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.

(NPR)   If you thought pigs would fly before you saw a well-written article about how tax increases will impact the wealthy, then get ready for airborne bacon   (npr.org) divider line 153
    More: Interesting, progressive taxes, personal income taxes, Palm Beach Gardens, Tax Foundation, media proprietor, land trust, Boehner  
•       •       •

4394 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 12:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 10:27:36 AM  
I was hoping that NPR would have this article link to a plain white page with the words "IT WON'T AFFECT THEM" written in giant letters right in the center.

Alas, I find myself disappointed once again.
 
2012-12-14 10:35:33 AM  
But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

Spot the FOX viewer in this sentence.
 
2012-12-14 10:45:52 AM  
Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"
 
2012-12-14 10:51:48 AM  
it's just a little airborne! it's still good! it's still good!
 
2012-12-14 11:03:50 AM  
That's not well written subby. It's a bunch of rich farks crying that they don't have much left at all after teh 2 mansions and 2 kids in college. Why they can't even afford a Jaguar after that and have to drive Subaru's.
 
2012-12-14 11:05:41 AM  
Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.
 
2012-12-14 11:11:49 AM  
I love threads where I can pretend to be Daddy Warbucks.
 
*lights cigar with $100 bill*
 
*claps*
 
Fetch my slippers and give me a backrub Punjab!  The media has asked me to do some opinining later today, and I want to be at my comfiest! 
 
2012-12-14 11:19:45 AM  
I'm certainly not extravagant- why, my maid doesn't even live in my house.
 
2012-12-14 11:29:37 AM  

ManateeGag: it's just a little airborne! it's still good! it's still good!


gifsoup.com

/Maybe I'm amazed at the way you love me all the time...
 
2012-12-14 11:37:45 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


But you don't get it, poors don't understand the burden of having several kids and sending them to college
 
2012-12-14 11:40:02 AM  
"Without willingness to support our central government, we're going down a dark path," Prince says. The conditions that create wealth - including an educated workforce and a broad customer base - are at risk if the rich are too "greedy" to pay more in taxes, he argues.

I spent more than a year in Nashville, and I never heard anyone say anything remotely as reasonable as this.
I think NPR made this up.
 
2012-12-14 11:45:07 AM  
I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong
 
2012-12-14 11:52:46 AM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


if my parents can raise two sons on $40-$50k but he cannot raise three on $250k+ .. it's his fault.

now, he's paying for his kids education, which my parents were unable to do. how much you want to bet they're going to $50k/year+ private schools?
 
2012-12-14 12:01:02 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.
 
2012-12-14 12:39:12 PM  
"I worked hard and I had some success, and I think that's how it's supposed to be in this country," says Edward Kfoury, a 74-year-old former IBM director who now owns "a couple of businesses" in Maine. "I don't like being called a name and being called a bastard and all these other things."

Unlike, say Poor. Lazy. Stupid. Welfare Queen. Unmotivated. Undesirable. Union lacky/thug. Trailer trash. Minimum wage monkey. Pathetic.

Right?
 
2012-12-14 12:44:42 PM  
That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:08 PM  
"There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis.

Anderson says he and his wife, a pathologist, fall into the 2 percent category but not by much. He indulges himself in "the latest and greatest that Apple has to offer" and lives in a sizable house in a good neighborhood. Beyond that, he says, he and his wife aren't extravagant - they drive Subarus rather than Jaguars.


Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.
 
2012-12-14 12:47:16 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


Yeah, that's how I saw the world when I was 18. Then I opened a history book and saw tax rates double and triple what they are now for the wealthy, and America was said to be the most prosperous nation in the world at the time.
 
2012-12-14 12:50:14 PM  
archiearchive.files.wordpress.com

this came to mind.
 
2012-12-14 12:50:54 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


If we take away 2/3 of the wealth from the top 1%, we can completely solve the $16 trillion debt. And all of those people would remain multi-millionaires.

If we return the top tax rate to the levels that we had in 1950, we would have a budget surplus.

But good point, taxing the rich will make everyone poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:51:53 PM  
Drive Subaraus instead of Jaguars? LOL. It is TOUGH being wealthy.

How about you drive a Hyundai?

And your two kids in college... let me guess, some private Liberal Arts school charging $30K a year? Oh boo freakin hoo.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:27 PM  
for the love of god democrats, start using their own Frank Luntz/Karl Rove tricks against them and learn to control the narrative!

Start referring to it as the "Rich's extra tax cut"

They still get the Bush tax cut on the first quart of a million they make, they just don't get an extra tax cut on the money they make above that. Maybe then you'll get the mouth breathers who are too stupid to understand progressive taxation to stop attacking each other and lionizing the wealthy as their more deserving betters.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:48 PM  
Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.

Nadie_AZ : Yeah, that's how I saw the world when I was 18. Then I opened a history book and saw tax rates double and triple what they are now for the wealthy, and America was said to be the most prosperous nation in the world at the time.

Dude, he's 12.
 
2012-12-14 12:52:49 PM  

lennavan: Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.


Let me summarize the Republican response to that: you're a socialist nazi maoist obummer lover.

And now, the Fox News version of the response: wharrrrrrrrrrrrgarrrrrrrble.
 
2012-12-14 12:54:00 PM  
fta "There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis. "It's just a different level of credit card debt."

See, libtards? Mark is doing his part to keep the economy moving. He's a Real American. How much is your average poor person contributing to the economy? Hardly anything at all! But you libtards want to punish Mark and reward the poor.
 
2012-12-14 12:54:49 PM  
"My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA


You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.
 
2012-12-14 12:56:00 PM  
1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.
 
2012-12-14 12:56:16 PM  
relevant:

www.ticketliquidator.com
 
2012-12-14 12:56:59 PM  

Dr. Whoof: lennavan: Now normally, I would be the first to pile on this guy for being a dipshiat liar, saying he lives paycheck to paycheck on $250,000. But I see room for compromise here.

My good sir, that is startling, you can barely afford to scrape by on $250,000? Clearly no one could get by with less, so what say we get together and make $250,000/year the minimum wage. Because as you said, you live paycheck to paycheck in a non-extravagant lifestyle.

Let me summarize the Republican response to that: you're a socialist nazi maoist obummer lover.

And now, the Fox News version of the response: wharrrrrrrrrrrrgarrrrrrrble.



I know. But what I wouldn't give for a "journalist" to ask something akin to that in a follow-up. There was a congressman from WI (Sean Duffy if you want to google it) who said he was struggling to get by on his $174,000 per year plus his wife's teacher salary. Poor guy. How the fark does he think the rest of us making less than that get by? Like those families with one person a teacher and the other anything that makes less than $174,000 a year?
 
2012-12-14 12:57:54 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.
 
2012-12-14 12:57:58 PM  
"they drive Subarus rather than Jaguars"

I was talking to a local teacher the other day, he works in a not so great district. Some of the kids were going on a field trip to a "restaurant" I think it was Applebee's or some other franchise. They were trying to teach the kids how to act in a restaurant setting since many of them had never been to one.

There are kids in my city, that have never been in a restaurant, any restaurant. My guess is mom and dad don't even own a car even though mass transit here is pathetic.

There is a divide, hell even between lower middle class, and the poor. We simply do not know what their world is like...
 
2012-12-14 12:58:19 PM  
Rich people crying about taxes and not having their ass kissed the President of the United States makes me feel stabby. Makes me want to make musical instruments out of their body parts, and compose a symphony dedicated to the poor poor rich people.
 
2012-12-14 12:59:11 PM  
"My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money."

What is your after-deductions taxable income? If it is still over $250K, then yea, that IS a lot of money. How much over $250K is your taxable income? 10K? 50k? An extra 4% on 50K is $2000. If your TAXABLE income is $300K, even in Washington, DC with 3 kids and 2 in college, yea that IS a lot of farking money and even so, your taxes would go up $2000... about $165 a MONTH!

The more tax someone would pay as a result of the tax increase, the less it will hurt them because it means they are making a farking shiat-ton of money!
 
2012-12-14 01:01:41 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.
 
2012-12-14 01:02:27 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.
 
2012-12-14 01:02:30 PM  
he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing,"

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says.


When and how has this happened?

*crickets*
 
2012-12-14 01:03:27 PM  

LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.


Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.
 
2012-12-14 01:03:30 PM  

pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.


If you're arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy won't reduce the deficit enough, how do you justify cutting entitlements when that will reduce the deficit by a much smaller amount?
 
2012-12-14 01:03:35 PM  

Brian Ryanberger: That's right liberal America go ahead and tax rich people until there are no rich people any more and then you will wonder why everybody is poor.


Hey Brian, oh wow account made yesterday and you are already trolling new threads.

Tell us how you love America now.
 
2012-12-14 01:04:20 PM  
Since 1944, the United States has only raised taxes on the rich twice-in 1992 and 1994. What followed those tax increases was one of the greatest economic booms in American history.

The two tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that heavily favored the wealthy resulted in the worst job and GDP growth of any administration since Eisenhower.
 
2012-12-14 01:04:52 PM  

DarwiOdrade: If you're arguing that raising taxes on the wealthy won't reduce the deficit enough, how do you justify cutting entitlements when that will reduce the deficit by a much smaller amount?


And by "you" I mean the idiot pacified replied to.
 
2012-12-14 01:07:27 PM  

LectertheChef: Makes me want to make musical instruments out of their body parts


what like a flute
 
2012-12-14 01:08:54 PM  

mrshowrules: sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.

Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.


I make half that, have 2 kids, and I think everyone in my bracket and above should pay a little more. I am by no means rich (mostly because I am fairly new to this level of income and I have debt from mistakes I made in the past) but if effective tax rate went up 2% it would make a difference but I would have the ability to adjust.

Back when I was making 30k I would have adjusted just the same, because would have had to, but it would have been by making much tougher choices and it would have made a noticeable impact in the quality of life my family was enjoying at the time.

We ran up a huge bar tab, we need to pay it back by cutting spending AND increasing revenue. I have a pretty kick ass life, I can kick in a little more than most.
 
2012-12-14 01:09:41 PM  
"What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."


THIS
 
2012-12-14 01:11:20 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.


On the one hand, $300K for a family of five isn't super-rich. On the other hand, if they take the standard deductions and nothing else, they'll pay only a grand more on taxes with the increase. More likely, with health care plans and 401(k)s and a home mortgage, they won't be affected by this tax increase at all.

We're talking what, 150K a year in take home pay? If you can't live on that, you've got issues. And you have to make more than that to be affected AT ALL by the tax increase.
 
2012-12-14 01:12:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.


Liar.

Link

graphics8.nytimes.com
 
2012-12-14 01:15:37 PM  

Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.


Yes, but I didn't inherit millions of shares of stock, nor is my primary income from dividends.

And "risk of investing"? Ha! Investing is a choice. You don't have to. You don't want to risk losing your money, put it in a CD. Why should you get special benefits?

Income is income is income is income is income. There is nothing more special about a dividend v. labor. None. Just because some rich people paid some nerds to come up with word salad to justify it doesn't make it true.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:45 PM  

Silly Jesus: Durr.


Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?
 
2012-12-14 01:15:51 PM  

Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.


Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.
 
2012-12-14 01:15:59 PM  

Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.


And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report