additional* $10k.

I think I explained that right. My mother used to work for the IRS; but taxes bore the shiat out of me, so I probably wasn't listening very well that day.

When someone wants to have a serious discussion on taxes, federal debt, etc., there are two things I ask him. First is if he understands the basics of marginal taxes (which you explained) and the other is, very simply, who owns most of the U.S. debt (which it turns out Social Security combined with private U.S. citizens and institutions own about 67% of the U.S. debt; China owns about $1T, or around 5% and isn't even the largest foreign stakeholder). If the person gets those questions right, then we can proceed with the discussion.


I thought China had surpassed Japan as the largest. Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities
 
2012-12-06 01:53:46 PM

Satanic_Hamster: CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.

Ever point this out to him?


Of course.

He doesn't talk to me any longer.
 
2012-12-06 01:56:21 PM

Rent Party: Gulper Eel: They're the ones who've already found their loopholes of choice.

I'm a 2.5% to 3% (based on income) household and I'll tell you that once you get into Alternative Minimum Tax space, there really aren't a whole lot of loopholes to take advantage of. I don't live on dividends or capital gains, so my income is taxed at regular rates. But I make too much to be eligible for pretty much any of my favorite loopholes.

I can't deduct my or my kid's educational fees. I can't deduct child care. I don't get child tax credits. I'm basically left with my mortgage deduction, sales tax deductions, and business use of my house. I still only paid about 20%, so I'm not complaining too much.

Romney's "close the loophole" plan, which was to basically cap all deductions at about $20K would have been a massive tax increase for me, and would have been for pretty much any family that holds a mortgage or files schedule A. It would also mean an effective tax hike every time the prime rate moved.

That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.


You were good up until about here. Then it became, "Change it so others get taxed more, not me."
 
2012-12-06 01:56:50 PM

verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.


Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.
 
2012-12-06 01:56:57 PM

Jackpot777: Uchiha_Cycliste: Lol, the ultra rich stand to lose substantially more from the GOPs fiscally-irresponsible temper tantrum than they do from the taxes. That is so awesome, soon only the God botherers will be voting GOP. If the markets tank and the rich lose A LOT of money they won't even vote for the GOP anymore and more importantly they wn't donate money. I love it, the GOP is slowly hurting the people it's "protecting". And then telling them it's in their best interest. No, no... I know better than you, this is for your own good; trust me.

The Ultra-Rich have done better with Republicans out of the way for decades. What they gain in tax breaks from the GOP in control, they more than lose with their investments stagnating / tanking.

[i27.tinypic.com image 850x1100]

I'm surprised more of them haven't figured this out yet. But then again, a lot of them didn't have to work for their money. Just wait for daddy to die, and pass yourself off as a 'Job Creator'...


I'd be interested in how that looks for when each party is in control of Congress. And if, within that, it is significantly higher or lower when the President and the majority of Congress are of different parties.
 
2012-12-06 01:57:18 PM

Jackpot777: The Ultra-Rich have done better with Republicans out of the way for decades. What they gain in tax breaks from the GOP in control, they more than lose with their investments stagnating / tanking.


THIS!

I have a bit of money in the stock market, it got cut in half the last year of Bush under Obama it has DOUBLED. Same thing under Clinton. Republicans create a bubble and that bubble then crashes.
 
2012-12-06 01:57:33 PM
I'm sure this has nothing to do with the fact that if the economy suddenly goes pear-shaped again that the top 2% stand to lose a lot more than the money they'd pay against a few percentage points on the top marginal tax rate.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:11 PM

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.


People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:21 PM

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.


Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.
 
2012-12-06 01:58:56 PM
I wonder how many of these 2%ers want to raise rates on regular W2 income, while cutting rates on dividends.
 
2012-12-06 01:59:30 PM

ManRay: Mark Cuban said he would not mind the tax increase. He can pay it and it would not bother him much. However, he is not for paying more and having it thrown into the same spending black hole everything is currently feeding. He wants to feel like it is doing something. Putting it that way seems more honest to me.


This is exactly were the GOP has failed.
This should have been the message from day one.

But it seems that the trend to "tax today, cut sometime in the future...oops the cuts never happened" got them in the mode of saying "no taxes".

Tax increases, when approved, always happen.
Spending cuts, when approved, seem to rarely happen...and when they do they are "we didn't spend as much as we were planning to overspend" or some accounting trick.

A very simple, we will approve the tax increases on June 1, once you proved that you cut the spending in the first 5 months of the year.

It could even be a 3:1 tax/cut ratio.
 
2012-12-06 02:00:35 PM

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.


I am not wealthy, but I do pretty well. I am OK with a 3% increase for everyone in my top marginal rate (28%) and above. Cutting spending alone wont solve this problem.
 
2012-12-06 02:01:10 PM

verbaltoxin:
That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.

You were good up until about here. Then it became, "Change it so others get taxed more, not me."


No, it should be changed to encourage genuine capital investment. I have no problem with dropping the cap gains rate to 0% so long as the dollar getting invested went to actual capital improvements, expansion, and business operations, rather than two assholes just buying and selling stock on the market.

If I buy stock X from some company, that dollar goes to the company and they use it to improve business. Gains on that dollar can be as low as you want. If I buy stock X from you, the company doesn't see it, you do. Any gains made on that dollar should be taxed as regular income, because that is exactly what it is.
 
2012-12-06 02:02:27 PM

Rent Party: Gulper Eel: They're the ones who've already found their loopholes of choice.

I'm a 2.5% to 3% (based on income) household and I'll tell you that once you get into Alternative Minimum Tax space, there really aren't a whole lot of loopholes to take advantage of. I don't live on dividends or capital gains, so my income is taxed at regular rates. But I make too much to be eligible for pretty much any of my favorite loopholes.

I can't deduct my or my kid's educational fees. I can't deduct child care. I don't get child tax credits. I'm basically left with my mortgage deduction, sales tax deductions, and business use of my house. I still only paid about 20%, so I'm not complaining too much.

Romney's "close the loophole" plan, which was to basically cap all deductions at about $20K would have been a massive tax increase for me, and would have been for pretty much any family that holds a mortgage or files schedule A. It would also mean an effective tax hike every time the prime rate moved.

That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.


Don't even need to make that much money to start running into this. My wife and I are in the top 14% by income according to that calculator thing that was going around and my student loan interest deduction already hit a cap because of our income. Mortgage deduction kept us in the High-Teens as an effective rate.... higher than R-Money and his $70k dancing horse write-off or whatever.
 
2012-12-06 02:04:11 PM

Carn: k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.


Yes, in fact they are. $200K puts you over 97%, so technically you're a 3%er. The 2% break is somewhere around $225K, household.
 
2012-12-06 02:04:48 PM

k1j2b3: It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.


Average spending over last 30 years is 22% of GDP.
Current spending is 24% of GDP

Average Tax Receipts of last 30 years is 19% of GDP
Current taxes are 15.4% GDP

Please explain to me again how 2% > 3.6%, and by extension how this is a spending issue and not a revenue issue.

its both, but it is far more a revenue issue than it is a spending issue - Cutting the military budget in half (or as others would call it, pre-war levels) makes up the entirety of that 2% of GDP.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:09 PM

Rent Party: verbaltoxin:
That this kind of idea is being floated around both sides of the isle today should worry everyone. They should change the definition of capital gains and tax the people that don't work more than they tax people that do.

You were good up until about here. Then it became, "Change it so others get taxed more, not me."

No, it should be changed to encourage genuine capital investment. I have no problem with dropping the cap gains rate to 0% so long as the dollar getting invested went to actual capital improvements, expansion, and business operations, rather than two assholes just buying and selling stock on the market.

If I buy stock X from some company, that dollar goes to the company and they use it to improve business. Gains on that dollar can be as low as you want. If I buy stock X from you, the company doesn't see it, you do. Any gains made on that dollar should be taxed as regular income, because that is exactly what it is.


I agree with you, but you went about saying that in a way that was, like your profile says, douchey.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:14 PM

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.


No, it's about both. There aren't enough loopholes to remove to make up the deficit. There aren't enough cuts to make unless you take a giant ax to the military budget, SS, and Medicare. The left and the right are diametrically opposed on these so cuts to any will end up being moderate. This leaves us tax increases. They will not solve the deficit by themselves either. Since you can't solve the problem with one of these things alone, the only viable choice (which happens to be the moderate, pragmatic, realistic, and rational one) is a combination of cuts and tax increases. Stop trying to argue that we can do it on cuts alone. It's not politically feasible, and it would seriously damage a fragile economy. Take out a trillion dollars worth of government spending and all its corresponding effects on the economy and we'll plunge headfirst back into depression. Taxing incredibly wealthy people on the other hand, will help with the problem and not hurt them in the slightest.
 
2012-12-06 02:05:53 PM

meat0918: I thought China had surpassed Japan as the largest. Major Foreign Holders of Treasury Securities


Thanks for the update. I missed that. And by that chart it actually looks like Japan is catching back up.
 
2012-12-06 02:07:42 PM

sammyk: DamnYankees: To be fair to the GOP, this is sort of dumb. Rich people do want tax cuts. Anecdotally pulling out a few people who don't doesn't mean anything.

If you want to argue the GOP shouldn't listen to its base, go for it. But the base is the base.

%2 of the population constitutes a base?


No, the base is people who are GOING to be in the 2%, just as soon as the President stops being near.
 
2012-12-06 02:07:47 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: A very simple, we will approve the tax increases on June 1, once you proved that you cut the spending in the first 5 months of the year.


Yes, because the Republicans have never gone back on their word in any negotiation in the past 4 years.

Also, taxes are going up on January 1 (not June) regardless. The only question right now is "How many people are going to have higher taxes."
 
2012-12-06 02:08:29 PM

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.


They're willing to pay more if they get something for paying more.

A systematic increase on taxes on the top 2% will give them a decreased deficit.

A "two percenter" donating an extra 4% of their income over $250,000 gets them nothing.

Idiot.
 
2012-12-06 02:08:48 PM

verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Wut.
You do know the GOP shellacked the Dems in the House in 2010 and kept the House in 2012, right?
Ways and Means Committee, how does that work?
Tea Party call for spending less, how doe that work?
 
2012-12-06 02:09:31 PM

Rent Party: Carn: k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.

Yes, in fact they are. $200K puts you over 97%, so technically you're a 3%er. The 2% break is somewhere around $225K, household.


Ah, I was thinking wealth, not income. But I'm still fine with the taxes up on 250k+ idea as well as an additional 1M+ bracket at 40-45%
 
2012-12-06 02:10:00 PM

verbaltoxin: Rent Party: verbaltoxin:

I agree with you, but you went about saying that in a way that was, like your profile says, douchey.


If you wrestle with the douche, expect....

Ah, hell with that.
 
2012-12-06 02:13:06 PM

Carn:

People who make between 200K and 1M aren't part of the 2%.


Yes, they are:

"As the Democratic president and his Republican opponents debate whether to extend the George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of U.S. taxpayers -- individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and married couples making more than $250,000 -- their poll-tested phrases obscure the truth about who would be affected."

From Bloomberg, but you can find it other places.
 
2012-12-06 02:14:53 PM

verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????
 
2012-12-06 02:15:06 PM

Carn: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

It's already been explained why that isn't a feasible option, but please have more of this rope.

Read those posts...basically, no, you can't overpay the IRS, but you can write a check directly to the U.S. Treasury. That is what I meant by my comment.

Also, if you meant that it would only be a small dent in the debt...then also a dumb comment b/c that is in essence what you are asking the wealthy to do...pony up more in taxes to make a minuscule dent in the problem.

It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

No, it's about both. There aren't enough loopholes to remove to make up the deficit. There aren't enough cuts to make unless you take a giant ax to the military budget, SS, and Medicare. The left and the right are diametrically opposed on these so cuts to any will end up being moderate. This leaves us tax increases. They will not solve the deficit by themselves either. Since you can't solve the problem with one of these things alone, the only viable choice (which happens to be the moderate, pragmatic, realistic, and rational one) is a combination of cuts and tax increases. Stop trying to argue that we can do it on cuts alone. It's not politically feasible, and it would seriously damage a fragile economy. Take out a trillion dollars worth of government spending and all its corresponding effects on the economy and we'll plunge headfirst back into depression. Taxing incredibly wealthy people on the other hand, will help with the problem and not hurt them in the slightest.


IIRC, the 0bama tax increases would be address about 10% of the budget deficit.
Weird, huh, that he spends so much time talking about that instead of the other 90% or how to improve the economy and create jobs.

It is all about class warfare, putting a band-aide on a gushing wound and failing to address the real issues.
 
2012-12-06 02:17:00 PM

lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?


The number of shut-ins I have as clients who are anti-govenment and anti-welfare, while receiving disability and what not is staggering.
 
2012-12-06 02:18:24 PM
As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.
 
2012-12-06 02:19:41 PM

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.


You can check a box on your tax return and enter the amount extra you want to pay. I often wonder if that box has ever been checked.
 
2012-12-06 02:19:59 PM

Weaver95: "In the near term, [income tax rates] need to go up some," Langstaff said. "This is a fairness issue -- there needs to be recognition that we're not collecting enough revenue. In the last decade we've fought two wars without raising taxes. So I think it does need to go up."

translation: look, they're on to our little scam. we'll kick in a few extra bucks and rearrange the deck chairs a bit then play nice nice with the peasants for a little while until they calm down and get distracted by the next shiny object. then once things are calm, we'll activate a contingency plan, get our money back and go right back to screwing over everyone else. tell Grover to STFU for a while, its all part of the plan.


HOLY SHIAT!!! So you're actually complaining that a wealthy person is willing to be taxed at a higher rate? And telling the GOP that he thinks their current tax plan sucks? Are you that jaded and cynical you can't accept an olive branch any more? What is wrong with you?!? You sound like a Republican!

Here's the thing. A few wealthy people voluntarily paying more taxes is meaningless because--as has been pointed out already--the IRS assumes it was accidental and merely banks the excess for repayment, first of all; and second, because any one or two people making a gesture, no matter how noble or craven is just that--a gesture. It makes them feel good and us feel vindicated, but accomplishes about as much as the Occupiers sitting outside Wall Street, to wit, nothing. What needs to happen is what these guys want to make happen: A legislated tax increase, which they're indicating they won't argue against or fight, that requires ALL of them to pay, equally, a bigger tax.

If Langstaff were to make a voluntary overpayment of his taxes, yes, that would be very nice. It would also be a drop in the bucket because he himself can't pay much compared to the deficit. He might as well keep his money. But if he and his buddies leaned on their fellow CEOs and their crony Senators not to oppose a tax increase and they ALL had to pay higher taxes next year--which is what he's essentially offering to do--then they'd all pay a whole lot more even with their carefully-managed deductions, and we'd start seeing a decrease. Even with good accountants, if tax rates go up, there's only so much they can keep out.

There's being cautious and practical; and there's being defeatist and cynical. Don't go overboard on the latter.
 
2012-12-06 02:21:02 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: IIRC, the 0bama tax increases would be address about 10% of the budget deficit.
Weird, huh, that he spends so much time talking about that instead of the other 90% or how to improve the economy and create jobs.

It is all about class warfare, putting a band-aide on a gushing wound and failing to address the real issues.


Compared to the GOP plan, which is: just trust us.

Link

Yet Republicans, led by Boehner, have objected to any increase in tax rates, even for the wealthiest Americans. They have said an agreement must include major reforms of entitlement programs such as the Medicare and Medicaid government-run health-care programs for senior citizens, the disabled and the poor.

Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes. 
 
2012-12-06 02:21:05 PM

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.



That was because you did it wrong.

First, even if you did it by overpaying, there is a limitation on how far back you can file an amended return to get some money back (or make sure your place of residence is the state you want to run for governor of).

Secondly, if you intend a gift, just do a "Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public". Follow the instructions here:

Link 

/Don't change you mind later. That money is gone.
//credit cards accepted? wow
 
2012-12-06 02:21:10 PM

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????


Prior to the Supercomitte fiasco Obama came to the table with four trillion in cuts over a decade and the GOP told him no because it would have raised the top marginal rate.

The GOP has been completely intransigent on the issue. The Bush tax cuts are a huge part of this mess.
 
2012-12-06 02:21:27 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.


I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.
 
2012-12-06 02:23:29 PM

k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????


Hey, we have a member of the House Ways and Means Committee right here on Fark!
 
2012-12-06 02:23:34 PM

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.


And tax capital gains as ordinary income.
 
2012-12-06 02:24:04 PM
If they reinstate all the Bush tax cuts for everyone. Decide to not do the cuts to the military and SS.

Taxes are still going up on

Dividends
Capital gains
Medical devices

There is also a .9 increase in taxes for incomes over the 200,000/250,000
 
2012-12-06 02:24:14 PM
Paul Krugman tells us that deficits don't matter, so why do we have to raise taxes on anyone?
 
2012-12-06 02:25:00 PM
And break the sacred tax oath to the holy man child?

Never!
 
2012-12-06 02:25:12 PM

rufus-t-firefly: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin: k1j2b3: verbaltoxin:

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Winning an election cannot change the facts. Increasing taxes will hardly put a dent in our problem. We need MAJOR CUTS. NOW.

Where are Democrats willing to cut? I am willing to cut from EVERY department. Yes, even the Defense Dept.

Where's your offer????

Hey, we have a member of the House Ways and Means Committee right here on Fark!


If I were to be told I had to take an income cut of 10% or declare bankruptcy I could manage.

I believe our government could do the same.
 
2012-12-06 02:26:08 PM

jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income.


Especially that. Put a floor on cap gains that will still be taxed at 15% and call it the movin on up bracket. Up to $100K in cap gains taxed at 15%. After that, progressively as income, same rates.
 
2012-12-06 02:28:19 PM

Somacandra: Not to mention the idea of rich people giving voluntarily while those of lesser means contribute under compulsion is inherently disgusting.


So the idea of someone "contributing" under compulsion isn't disgusting, per se. It's only disgusting when it offends your personal idea of "fairness."
 
2012-12-06 02:30:07 PM

jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income.


Again with this nonsense?
 
2012-12-06 02:30:59 PM
Let's all remember that this is the expiration of a stupid tax CUT that has already been extended.

The question is "do 100% of people return to earlier taxes, or do 2%?"

The GOP seems ready to answer "100%" to stay on the good side of the Kochs and Adelsons of America.

And non-rich people still vote for these assholes.
 
2012-12-06 02:31:10 PM

lennavan: I don't like telling that story, I really like my FIL, he's a really great guy. I don't think he said it or believes it because he's a jerk, I think he just never considered other people.


He sounds like an asshole.
 
2012-12-06 02:31:35 PM
Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.
 
2012-12-06 02:32:48 PM

bdub77: fark the GOP. fark them totally. Start campaigning against your Congresscritters. It's not that hard to get a deal. Obama has put a ton on the table and the best the GOP can do is 'nuh-uh.'

Hell Obama is even offering to raise tax rates by a smaller amount, maybe 3% instead of almost 5%.

Guillotine: 2014.


Short term, Obama is obviously going to win this.

But he could also do some real damage long term if he came out with a few troll statements like "We know the GOP will cave in sooner or later, we just have to give them time to get the Tea Party nutcases off their backs and the Koch brother parasites out of their pockets"
 
2012-12-06 02:34:01 PM

Pinner: rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]

Can we get a "Hai guys, what's going on here?" stingray photobomb shop for that?


i865.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-06 02:34:52 PM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


I see this has been rightfully trounced on already, but I can't resist. First, the argument is a Tu Quoque argument, just because they don't already do what they are suggesting doesn't make it a bad idea. Secondly, this is the very nature of the tragedy of the commons. It is in no individuals best interest to act differently even though if EVERY individual acted differently each individual would benefit.

Also, in general this is not an argument any onewould make in normal circumstances, so I don't see why people make it here. An example:


Bill: hey, it's Jeff's birthday, if we all pitch in $20 we can get him that bottle of Johnny Walker Blue he's always wanted to try.
Bob: I don't want to pay, but if you think it's such a good idea why don't you give the liquor store $20?
Bill: Because that won't get Jeff the bottle.
Bob: So aren't you being a little hypocritical asking me to give $20 when you can, and aren't?
Bill: ...? That doesn't... What? ::face palm::
 
2012-12-06 02:34:54 PM

CreamFilling: lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?

Back off, he has no idea what his shirt says.


So you could swap his Tshirt for one with a better bumper sticker slogan.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:11 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.


And I'm happy to add, that in the year that Republicans have been campaigning to regain the Presidency and the post-election cycle and the fiscal cliff negotiations, they still have not come out and said which loopholes they intend to cut. Not once.

If anybody (especially any Fark Independents) have a link that lays out the actual, specific GOP fiscal plan and which loopholes they intend to do away with (legitimate news source), I'll buy them a free month of Total Fark.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:28 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Taxation only works when it is applied consistently to an income bracket. The argument of "You can always write a check for as much as you want to the IRS and they'll take it" is smug, pseudo-intellectual nonsense.


It's a perfectly valid argument. If you believe the government should have more money, then by all means give it to them. Be a volunteer. Put your money where your mouth is. Lead by example. But no, you believe that others should be forced to pay despite what they think about it.
 
2012-12-06 02:35:53 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: jst3p: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

And tax capital gains as ordinary income while also allowing corporations to deduct dividends from their bottom lines.

Again with this nonsense?


Can we just take it as read and avoid this stupid debate for the 8 billionth time?
 
2012-12-06 02:36:19 PM

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.


I'd phase out elimination of mortgage tax deduction over much longer period.

If you phase it out over only 5 to 10 years you will immediately reduce the market value of homes, farking over people who own homes as well as restarting the financial crisis.

Also, both Obama and Boehner have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes (ir welfare)and reducing corp rates.
 
2012-12-06 02:36:23 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Again with this nonsense?


What's your objection to taxing capital gains as income? I understand your double-taxation objection to taxing dividends as income, but why capital gains? Or was that a summary dismissal of the entire idea, corporate welfare & mortgage deduction included?
 
2012-12-06 02:37:06 PM

Satanic_Hamster: CapeFearCadaver: My father loves lambasting the 47%, his household and both of my sisters' households would be counted among those in the 47% of 'moochers'. I am the ONLY person in my family who pays a fair share of individual taxes and am beholden to no personal government assistance.

But I voted for Obama, so I'm just a dirty LIB looking for a handout.

Ever point this out to him?


Probably not. He's still waiting for the inheritance.
 
2012-12-06 02:37:56 PM
holy crap if these guys are top 2%ers, I wonder how rich the 1%ers actually are!
 
2012-12-06 02:38:33 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Let's all remember that this is the expiration of a stupid tax CUT that has already been extended.

The question is "do 100% of people return to earlier taxes, or do 2%?"

The GOP seems ready to answer "100%" to stay on the good side of the Kochs and Adelsons of America.

And non-rich people still vote for these assholes.


And of course, anybody who is remotely interested in the long term fiscal health of the country would say 100%. The GOP wants 0%.
 
2012-12-06 02:40:02 PM

verbaltoxin: It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.


Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).
 
2012-12-06 02:40:50 PM

Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money?


The US Traditionally spends 20.8% of GDP on Funding items (1970-CY)
The US Traditionally Takes in 18.3% of GDP in receipts Every year (1970-CY)

We are currently spending (FY 2012) 22.6% of GDP
And taking in 15.7% GDP in Receipts (FY 2012).

Both of these numbers are estimates, currently.

What this means is, we are currently spending 1.8% more than we usually do, on average.
And We are making 2.6% Less than we usually do, on average.

2.6% our expenditure deficit from normal is, very roughly, 50% larger than 1.8%, or spending deficit from normal.

Therefore, our problem with the current deficit is largely a result of losses in receipts, rather than, a ballooning of the budget.

Furthermore, if one studies the years Bill Clinton's budget ran a surplus, the only years in the last fifty the government has done so, one finds that while his spending levels dipped below the averages of the last 30 years (from 20.8 to perhaps 19.5%) his tax receipts went up nearly 50% more than that, to the 20%-20.5% range. that, and of course that there is a strong correlation to the tax cuts in 2001 and the subsequent recession of government income from the mid-20's to around 16%-17%
 
2012-12-06 02:40:50 PM

Pinner: CapeFearCadaver: lennavan: Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?

Wow.

Is he biatching because he doesn't get ENOUGH govt money? Maybe he doesn't know that he owns that shirt.


Ok, I lol'd hard. I don't know if I should feel bad about it though...
 
2012-12-06 02:42:44 PM

jigger: Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).


Oh, so now we care about the Constitution. Seems it was just days ago that all this fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, budgetary armageddon was solely Barack Obama's own personal fault.
 
2012-12-06 02:44:06 PM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

rule34-data-003.paheal.net
 
2012-12-06 02:44:12 PM

incendi: Oh, so now we care about the Constitution. Seems it was just days ago that all this fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, budgetary armageddon was solely Barack Obama's own personal fault.


Did I say days? Silly me, I meant minutes.
 
2012-12-06 02:44:27 PM

xanadian: Experience is the best teacher, I guess. But, yeah.


if you can

tenpoundsofcheese: It could even be a 3:1 tax/cut ratio.


Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?
 
2012-12-06 02:44:34 PM

Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses


That's not how the Mafia operates.
 
2012-12-06 02:44:39 PM

ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."


If you feel they're paying too much then you should send them a check for the difference. It's the moral thing to do.
 
2012-12-06 02:45:30 PM

Minarets: I amazed that ~ 150 or so people in the House can hold the economy hostage, increase the deficit and debt through inaction (by allowing the credit rating to decrease, increasing our debt servicing costs), for something that a majority of the US and very many people who will be impacted directly say we should do, and that is increase the tax rates on the top 2%.

Carn: DING DING DING DING! This really should end all arguments right there. But, potato.

But those wars will pay for themselves! We really should have enacted a war tax to pay for them and to give Americans a direct financial reminder every two weeks that yes, we are still at war.


To be fair, those 150 were supported by at least 50% of the people in very carefully chosen areas so they can get that support. Plus, it is more than 150 - it's around 220 people. If even a small group (approx. 20) of Rs wandered over the isle and talked to Nancy P we'd have a very different congress.
 
2012-12-06 02:45:31 PM

incendi: jigger: Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).

Oh, so now we care about the Constitution. Seems it was just days ago that all this fiscal cliff, debt ceiling, budgetary armageddon was solely Barack Obama's own personal fault.


Did I ever say that?
 
2012-12-06 02:47:10 PM

mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?


We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?
 
2012-12-06 02:48:41 PM

jigger: verbaltoxin: It is about CUTS, people. Not more taxes.

Too late, already had an election on that issue, and it lost. Two wars, one bailout. PAY UP.

Nope. The Republicans won the House (where All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate).


Oh my, you're going to be awfully disappointed when your fiscally conservative masters offer you up as their pound of flesh.
 
2012-12-06 02:50:48 PM

jigger: Did I ever say that?


Nope. Well, I assume not, given your offense. I'm not gonna go googling for your thread history. But more to the point, not every lambasting comment is necessarily directed at the person quoted, and in this case, if you haven't been blaming Obama for the current nonsensical mess, then you are not a target, and I sincerely apologize if I unintentionally impugned your honor.
 
2012-12-06 02:51:18 PM
Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.
 
2012-12-06 02:52:19 PM

incendi: jigger: Did I ever say that?

Nope. Well, I assume not, given your offense. I'm not gonna go googling for your thread history. But more to the point, not every lambasting comment is necessarily directed at the person quoted, and in this case, if you haven't been blaming Obama for the current nonsensical mess, then you are not a target, and I sincerely apologize if I unintentionally impugned your honor.


I hammered him too, but it was earned. What he said was douchey, and I treated it as such.
 
2012-12-06 02:54:14 PM

lennavan: CapeFearCadaver: Bleg. I'll shut up. Guess I just needed to get that shiat off my chest.

I know what you mean. Really I want to say it to their faces but I won't, they're family and I have to see them around the holidays. We do our best to not talk about politics.

Last one off my chest - we have a blind guy who married into the family who has been on government assistance for 30+ years who biatches about the government and wears a "I don't need sex, the government screws me every day" t shirt. Really dude?


maybe he is blind for a whole buttload of masturbation and he's all orgasmed out?
 
2012-12-06 02:58:15 PM

Hydra: Paul Krugman tells us that deficits don't matter, so why do we have to raise taxes on anyone?


This is what Republicans actually believe.
 
2012-12-06 02:58:19 PM

Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.


People who unironically compare a national budget to a household budget should be summarily executed, or at least punched in the face really hard.
 
2012-12-06 02:58:45 PM

xanadian: That being said, I wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives on Fark truly understand the basics of how income tax works. I know *I* didn't for the longest time. There's no "hole" between tax brackets. The tax isn't on your total income, it's an increase on taxes OVER a certain dollar amount.


This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."
 
2012-12-06 02:59:06 PM

verbaltoxin: I hammered him too, but it was earned. What he said was douchey, and I treated it as such.


Eh, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, up till I tag them as a troll. Then it's on. Jigger hasn't made enough of an impression yet for me to assume bad intentions.
 
2012-12-06 03:04:18 PM

syberpud: t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.

That's only if you overpay. You can give money directly to the US treasury to reduce the public debt. It's different that just sending a check to the IRS. In FY12 only $7.7 million or so was gifted in this manner which is more than the last two years combined, but still relatively pitiful compared to the Federal budget.


Even more important than the amount of the donation -- the amount donated, even if it were enough to make a difference, is likely to change along with the business cycle. In other words, it's going to increase when times are good, but when times are rough everybody's going to pull back. This lessens the ability of the government to counteract the business cycle and minimize the harm caused by recessions.
 
2012-12-06 03:05:01 PM

Diogenes: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Sexy and surreal. I like it.


What is surreal about it? Elves and dwarves are natural homosexual lovers once you get past the initial social constructs of racial/ethnic division.
 
2012-12-06 03:18:28 PM

incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?


That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.
 
2012-12-06 03:19:02 PM

k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.


I have a better idea: eliminate mandatory taxes altogether (0% for everyone!) and anyone who thinks that people should pay taxes can send their donations to the IRS. I'm sure that will take care of the deficit, and then some.
 
2012-12-06 03:22:29 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

I'd phase out elimination of mortgage tax deduction over much longer period.

If you phase it out over only 5 to 10 years you will immediately reduce the market value of homes, farking over people who own homes as well as restarting the financial crisis.

Also, both Obama and Boehner have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes (ir welfare)and reducing corp rates.


That's fine, we can haggle. But I think you can institute a cap and a no second mortgage rule much sooner, as well as not letting the deduction being taken on new purchases. I know they have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes, but it remains to be seen what we'll actually get out of it.
 
2012-12-06 03:23:34 PM

threedingers: k1j2b3: Please go ahead and write your checks directly to the government to pay down the debt. Then we'll talk.

No one is stopping these wealthy bozos from ponying up more cash. But yet, I never hear about one of them doing so.

Please go talk to the 'wealthy' who make between $200K and $1M a year. I have a feeling you wouldn't be getting the same answer from them.

I have a better idea: eliminate mandatory taxes altogether (0% for everyone!) and anyone who thinks that people should pay taxes can send their donations to the IRS. I'm sure that will take care of the deficit, and then some.


It'll be just like Greece! Oh.
 
2012-12-06 03:26:43 PM

mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.


All these snow analogies really drive the point home. I did just buy a shovel from Canadian Tire, everything is coming together nicely.
 
2012-12-06 03:26:44 PM

CorporatePerson: xanadian: That being said, I wonder how many of the more vocal conservatives on Fark truly understand the basics of how income tax works. I know *I* didn't for the longest time. There's no "hole" between tax brackets. The tax isn't on your total income, it's an increase on taxes OVER a certain dollar amount.

This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."


This is an individual who owns a business and maintains its finances. BE AFRAID.

Also, aren't the only taxes going up PERSONAL income taxes? Not corporate? Or is the point that most small business owners aren't LLCs, LLPs, OMGWTFs, or whatever, and are privately owned and paid for solely out of their own personal funds?

While I understand progressive tax rates (mostly), that bit always eluded me.
 
2012-12-06 03:27:42 PM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


WTF man?

img607.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-06 03:27:50 PM

SovietCanuckistan: mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.

All these snow analogies really drive the point home. I did just buy a shovel from Canadian Tire, everything is coming together nicely.


We still don't have any snow up here. SUCK ON THAT, GOP!!! ....wait. uh...
 
2012-12-06 03:29:21 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]


Fitting that "Rule 34" is in the URL.

/looks like it would make a damn good velvet painting
//no Elvis, though...
 
2012-12-06 03:32:32 PM

xanadian: This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."

This is an individual who owns a business and maintains its finances. BE AFRAID.


He's in the pipe organ business so he pretty much only deals with churches. Also he didn't start the business, he inherited it. Turns out when the only people you talk to are your like-minded family friends and church folk, you tend not to get the whole story about how the rest of the world works.
 
2012-12-06 03:33:26 PM

Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.


Limbaugh's show must be over. Those are common talking points.

These are not tax increases. It is an expiration of tax cuts from the previous administration. If nothing happens all the cuts go away on January 1st for 100% of Americans. The Dems are arguing for an extension of 98% of the lowest incomes. The Repubs prefer that everyone go back to the pre-cut levels.

By your own circular logic, the Repubs want to raise taxes on everyone, but the Dems only want to raise taxes on the top 2%. I know this blows your mind, and Rush would deny it loudly, but it's true.
 
2012-12-06 03:34:18 PM

Hydra: Paul Krugman tells us that deficits don't matter, so why do we have to raise taxes on anyone?


Because this is all about class-warfare and "fairness".

It is the ONLY thing that 0bama knows how to do - he doesn't have a clue about how to fix the economy, improve wages or decrease unemployment.

If 0bama cared about the deficit he wouldn't look at something that "solved" 10% of the problem (taxes) but would look at the other 90%. He talks about raising taxes and the next day talks about more spending. It has nothing to do with improving the deficit or the economy.

If 0bama cared about creating jobs, he would focus on that (how does raising taxes create jobs?).

As unemployment increases and the economy stinks, 0bama can at least say "look at me, I stuck it to the rich". Some stupid people would look at that as progress and not think to wonder why the debt keeps rising, unemployment keeps rising and wages keep falling.
 
2012-12-06 03:35:10 PM

incendi: verbaltoxin: I hammered him too, but it was earned. What he said was douchey, and I treated it as such.

Eh, I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, up till I tag them as a troll. Then it's on. Jigger hasn't made enough of an impression yet for me to assume bad intentions.


Just keep reading, he will.
 
2012-12-06 03:36:30 PM

verbaltoxin: Oh my, you're going to be awfully disappointed when your fiscally conservative masters offer you up as their pound of flesh.


I don't know what's more funny. That you think the Republicans are fiscally conservative or that you think they're my masters.

incendi: jigger: Did I ever say that?

Nope. Well, I assume not, given your offense. I'm not gonna go googling for your thread history. But more to the point, not every lambasting comment is necessarily directed at the person quoted, and in this case, if you haven't been blaming Obama for the current nonsensical mess, then you are not a target, and I sincerely apologize if I unintentionally impugned your honor.


Oh wait, don't get me wrong. Obama has his hand deep in this shiat. He's not solely responsible, obviously, but he is the farking president.
 
2012-12-06 03:37:48 PM

chuggernaught: Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.

Limbaugh's show must be over. Those are common talking points.

These are not tax increases. It is an expiration of tax cuts from the previous administration. If nothing happens all the cuts go away on January 1st for 100% of Americans. The Dems are arguing for an extension of 98% of the lowest incomes. The Repubs prefer that everyone go back to the pre-cut levels.

By your own circular logic, the Repubs want to raise taxes on everyone, but the Dems only want to raise taxes on the top 2%. I know this blows your mind, and Rush would deny it loudly, but it's true.


if the President said he'd accept extending the cuts on everyone tomorrow, I am pretty sure the GOP would accept it since that is what they are arguing for in the first place.
 
2012-12-06 03:37:54 PM
Raise taxes, increase spending in positive ROI areas - infrastructure, SNAP & TANF, work programs, unemployment insurance extension. Remove the payroll tax and replace it with a carbon tax. Get money into the hands of the poor and middle classes. Grow the economy from there. Fix unemployment -> fix revenues - > fix deficit & debt. Not the other way around.

A balanced budget is the result of a robust economy, not the cause.
 
2012-12-06 03:38:28 PM

mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.


That is a stupid analogy.
The GOP knew they would never get the $60 (e.g. the mythical spending cuts) so why give up the shovel?
 
2012-12-06 03:39:32 PM

JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.


I swear. People can be so myopic sometimes. If you're not a member/slave of one party you must be of the other. 

The election(s) resulted in status quo ante as far as the balance of power between the two parties is concerned, so the people voted for...more of the same shiat, apparently.
 
2012-12-06 03:40:10 PM

CorporatePerson: This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."


What did he say when you explained 4% of $250,000 is only $10,000, and when you explained that 4% only applied to $ above $250,000?
 
2012-12-06 03:44:14 PM

JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose..


You may want to speak with Pelosi about that.
Clearly you weren't around on fark when people talked about winning the House during the summer.
 
2012-12-06 03:46:30 PM
You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.
 
2012-12-06 03:47:45 PM

Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses


Kinda makes you wonder why so many stupid people take a second job, right? All they need to do is stop buying plasma TVs.
 
2012-12-06 03:48:40 PM
I bet tenpoundsofcheese only paid taxes on the first 5 pounds of cheese.
 
2012-12-06 03:49:11 PM

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.
 
2012-12-06 03:50:12 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.

That is a stupid analogy.
The GOP knew they would never get the $60 (e.g. the mythical spending cuts) so why give up the shovel?


The GOP flies into a blinding rage whenever someone suggests cuts on what THEY like (the hyper-inflated defense budget). But they're all for destroying social programs, Planned Parenthood, and PBS, believing that doing so will immediately balance everything and we can have golden unicorns for all.

GOP: Party and Military (machines, don't care about the soldiers) first, everything else is expendable.
 
2012-12-06 03:50:19 PM

SovietCanuckistan: I bet tenpoundsofcheese only paid taxes on the first 5 pounds of cheese.


He's not here for thoughtful discussion. He's only here to libs libs libs. When challenged on anything of substance he disappears.
 
2012-12-06 03:52:25 PM

jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.


Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.
 
2012-12-06 03:53:16 PM

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


If the tiny amount we would see by cutting funding to public broadcasting is worth mentioning than this amount is relevant too.
 
2012-12-06 03:54:30 PM

Dog Welder: rufus-t-firefly: Their plan offered Monday proposed $800 billion in deficit savings through tax reform, including an unspecified amount of revenue raised by eliminating tax deductions and loopholes.

And I'm happy to add, that in the year that Republicans have been campaigning to regain the Presidency and the post-election cycle and the fiscal cliff negotiations, they still have not come out and said which loopholes they intend to cut. Not once.

If anybody (especially any Fark Independents) have a link that lays out the actual, specific GOP fiscal plan and which loopholes they intend to do away with (legitimate news source), I'll buy them a free month of Total Fark.


Big Bird and Jim Lehrer get fired. Isn't that specific enough?
 
2012-12-06 03:55:27 PM

chuggernaught: These are not tax increases. It is an expiration of tax cuts from the previous administration. If nothing happens all the cuts go away on January 1st for 100% of Americans. The Dems are arguing for an extension of 98% of the lowest incomes. The Repubs prefer that everyone go back to the pre-cut levels.

By your own circular logic, the Repubs want to raise taxes on everyone, but the Dems only want to raise taxes on the top 2%. I know this blows your mind, and Rush would deny it loudly, but it's true.


You had a good point going here about wanting to re-frame it as merely allowing tax cuts to go away versus calling them tax increases. But you made a pretty important mistake at the end, you have to qualify your statement with the underlined - "The Republicans would raise taxes on everyone rather than only raise taxes on the top 2%." As skullkrusher said, when presented with the third option of raising taxes on no one, they would seem to prefer that the most.
 
2012-12-06 03:55:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.

It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.


False dichotomy is false. We need to do two things: 1) Decrease spending 2) increase revenue

This is a step in the direction of one of those two things.
 
2012-12-06 03:57:05 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: SovietCanuckistan: I bet tenpoundsofcheese only paid taxes on the first 5 pounds of cheese.

He's not here for thoughtful discussion. He's only here to libs libs libs. When challenged on anything of substance he disappears.


Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency. Funny.

Oh, and here you are posting negative and false comments about me, so why are you here?

As for thoughtful discussion, you do know that this is fark, right? we don't make news, we mock it.
 
2012-12-06 03:57:38 PM

impaler: CorporatePerson: This. I was arguing with my cousin about taxes recently. He's a lifelong Republican and a small business owner and I was trying to get him to explain to me why he thinks letting the Bush era tax cut for top earners expire would cause prices to go up. He started off by saying "Let's say you make $250,000 a year. Obama's plan would require you to pay $16,000 extra in taxes."

What did he say when you explained 4% of $250,000 is only $10,000, and when you explained that 4% only applied to $ above $250,000?


All our correspondance is done in fb message form. He responds to me about once a week. His responses are typically 20-30 paragraphs long so I don't really get go too deep into anything. It's quite an impressive mountain of derp to scale but it's kinda cool finally being able to get a grasp on why some of my family believes what they believe.
 
2012-12-06 03:57:43 PM

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


But cutting funding to PBS will fix everything. Romney said so! STOP PICKING ON THE 2% WHO HAVE 90% OF THE MONEY AND PAY LESS IN TAXES THAN THE POOR AND MIDDLE DO!!
 
2012-12-06 03:58:54 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: mrshowrules: incendi: mrshowrules: Time for a Canadian snow analogy. When Obama was snowed in he offered you $60 for your $20 shovel and you said no. Now it is really warm outside and the snow is melting very quickly. How much do you want for that shovel now?

We're gonna need that shovel next winter, too. Why doesn't that bastard just go to Home Depot sometime during the summer after the snow has melted?

That's my point. When the snow melts Obama can get the car out of the garage and just go to Canadian Tire and buy a $20 shovel (likely for $10) .

If the GOP wanted $60 for the shovel, they should have sold it when they had the leverage.

That is a stupid analogy.
The GOP knew they would never get the $60 (e.g. the mythical spending cuts) so why give up the shovel?


You could have had your old shovel, plus a brand new shovel and $40 extra in your pocket. All you have now is your shiatty old shovel that you still think is worth something.

Obama, now has a brand new shovel he bought it with $40 left in his pocket. Your shiatty shovel breaks in 2014. Obama's good shovel lasts until 2016 when he is moving south anyways. He sold the house to a nice lady who he works with.

/officially taking the analogy too far.
 
2012-12-06 03:59:00 PM

jigger: JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.

I swear. People can be so myopic sometimes. If you're not a member/slave of one party you must be of the other. 

The election(s) resulted in status quo ante as far as the balance of power between the two parties is concerned, so the people voted for...more of the same shiat, apparently.


Exactly. Not only did the vote for more of the same, but they specifically didn't vote for what they wanted in 2008, a Dem control of all three branches.
 
2012-12-06 03:59:07 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.

Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.


Fortunately, the national debt isn't on a damn Visa or American Express.
 
2012-12-06 04:00:13 PM

xanadian: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

Fitting that "Rule 34" is in the URL.

/looks like it would make a damn good velvet painting
//no Elvis, though...


Rule 34 can often lead to needing brain bleach, but it can also deliver wonders.

Haldir and Eomer enjoying a field tryst (NSFW)
 
2012-12-06 04:02:09 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.


Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.
 
2012-12-06 04:03:17 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: jigger: JokerMattly: Congratulations, the Republicans won the house, where no one believed they would lose.
That's a new high in setting the bar low.
In other, more practical news, you lost IN the house (lost seats, lost a quarter of the Tea Party Caucus), Lost in the Senate
and lost in the Presidency.

But really, keep thinking this was a definitive win for your ideology. Really.

I swear. People can be so myopic sometimes. If you're not a member/slave of one party you must be of the other. 

The election(s) resulted in status quo ante as far as the balance of power between the two parties is concerned, so the people voted for...more of the same shiat, apparently.

Exactly. Not only did the vote for more of the same, but they specifically didn't vote for what they wanted in 2008, a Dem control of all three branches.


So electing more Dems in all three branches = "not wanting Dems in all three branches"?
 
2012-12-06 04:04:40 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.


He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.
 
2012-12-06 04:05:08 PM

jst3p: tenpoundsofcheese: tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.

It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.

False dichotomy is false. We need to do two things: 1) Decrease spending 2) increase revenue

.


That assumes that you disagree with Krugman that deficits don't matter. Do you disagree with him on that?
 
2012-12-06 04:06:43 PM

incendi: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.

Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.

Fortunately, the national debt isn't on a damn Visa or American Express.


Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.
 
2012-12-06 04:07:34 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.


I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.
I am not going to go off topic any more in this thread except to respond to your attack.

I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.
 
2012-12-06 04:07:36 PM

Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]


images.wikia.com

AHH! AHH! AHH! AHH! AHHHH!
 
2012-12-06 04:09:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: jst3p: tenpoundsofcheese: tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.

It isn't about the deficit or the debt.

It is about class warfare and "fairness". It is all about feeling good about sticking it to people rather than feeling good that unemployment has improved, wages have improved or debt is a lesser burden on us or future generations.

It is the easy thing to do, rather than what needs to get done to fix the economy.

False dichotomy is false. We need to do two things: 1) Decrease spending 2) increase revenue

.

That assumes that you disagree with Krugman that deficits don't matter. Do you disagree with him on that?


I do because he said it a year and a half ago. And if you read the actual quote I agreed with him that deficits didn't matter. Right then. Now is not then.

Right now, deficits don't matter - a point borne out by all the evidence. But there's a school of thought - the modern monetary theory people - who say that deficits never matter, as long as you have your own currency.

I wish I could agree with that view - and it's not a fight I especially want, since the clear and present policy danger is from the deficit peacocks of the right. But for the record, it's just not right.
 
2012-12-06 04:09:48 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Dusk-You-n-Me: tenpoundsofcheese: Riggghht. Coming from the person who was proven wrong on your lie about Medicare efficiency.

Two times you've stopped replying after being challenged on the subject. Not sure why you'd want to remind everyone of that. Unless this is your thing, stringing me along without actually ever proving your point, in which case you're the big winner.

I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.
I am not going to go off topic any more in this thread except to respond to your attack.

I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.


If I recall correctly, the link you posted proved nothing. Correction: it did prove that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
2012-12-06 04:10:35 PM

tony41454: You can take ALL the money that the 2% has and it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors and the libs are FALLING FOR IT like the brainless Obama butt-kissers they are. Poor fools.


After all of this time, I think I finally realize, you just have a factual misunderstanding of the world. This should be so easy, we can be friends after this! We don't need all of their money and we don't even need the top 2%. We only need 2/3rds of the money from the top 1% to completely solve the debt.

The average household wealth for the top 1% is around $20 million.
There are about 120 million households or 1.2 million in the top 1%.

If we took all of their money, we would gain $20 million * 1.2 million = $24 trillion

The current national debt is around $16 trillion. If we took 2/3rds of the money from everyone in the top 1%, we would have completely eliminated the debt. What's more, all of the households in that top 1% would still be worth an average of $6.7 million. I think they can get by on that. Boom, problem solved.
 
2012-12-06 04:11:09 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: I provided a link that proved you wrong in the original thread.


And I replied to that link, twice, showing how it was based on faulty information.

tenpoundsofcheese: I often have you on ignore, so I may have missed some of your "replies" before.


Well then maybe don't engage me in discussion, ignore my replies and then claim some sort of victory. Twice.
 
2012-12-06 04:11:58 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah:

He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.


Definitely a paid shill, I got a time out for poking fun at him.
 
2012-12-06 04:13:50 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]


No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
 
2012-12-06 04:14:27 PM

Maud Dib: Keizer_Ghidorah:

He's a troll and possibly a mod alt, all he's doing is generating clicks for the site.

Definitely a paid shill, I got a time out for poking fun at him.


The mods don't like it when you make one of their revenue generators sad.
 
2012-12-06 04:15:53 PM

DirkValentine: Diogenes: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Sexy and surreal. I like it.

What is surreal about it? Elves and dwarves are natural homosexual lovers once you get past the initial social constructs of racial/ethnic division.


Since female dwarfs have beards, how do you know for sure that picture was a homosexual encounter?
 
2012-12-06 04:16:11 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

rule34-data-000.paheal.net
 
2012-12-06 04:25:23 PM

lennavan: After all of this time, I think I finally realize, you just have a factual misunderstanding of the world. This should be so easy, we can be friends after this! We don't need all of their money and we don't even need the top 2%. We only need 2/3rds of the money from the top 1% to completely solve the debt.

The average household wealth for the top 1% is around $20 million.
There are about 120 million households or 1.2 million in the top 1%.

If we took all of their money, we would gain $20 million * 1.2 million = $24 trillion

The current national debt is around $16 trillion. If we took 2/3rds of the money from everyone in the top 1%, we would have completely eliminated the debt. What's more, all of the households in that top 1% would still be worth an average of $6.7 million. I think they can get by on that. Boom, problem solved.


Well, to be fair he probably meant all their income, which is a bit different. I'm not running the numbers. The problem with this particular rape the rich scenario is that most of their wealth isn't money... so while they are "worth", on average, "$20,000,000", what they've actually got is a bunch of property and investments that are valued based on the current market conditions. If you tried to liquidate all of that crap at once, or even in a relatively short period of time, you'd be lucky to get half price for it over all. The world economy can't just shiat out 24 trillion cash money and keep ticking along like nothing happened.

On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.
 
2012-12-06 04:27:59 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.


Heh, we all get that urge sometimes. Too bad you're being upstaged by the professionals... they're herping so many derps this thread might potato.
 
2012-12-06 04:30:41 PM

AirForceVet: Mugato: ManRay: "We have the morals to comply if you make us pay, but not enough to do it on our own because we believe it to be the right thing."

I hear that a lot and it's really a bad argument. These people are obviously saying that ending the tax cuts would help the economy and the nation. One person, no matter how rich, giving more than they have to isn't going to do anything.

/doesn't care what the 2% pays personally

I nonconcur there, Mugato, about not caring with the 2% pay. I found it offensive that Mitt Romney paid less of a percentage of his income that I do.

While I understand why President Obama is only seeking to raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more at this time, I would like to see the 2003 Bush tax cuts expire for all of us. They should have never been passed, especially after starting a second war by invading Iraq. 

/Very unpatriotic, IMHO.
//Totally self-serving for the party and its base; not America.


No, raising taxes on the middle class will harm the economy because we spend all of our tax breaks. The rich sock it away. Raising taxes on us would destroy demand and slow the economy.
 
2012-12-06 04:30:54 PM

incendi: KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.

Heh, we all get that urge sometimes. Too bad you're being upstaged by the professionals... they're herping so many derps this thread might potato Tebow.


ftfy

It is easy to get caught up, I slipped and responded to tenpoundsofderp.
 
2012-12-06 04:41:07 PM

Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: Carn: Debeo Summa Credo: As a member of the 98%, let me add: Tax everybody, you dolts. Nothing wrong with a return to Clinton rates. At least for those who are legitimately concerned about the deficit.

I agree with this statement. I also want a cap on mortgage tax reduction and I think it should be phased out in the next 5-10 years. It's bad policy. Also also, remove all corporate welfare now.

I'd phase out elimination of mortgage tax deduction over much longer period.

If you phase it out over only 5 to 10 years you will immediately reduce the market value of homes, farking over people who own homes as well as restarting the financial crisis.

Also, both Obama and Boehner have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes (ir welfare)and reducing corp rates.

That's fine, we can haggle. But I think you can institute a cap and a no second mortgage rule much sooner, as well as not letting the deduction being taken on new purchases. I know they have discussed eliminating corporate loopholes, but it remains to be seen what we'll actually get out of it.


Okay, as part of my haggling we can't immediately eliminate it for new purchases. That's what will cause the huge drop in house prices (without the deduction people won't be able to afford nearly as much), and recreate the recession.

I tend to agree that it was bad policy to begin with a mortgage interest deduction, but now that we have it it's going to take a while to get rid of it without causing more problems.
 
2012-12-06 04:42:58 PM
Top 2% to GOP: Tax us, you dolts because we're tired of everyone hating us, and we can afford to pay a little more if it gets us better PR

FTFY, subby.

BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.
 
2012-12-06 04:45:07 PM

incendi: On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.


That was the point. The logic behind the talking point is fundamentally stupid, "this only helps a little so we shouldn't bother." The logic behind the talking also incorrect, it helps quite a bit more than a little. The difference between GOP and Obama's plan is $800 billion. That's hardly something to sneeze at.

But directly addressing his talking point clearly demonstrates how stupid he and it is. He said all their money, top 2% and won't make a dent. I demonstrated we only need 2/3 of their worth, only the top 1% and we fix the debt entirely. Talk about an ass whoopin.

The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.

tomwfox.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-06 04:50:39 PM

lennavan: incendi: On the other hand, his "taking all their income won't solve everything so... something something you love obama" routine is kind of tiresome, so it's enjoyable to see somebody dickwhipping him around a little.

That was the point. The logic behind the talking point is fundamentally stupid, "this only helps a little so we shouldn't bother." The logic behind the talking also incorrect, it helps quite a bit more than a little. The difference between GOP and Obama's plan is $800 billion. That's hardly something to sneeze at.

But directly addressing his talking point clearly demonstrates how stupid he and it is. He said all their money, top 2% and won't make a dent. I demonstrated we only need 2/3 of their worth, only the top 1% and we fix the debt entirely. Talk about an ass whoopin.

The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.

[tomwfox.files.wordpress.com image 578x504]


The problem is he has no idea what he is talking about. He is repeating a talking point with no understanding of the underlying principals or facts. Here is what will happen tonight:

"Hey Honey how was work?"

"Pretty good. You know how I like to debate on fark? I made a great point and then some stupid libtard used bullshiat leftist spin and lies to try and make it seem like I was wrong! Goddamn Fartbongo supporters! What's on Fox News?"
 
2012-12-06 04:53:30 PM

Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.


I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?
 
2012-12-06 04:58:41 PM

lennavan: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

Kinda makes you wonder why so many stupid people take a second job, right? All they need to do is stop buying plasma TVs.


Funny story; first time I ever heard about plasma TVs when I was a kid my brain kept going to biological plasma membranes and I confused myself pretty terribly.

[/threadjack]
 
2012-12-06 05:00:32 PM

incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?


Would be more accurate to say "As long as person A is different than person B, person A is going to be vilified".

This is true with differences is wealth, skin color, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities / disabilities etc. You'll have to pardon me for feeling least sorry for those vilified for being wealthy.
 
2012-12-06 05:00:52 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]


I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.
 
2012-12-06 05:01:11 PM

incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?


He's just stating a fact. Tangential though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".
 
2012-12-06 05:03:59 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".


The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.
 
2012-12-06 05:05:14 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]

I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.


Don't be afraid. Elven love is a tender and passionate thing.

rule34-data-000.paheal.net
 
2012-12-06 05:06:35 PM

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.


Olay, I suppose it is irrelevant. But which fark posts are not? We ain't solving shiat here.
 
2012-12-06 05:07:36 PM

jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.


I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.
 
2012-12-06 05:09:18 PM
Someone needs to make a Libertarian Legolas meme pointing out that all this homo-erotic elven fan-fic is a case of legal theft.
 
2012-12-06 05:12:15 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.


I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"
 
2012-12-06 05:13:32 PM

jst3p: Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.

I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


More like "Liberals stole half my water!!!".
 
2012-12-06 05:17:41 PM

jst3p: A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


Democrats are kept up at night thinking somewhere there is someone who deserves help that is not getting it.

Republicans are kept up at night thinking somewhere there is someone who does not deserve help that is getting it.
 
2012-12-06 05:24:12 PM

jst3p: Keizer_Ghidorah: jst3p: Debeo Summa Credo: incendi: Lernaeus: BTW, no amount of taxing the rich is going to make hatred of the rich go away. As long as person A has more than person B, person A is going to be vilified.

I thought we were trying to solve the government's budget issue, not rich people's deep and secret desire for a real affection they've never felt because their money is both a blessing and a curse that keeps them isolated from humanity because everyone around them always masks their true emotions in deference to or in desire of their wealth?

He's just stating a fact. Tangential irrelevant though it may be, it's a fact that even if you raised taxes on the rich to 50%, there would still be many deadbeats of the taker class whining that the rich still weren't paying their "fair share".

The we aren't trying to convince everyone to not hate the rich, as you observed that will never happen. But this has nothing to do with the problem we are trying to solve.

I think that's the heart of what he wanted to say. Because all those poor people do is take and whine, don't'cha know.

I know.

A liberal sees a half a glass of water and sees it as half-empty.

A conservative sees half a glass of water and says "Who the hell stole half my water!?!?!?"


Actually, since we're being silly with oversimplified analogies, conservatives know that liberals stole half their water. And the liberals are looking at the conservative's half glass and whining "you still have half a glass of water, why don't you pay your 'fair share'"?!
 
2012-12-06 05:46:50 PM
This thread went all this time without eyebleach?
 
2012-12-06 05:53:14 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: This thread went all this time without eyebleach?


Not everyone thinks sexy men loving each other is an eye bleach-worthy thing.
 
2012-12-06 05:57:31 PM

jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.


That's right. The ONLY way is to cut expenses, not increase your income. If you have 5000 in bills every month, and 4000 in income, the ONLY solution is to cut your expenses. If your boss offers you a raise, tell him to forget it.
 
2012-12-06 05:58:15 PM
The majority of rich people who stand by tax cuts for the rich aren't rich at all... Just displaced millionaires, someone threw this out there I love it so much.
 
2012-12-06 05:58:49 PM

lennavan: The top 1% make an average of ~$1 million a year. So if we tax their income at 100%, that's 1 trillion dollars a year. I think that constitutes a "dent." But let's not be mean, let's just tax it at 90%. Even rich dudes gotta eat. $900 billion dollars a year. I just solved the projected 2013 budget deficit. No cuts needed. Any and all cuts can go directly to paying down the debt and I only needed income, the top 1% and 90% taxes, not 100%.


You can tax people all you want. You cannot guarantee that they will pay it. i.e. France/Greece

Just like you can tax the 2% all you want and feel awesome about it until you realize that each and every one of these people has art foundations set up whereby they take their personal fortune, donate it to the art foundation and shelter the money away, or set up companies in non-RTW states, or purchase properties with dummy corps, or derive their income from capital gains or start their own Churches

This notion that we have a biggest-pecker competition on who can pay more taxes is nonsense. If you told Fred Smith you'd be taking 75% of his assets and 90% of his income, he'd personally fly a FedEx jet to Costa Rica.
 
2012-12-06 05:59:17 PM
I call for a tax strike. 0 income equals 0 tax. 0 dividends equal 0 tax. 0 capital gains equals.0 tax. The rich don't need to make any money. They can't spend what they have. Then the middle class will have to pay their fair share.
 
2012-12-06 06:02:45 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: jigger: Optimus Composite: every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses

That's not how the Mafia operates.

Every family in America also knows that if your spouse maxes out the credit card, you can't pay off the debt only by ceasing to use the card. You have to PAY THE FARKING BILL.


Ah, yes, this is a great analogy. Er, wait, no it isn't. Yeah, it's an absolutely terrible analogy that bears no resemblance to the actual situation whatsoever. good jerb
 
2012-12-06 06:03:37 PM

KiTTeNs_on_AciD: Household budget analogies are dumb, but I got the urge to herp that derp bad and went for it.


You certainly herped and derped.
 
2012-12-06 06:05:51 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]

I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.

Don't be afraid. Elven love is a tender and passionate thing.

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 667x500]


What the shiat?!? They are multiplying. I know who to blame for this, this is Agent Smith's doing... Agent Smith and his corruption of The Matrix.

\And at the same moment the entire theater called out "Hello Mr. Anderson"
 
2012-12-06 06:08:45 PM

CapeFearCadaver: Funny story; first time I ever heard about plasma TVs when I was a kid


I feel old.
 
2012-12-06 06:08:53 PM

todwin: I call for a tax strike. 0 income equals 0 tax. 0 dividends equal 0 tax. 0 capital gains equals.0 tax. The rich don't need to make any money. They can't spend what they have. Then the middle class will have to pay their fair share.


a 0% income tax would bring in federal revenues equal to that of 1997

End the wars and reform entitlements and you could do it.
 
2012-12-06 06:15:04 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]

I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.

Don't be afraid. Elven love is a tender and passionate thing.

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 667x500]

What the shiat?!? They are multiplying. I know who to blame for this, this is Agent Smith's doing... Agent Smith and his corruption of The Matrix.

\And at the same moment the entire theater called out "Hello Mr. Anderson"


Nah, they're just brothers. Orophin and Rumil didn't appear in the movies (and Haldir lived in the books, I am still peeved at Jackson for that).
 
2012-12-06 06:19:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Uchiha_Cycliste: Keizer_Ghidorah: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768]

Bleh, short hairy dwarf. Elves all the way.

[rule34-data-003.paheal.net image 800x600]

No Spike! Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Yes! Yeeeeessssss!

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 600x650]

I suppose as long as we avoid any "my precious" puns I'll simply sit here and bear it.

\possibly not the best phrasing.

Don't be afraid. Elven love is a tender and passionate thing.

[rule34-data-000.paheal.net image 667x500]

What the shiat?!? They are multiplying. I know who to blame for this, this is Agent Smith's doing... Agent Smith and his corruption of The Matrix.

\And at the same moment the entire theater called out "Hello Mr. Anderson"

Nah, they're just brothers. Orophin and Rumil didn't appear in the movies (and Haldir lived in the books, I am still peeved at Jackson for that).


I think that's much, much worse =/
 
2012-12-06 06:49:13 PM

rufus-t-firefly: Weaver95: Jackson Herring: [j.wigflip.com image 553x768] 

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 292x302]

[p.twimg.com image 500x375]


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-12-06 06:55:12 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: I think that's much, much worse =/


You know you want to be in the middle of them ;3
 
2012-12-06 07:04:44 PM
Raising taxes on them helps run the country for what, ten days or so?

That sounds like all we need to do to be prosperous!
 
2012-12-06 07:08:39 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Raising taxes on them helps run the country for what, ten days or so?

That sounds like all we need to do to be prosperous!


Are people like you born stupid, or does it happen over time? Or do you choose to be retards in order to get attention and generate clicks?
 
2012-12-06 08:17:01 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Raising taxes on them helps run the country for what, ten days or so?

That sounds like all we need to do to be prosperous!


Like how the tax brackets were during the Clinton years?

cdn.crooksandliars.com
 
2012-12-06 09:06:56 PM
If the tax hikes work, great news for all of us.

Question is, what's the plan if it doesn't?
 
2012-12-06 09:19:08 PM

cchris_39: If the tax hikes work, great news for all of us.

Question is, what's the plan if it doesn't?


The intent is to increase revenue a bit. How could it "not work" unless you believd the demonstrably false narrative that this will affect job creation.
 
2012-12-06 10:07:43 PM

jst3p: cchris_39: If the tax hikes work, great news for all of us.

Question is, what's the plan if it doesn't?

The intent is to increase revenue a bit. How could it "not work" unless you believd the demonstrably false narrative that this will affect job creation.


If inflation and unemployment and trillion dollar deficits continue, it hasn't worked.
 
2012-12-06 10:36:48 PM

jst3p: cchris_39: If the tax hikes work, great news for all of us.

Question is, what's the plan if it doesn't?

The intent is to increase revenue a bit. How could it "not work" unless you believd the demonstrably false narrative that this will affect job creation.


"demonstrably false"?

You don't believe the CBO?

I mean, I recognize that letting the cuts expire will reduce employment, but i feel that we need to bite the bullet and start paying our bills, therefore I believe we should let all the cuts expire. But I still acknowledge that the expiration wil adversely affect the economy in the near term.
 
2012-12-07 12:28:59 AM
I believe we should go over the cliff so the 2% can avoid a modest tax increase on their income over $250,000. Marginal tax rate increases are the worst!
 
2012-12-07 12:32:52 AM

t3knomanser: I love the, "Well, why don't they just pay more voluntarily?"

Because the IRS can't actually use that money. Overpayments get banked into an account for the overpayer. They can collect interest, and they can be applied to future liabilities, but the IRS can't keep that money. In fact, if you overpay, you can go back to the IRS and get that refund from them.

I actually overpayed recently due to some confusion. It was trivially easy to get my money back, and the IRS has some of the best customer service I have ever experienced.


I have literally never seen that sentence before.
 
2012-12-07 01:35:44 AM
It becomes clear that the intelligent among the richest Americans realize that their taxes need to increase, because they're the only ones who can afford it. The others are clearly greedy sociopaths tea partiers.
 
2012-12-07 01:44:24 AM
Why is there so much LOTR slash porn on here? Do I even want to know?
 
2012-12-07 06:02:49 AM
WTF?

Elf fantasy sketch pron?

Thanks guys, because that's what I wanted to do today; lose my job reading a farking thread about taxes.

NSFW tag?
Anyone?
Or does it have to show pee-hole and rusty starfish in order to qualify?

Fark moderators: reason 1012 on the list of reasons I should stop spending time on this website.
 
2012-12-07 07:08:21 AM
U miss my point on the tax strike. The rich don't need to make any money. Just live on what they already have.

Romney does not have a job. 0 in wages means 0 in earned income reported means 0 in earned income taxes. If he cashes all his investments he will make 0 dollars in dividends and 0 dollars in capital gains. Means 0 dollars in taxes.

He then has over 200 million is cash which he can spend to live on the rest of his life and still not run out.

The rich (movie stars, music stars, sports stars, business stars) do not have to pay taxes if they choose to go on a tax strike.
 
2012-12-07 07:48:12 AM
If you're a small business owner (sole proprietorship) paying taxes on business income as personal income, and tax rates go up, isn't it in your best interest to spend down your income on wages and investment in order to reap the benefits at a later date when tax rates might be lower?

When taxes go up, employees effectively become cheaper to hire than before. What am I missing?
 
2012-12-07 08:06:06 AM
Stockholm syndrome. It's real.
 
2012-12-07 08:28:59 AM
The expiration of a temporary tax cut (which has already been extended past its original end date) is not a "tax hike".
 
2012-12-07 10:49:44 AM

gilgamesh23: If you're a small business owner (sole proprietorship) paying taxes on business income as personal income, and tax rates go up, isn't it in your best interest to spend down your income on wages and investment in order to reap the benefits at a later date when tax rates might be lower?

When taxes go up, employees effectively become cheaper to hire than before. What am I missing?


You're correct. Higher taxes reduce the after tax cost of hiring a new worker. GOP talking points on this have been farked up.

The actual reasons that higher taxes reduces jobs are two-fold: lower expected after tax profits reduce the incentive to invest, reducing new investments or expansions, and pulling any money out of the economy via taxes reduces individuals capacity to spend.

The question to debate is whether the benefit of increased revenue to the govt sufficiently offsets negative economic implications. CBO estimates 200,000 fewer jobs over the next year if the top rate cuts are allowed to expire. For what that's worth. Again, I say we let all the cuts expire.
 
2012-12-07 12:00:53 PM

o5iiawah: This notion that we have a biggest-pecker competition on who can pay more taxes is nonsense. If you told Fred Smith you'd be taking 75% of his assets and 90% of his income, he'd personally fly a FedEx jet to Costa Rica.


Ah, so that explains why there are no more rich people in the US. They all left in the 50s for Costa Rica when the top tax rate was 90%.

Or perhaps are you completely wrong?
 
2012-12-07 12:15:31 PM

lennavan: o5iiawah: This notion that we have a biggest-pecker competition on who can pay more taxes is nonsense. If you told Fred Smith you'd be taking 75% of his assets and 90% of his income, he'd personally fly a FedEx jet to Costa Rica.

Ah, so that explains why there are no more rich people in the US. They all left in the 50s for Costa Rica when the top tax rate was 90%.

Or perhaps are you completely wrong?


Or perhaps you realize that in 1950, the US was one of a scant few places on earth with a functioning society and if you wanted a decent life, you lived here. You're delusional if you think you can somehow correlate 1950's America to the world we live in today. Rich people exist in the USA but they do whatever they can to avoid taxes. They'll still live here after the 75% asset and 90% wage tax, they'll just set up their companies in Bermuda and use their dummy corps to buy their upper-east side apartment.
 
2012-12-07 12:53:19 PM

o5iiawah: lennavan: o5iiawah: This notion that we have a biggest-pecker competition on who can pay more taxes is nonsense. If you told Fred Smith you'd be taking 75% of his assets and 90% of his income, he'd personally fly a FedEx jet to Costa Rica.

Ah, so that explains why there are no more rich people in the US. They all left in the 50s for Costa Rica when the top tax rate was 90%.

Or perhaps are you completely wrong?

Or perhaps you realize that in 1950, the US was one of a scant few places on earth with a functioning society and if you wanted a decent life, you lived here. You're delusional if you think you can somehow correlate 1950's America to the world we live in today. Rich people exist in the USA but they do whatever they can to avoid taxes. They'll still live here after the 75% asset and 90% wage tax, they'll just set up their companies in Bermuda and use their dummy corps to buy their upper-east side apartment.


So you completely moved those goalposts. Got it.
 
2012-12-07 01:08:21 PM

lennavan: So you completely moved those goalposts. Got it.


I didn't move the goalposts - you just cant break my arguments. The rich will either leave or set up companies and residences overseas then come back and avoid the taxes. Most of Hollywood already does it. How about explaining who would line up and gleefully pay the taxes? Warren buffet already pays himself in capital gains from BH stock rather than via standard payroll to avoid taxes.

The point remains. you can set tax rates to whatever you want but in a mobile society, you cannot guarantee that people will pay them.
 
2012-12-07 01:55:24 PM

o5iiawah: I didn't move the goalposts - you just cant break my arguments. The rich will either leave or set up


Nah, you started by saying the rich will leave. Now you're saying they'll move their companies.

o5iiawah: The point remains. you can set tax rates to whatever you want but in a mobile society, you cannot guarantee that people will pay them.


You mean global economy. You aren't even familiar with the terms crucial to your argument. Wait til you see tax rates in other first world countries like Germany, France, Sweden and so on. It explains why no one there pays taxes and they had mass exoduses and proves everything terrible you imagined will happen to the US.

Or alternatively, those countries are just fine and it proves you're completely wrong. Definitely one of the two.
 
2012-12-07 02:38:38 PM

MurphyMurphy: WTF?

Elf fantasy sketch pron?

Thanks guys, because that's what I wanted to do today; lose my job reading a farking thread about taxes.

NSFW tag?
Anyone?
Or does it have to show pee-hole and rusty starfish in order to qualify?

Fark moderators: reason 1012 on the list of reasons I should stop spending time on this website.


Nothing below the waist, so still SFW. Do you complain about any other threads with topless men or guys in swim suits?
 
2012-12-07 06:14:11 PM

Optimus Composite: Why is the Government's answer to everything a tax hike? Why don't these people just spend less of our money? Yes I realized I answered my own questions, but the truth is, every family in America knows if your expenses exceed your income, you cut your expenses. Like every family in this recession, I've learned to live on less money, the government needs to do the same thing. There should not be one farking penny in tax increases on anyone, millionaires included, until there are massive budget cuts. This government spends 10 billion a day and that's still not enough for them.


If you think comparing personal finances to government finances makes for an intelligent argument, you've already failed.
 
2012-12-08 02:08:56 AM

lennavan: o5iiawah: I didn't move the goalposts - you just cant break my arguments. The rich will either leave or set up

Nah, you started by saying the rich will leave. Now you're saying they'll move their companies.

o5iiawah: The point remains. you can set tax rates to whatever you want but in a mobile society, you cannot guarantee that people will pay them.

You mean global economy. You aren't even familiar with the terms crucial to your argument. Wait til you see tax rates in other first world countries like Germany, France, Sweden and so on. It explains why no one there pays taxes and they had mass exoduses and proves everything terrible you imagined will happen to the US.

Or alternatively, those countries are just fine and it proves you're completely wrong. Definitely one of the two.


Right. They will leave and move their companies. But there's a good chance they will use their companies to purchase property back in the US. I was not referring to a global economy as that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I was referring to the fact that a person on a beach in France can run his Bermuda-based company on an Ipad, and direct facility operations in Kansas. While some people choose to stay in the USA to do business, others have already left and others are sure to leave if faced with a 75% asset tax and 90% wage tax which some have argued for upstream in the thread

my argument all along was that tax rates could rise but revenues could not be guaranteed since some people would choose to leave and not pay the taxes.

I live in PA and do my heavy shopping in Delaware. What makes you think that a person worth millions wont seek to avoid taxation if they can? Stop being delusional - I took you for a grownup
 
2012-12-08 07:33:09 PM

o5iiawah: lennavan: o5iiawah: I didn't move the goalposts - you just cant break my arguments. The rich will either leave or set up

Nah, you started by saying the rich will leave. Now you're saying they'll move their companies.

o5iiawah: The point remains. you can set tax rates to whatever you want but in a mobile society, you cannot guarantee that people will pay them.

You mean global economy. You aren't even familiar with the terms crucial to your argument. Wait til you see tax rates in other first world countries like Germany, France, Sweden and so on. It explains why no one there pays taxes and they had mass exoduses and proves everything terrible you imagined will happen to the US.

Or alternatively, those countries are just fine and it proves you're completely wrong. Definitely one of the two.

Right. They will leave and move their companies. But there's a good chance they will use their companies to purchase property back in the US. I was not referring to a global economy as that is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I was referring to the fact that a person on a beach in France can run his Bermuda-based company on an Ipad, and direct facility operations in Kansas. While some people choose to stay in the USA to do business, others have already left and others are sure to leave if faced with a 75% asset tax and 90% wage tax which some have argued for upstream in the thread

my argument all along was that tax rates could rise but revenues could not be guaranteed since some people would choose to leave and not pay the taxes.

I live in PA and do my heavy shopping in Delaware. What makes you think that a person worth millions wont seek to avoid taxation if they can? Stop being delusional - I took you for a grownup


Hey, shows how un-American they are and how worthless they are if they would rather flee the country than try to fix it.
 
Displayed 286 of 286 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report