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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Last year, the Obamas paid a 25% higher tax rate than Mitt Romney - on only 3.5% of his last reported income   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 330
    More: Obvious, First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, tax rates, adjusted gross income  
•       •       •

4332 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 3:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-12 09:00:40 PM

skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread


Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.
 
2013-04-12 09:05:15 PM

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk


DSSCS is the name that someone else infantilely made up for a fictional corporation upthread.

What's wrong with what I said? Just pointing out the obvious fact that anticipated taxes on future earnings factor into the value of a corporation or shares of a corporation, and therefore affects capital gains on shares.
 
2013-04-12 09:06:13 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.


the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).
 
2013-04-12 09:18:10 PM

Wellon Dowd: And Uncle Joe needs a better accountant. He's up at 22%.


Knowing Biden, he probably files a 1040EZ and does the math with a pencil.
 
2013-04-12 09:29:25 PM

Lawyers With Nukes: Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.

Debeo, I appreciate 'n' all what you're trying to do here, jousting at windmills in the Fark politics tabs, but so what? Yeah, it's double-taxation; stop giving them ideas. It's gonna be double and triple-nipple dog-dare taxation on everything before it's over and done with. Ain't no rhyme or reason to it, though they got you thinking there is.

One day, the Lawyers in DC take too much from us and it's "tyrany and theft!" The next day, 51% of us schmoes line-up and vote and make it legit and viola: The victim is now a criminal, the criminals are now victims, and previously ethical behavior is now unethical...nay, "a cardinal sin!" says the pope on tax evasion. Democracy is the philosopher's stone of modern morality, and logic and reason be damned.

The whole thing is just an ex-post-facto justification for what they were going to do anyway, all the way back to Jean-Jacques Farking Rousseau and the "Social Contract", whatever THAT is. So just chill, baby, before you get on the IRS's "perma-audit" list. Read my username a couple of times, and remember who's calling the shots.


Hey, thanks for the total fark, dude.

Not sure I ever wanted to go down that rabbit hole, but I guess I'll see what it's like on the other side.
 
2013-04-12 09:37:26 PM

skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.

the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).


Agree completely.

The price of a stock, fundamentally, is based on future after tax earnings discounted. Changes in expected after tax earnings affects the stock price. Changes in the discount rate that make the PV of future earnings (and PV of future taxes) higher or lower, affect the stock price as well.

Ill add that other items that might affect the stock price outside of expectations re future after tax earnings such as general market exuberance/despair are noise that are zero sum over time.
 
2013-04-12 09:38:16 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: Have you read the book?

No
Nuff said.


What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are. What I actually said was:

No, I have however read all the material on the fair tax site and I have read the legislative proposal. Why would I also need to read a book written by advocates? I have the primary source material in front of me already. If there is something in the book that is so incredibly relevant you can quote it. I mean, you have and have read the book, right?
 
Now, are you going to be able to make any sort of actual argument here, or are you going to cling forever to the "read this book" deflection? It is amazing how after all this time on fark you don't realize how pathetic your little answer avoidance games make you look.


And look, you of course not only ignored everything I said but you did exactly what I predicted. You don't even make a case for why reading the book and not the bill or the website is necessary. All you have is deflection since you know you have nothing else. You obviously don't understand the "fair tax" you are peddling. You probably haven't even read the book you are unsuccessfully trying to use as a barrier to discussion. You've shown no evidence that you know anything at all about the fair tax.

Thanks again from proving my point that fair tax advocates are the stupidest people in the world. You're such an ignorant idiot you can't even make an argument much less defend one.

On the bright side, I do enjoy how you are now on record in this thread saying a 30% sales tax is not a huge tax. That should be fun next time you are bemoaning a small rate hike on a bracket you will never get remotely close to.
 
2013-04-12 09:40:37 PM

Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are


I'm surprised he didn't call you hitler, tbh.  You caught him on a good day.
 
2013-04-12 09:42:19 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Debeo Summa Credo: skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread

Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.

the cap gains having already been taxed is a huge and virtually unquantifiable assertion. There is no way to tell what portion of a stock's appreciation is due to earnings growth. However, the fact that a company must pay taxes is almost certainly reflected in the stock price in most circumstances. EPS is an extremely common method of valuing stocks, especially forward EPS and PEG. Since EPS is calculated as (net income - preferred divs)/shares outstanding, anything that increases or decreases net income increases or decreases EPS. Reduce (increase) taxes, net income goes up (down), bringing up EPS. Assuming the multiplier doesn't change (and if anything it would probably go up in a falling tax environment), models value the stock higher (lower).

Agree completely.

The price of a stock, fundamentally, is based on future after tax earnings discounted. Changes in expected after tax earnings affects the stock price. Changes in the discount rate that make the PV of future earnings (and PV of future taxes) higher or lower, affect the stock price as well.

Ill add that other items that might affect the stock price outside of expectations re future after tax earnings such as general market exuberance/despair are noise that are zero sum over time.


so, like I said, what you said was sensible. That cap gains being already taxed is a load of horseshiat though ;)
 
2013-04-12 09:43:26 PM

Smackledorfer: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

I'm surprised he didn't call you hitler, tbh.  You caught him on a good day.


Heh. Sometimes I miss Gary and how when he was drunk and couldn't actually support his statement he'd just start calling everyone "Boris".
 
2013-04-12 09:54:40 PM

skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"

it's a real PITA. This is the last year I am doing it myself. I say that every year but I mean it this time. I did a good number of options trades last year and they do not get reported on the standard 1099-B so you have to do all the farking calculations yourself. Can't even download them directly into Tur ...


Don't know if anybody responded to this, but you can indeed import options trades into turbotax, depending on where you conducted the trades. I imported mine from GainsKeeper on TDameritrade directly into turbotax. If i didn't, it would be a huge pain in the ass. Get TDameritrade.
 
2013-04-12 09:58:33 PM

GTATL: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: Tom_Slick: The Obamas paid 18.4% Bidens 22% Romney is probably somewhere in the low teens, it is shiat like this that really pisses me off about the US tax code.  When I was a fresh college grad making $27,500 a year living in a shiatty one bedroom apartment driving a 10 year old beater I was paying over 30% taking advantage of every last loophole and deduction.

that had to include state and local

Yea, and probably SS and medicare too.

I assumed that the Obama number included that

Why? You don't report that on your tax returns, do you?

/haven't filled out my own taxes in a while

Yes you do it is a deduction and yes my figure included SS and State which in GA is just a percentage of your federal but you deduct those withholding on your federal form as well.  What I am saying is it is too complicated to pay your damn taxes.  I am now self employed, run my business through an S-corp and I have to pay an accountant a considerable amount of money to keep me legal and out of trouble with the IRS.  It is too much, you should not need computer programs to file your  taxes, you should not need accounts to file your taxes, HR Block and shady rapid refund loan place (although these may have been banned as I have not heard ads for them lately) should not be a viable business.  The only reason for this is to hide how much the government takes from your check.

For the record I don't mind paying taxes, tax me at whatever percentage the government needs to function, but I should not have to spend 20 hours a quarter to figure out my tax liability. Just tell me, "You made $1000 send the government $250"

it's a real PITA. This is the last year I am doing it myself. I say that every year but I mean it this time. I did a good number of options trades last year and they do not get reported on the standard 1099-B so you have to do all the farking calculations yourself. Can't even download them dir ...


yeah they did suggest TDAmeritrade as the most friendly option. Most of my options trades were through Interactive Brokers though and they are really bare bones when it comes with bells and whistles. Cheap as shiat to trade through though and they give you credit for creating liquidity so sometimes you even get paid to trade options through them
 
2013-04-12 10:23:19 PM

Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are


Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?
 
2013-04-12 10:27:26 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?


So the book says something different than the legislation proposal?
 
2013-04-12 10:36:31 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


I work for a corporation, and they're taxed on their income and then paying the money to me as wages.  I shouldn't be taxed because it was already taxed at the corporate level.  Then I should be able to buy things with it and not pay sales tax, and the people who ended up with my money shouldn't pay taxes on it for their business.

After all, it was taxed on the corporate level.

Do you see how completely stupid your argument is?  You are bad and should feel bad.
 
2013-04-12 10:52:22 PM
Derp. Everywhere.
 
2013-04-12 11:00:50 PM
www.freedomworks.org
 
2013-04-12 11:02:30 PM
aplebessite.com
 
2013-04-12 11:11:25 PM

Xetal: Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story

I work for a corporation, and they're taxed on their income and then paying the money to me as wages.  I shouldn't be taxed because it was already taxed at the corporate level.  Then I should be able to buy things with it and not pay sales tax, and the people who ended up with my money shouldn't pay taxes on it for their business.

After all, it was taxed on the corporate level.

Do you see how completely stupid your argument is?  You are bad and should feel bad.


If he does it certainly isn't from your shiatshow of a rebuttal
 
2013-04-12 11:12:41 PM

Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]


Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?
 
2013-04-12 11:15:10 PM

dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?


I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.
 
2013-04-12 11:23:42 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: What a intellectually dishonest giant bag of shiat you are

Says the cock sucking piece of shiat* who is dismissing a proposal that he has no direct knowledge of.

*am I doing the name calling right?


I apparently have a hell of a lot more direct knowledge of the proposal than you do. For example, I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax, something which you incorrectly denied. I've linked the actual bill that was proposed. I've linked the fair tax organization's own site. You have done nothing but say "nuh-uh" to people who do know what they are talking about and when asked to back your statements you can only say "have you read this book?" You haven't shown that you know the first thing about the fair tax, on the contrary you have shown you know exactly fark all about it. Yet here you are, lying about how I have no direct knowledge of the very thing I've linked to multiple times.
 
2013-04-12 11:25:43 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-12 11:30:58 PM

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.


You're mixing cardinality and income.  The 1% makes 22% of total income and the 50% makes 12%. Why not argue for a VAT?
 
2013-04-12 11:40:40 PM

dopirt: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.

You're mixing cardinality and income.  The 1% makes 22% of total income and the 50% makes 12%. Why not argue for a VAT?


Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax
 
2013-04-12 11:41:13 PM

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.


The cause of that is that the bottom 50% have seen their real earning power DROP since Reagan. They don't pay taxes because they are either at or near the poverty level. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. They DO pay payroll taxes at the exact same rate as everyone else making $110k and under.
 
2013-04-12 11:44:55 PM

Silly Jesus: Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...


Actually, the 1% uses all of it. The police. The military. The highways. All of those allow the 1% to make and keep their money. Like the poor give a flying fark what happens in Iraq, North Korea, or Israel.
 
2013-04-12 11:46:13 PM

madgonad: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: [www.freedomworks.org image 670x1200]

Ok, there's the data, what's your argument? Silly Jesus, how do you define "Fair Share?" Can you distill these charts into some sort of quantitatively digestible argument please?

I'm for a flat tax.  I think that'd be fair by definition.

I can tell you what's not fair.  1% paying 40% and 50% paying 3%.

The cause of that is that the bottom 50% have seen their real earning power DROP since Reagan. They don't pay taxes because they are either at or near the poverty level. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. They DO pay payroll taxes at the exact same rate as everyone else making $110k and under.


They get that money back though through earned income tax credits and the like.

They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

/but but wall street whargarbll
//that's a separate issue, fark them too
 
2013-04-12 11:49:11 PM

madgonad: Silly Jesus: Does the 1% use 22% of the police / fire / roads / ems / etc.? and the 50% use 12% of those services?

The VAT sounds like a mess...

Actually, the 1% uses all of it. The police. The military. The highways. All of those allow the 1% to make and keep their money. Like the poor give a flying fark what happens in Iraq, North Korea, or Israel.


To the extent that they use the highways to transport their goods, they pay for that through taxes and permits and registrations on trucks and associated shipping taxes and fees.

I don't understand your other examples.  Maybe you think that the police are on a daily basis holding back the throngs of poor, poor, pitiful, poor folks from attacking the sky scrapers or something?
 
2013-04-12 11:53:00 PM

Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.


Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.
 
2013-04-12 11:57:52 PM

dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.


Not sure what your point is.....
 
2013-04-13 12:03:03 AM

Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.

Not sure what your point is.....


50% of the US population, 150,000,000 souls, are not all obsessed with hunting rifles, shiny rims, etc. When you invoke such imagery it only reflects on you and diminishes your argument. That's all.
 
2013-04-13 12:09:10 AM
This is fantastic news and it's just as it should be. 18% on $600k of income is a reasonable tax rate. I'm very happy for president Obama. He definitely works hard for his money. Now let's get rid of all loop holes (and the IRS) and make this an across the board flat tax rate for everyone earning more than "X" amount.
 
2013-04-13 12:19:50 AM
Silly Jesus (farkied: Jesus must indeed seem silly to this guy): derp

Paris Hilton isn't going to sleep with you.
 
2013-04-13 12:22:47 AM

dopirt: Silly Jesus: dopirt: Silly Jesus: They can have fewer babies, hunting rifles and shiny rims and pay their fair share instead of just taking.

Little advice,  man. Lose the stereotypes. What you say reflects on you and only you. There is a quantitative argument that can be made and there's no need to resort to stereotypes.

Not sure what your point is.....

50% of the US population, 150,000,000 souls, are not all obsessed with hunting rifles, shiny rims, etc. When you invoke such imagery it only reflects on you and diminishes your argument. That's all.


Meh, that's what I experience when I'm in the store and see someone holding the food stamp envelope thing and trying to figure out which apple juice they are allowed to buy.
 
2013-04-13 12:23:43 AM
Lee Jackson Beauregard: (farkied:  stalker / potato )

OK
 
2013-04-13 12:59:42 AM
Silly Jesus is anti-preborn and anti-Second Amendment.
 
2013-04-13 01:16:39 AM
(peeks in thread, backs out slowly)
 
2013-04-13 02:29:19 AM
Ha ha ha. You guys just talk round and round, stumbling over yourselves, saying Romney is bad cuz he rich, and Obama is rich too, but he okay cuz he got electrolytes, or some idiocracy nonsense. Fake charitable contribution this, more taxes that.

Then Silly Jesus, he come along real quiet like, an just puts up some pictures, you know, for you "visual learners." Didn't say a word, just let you all look and learn. And it was like I could hear something click in yo silly little heads, all the way from the far reaches o the internet, just how absurd it is to demand that so few start paying even more.

Then you guys start stammerin all over again! Knees knockin, stumbling around, and saying "but but but!" WHOOO-WE! Oh Lordy! You get 'em, Silly Jesus!
 
2013-04-13 05:27:52 AM
i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com

/Oh no, my money pit isn't being filled fast enough!
 
2013-04-13 05:51:21 AM

Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,


You know how I know you don't know the plan?
 
2013-04-13 07:57:55 AM
It's not fair he gets to write off his constituency as dependents
 
2013-04-13 09:54:13 AM
Well...my effective tax rate is 0%, and my actual tax rate is 0%!!!  Suck on that, losers!

/On social security disability for about the next year, with about 40% of my income coming from disability insurance...
 
2013-04-13 10:12:39 AM
Silly Jesus (farkied: Jesus must indeed seem silly to this guy): They can have fewer babies

DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD!
 
2013-04-13 11:06:20 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,

You know how I know you don't know the plan?


Because as usual you are completely and utterly wrong, ignorant of the topic, and completely farking insane. I've linked the bill. I've linked the fair tax website. Both say it's a 30% sales tax (or as they like to put it, a 23% tax-inclusive rate).

You are welcome to actually cite something to support your point that it is not a 30% sales tax at any time. Right now you are as I said just going "nuh-uh" with nothing to back up your statement. Put up or shut up already.
 
2013-04-13 11:15:07 AM

Thrag: I've linked the bill.


But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.
 
2013-04-13 11:16:55 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I know it consists primarily of a 30% sales tax,

You know how I know you don't know the plan?


Since I don't have the time today to play your deflection games, let's just put you out of your misery.

From wiki:
As defined in the legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional sales tax

From the actual house bill:
`(a) In General- There is hereby imposed a tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services.`(b) Rate-`(1) FOR 2013- In the calendar year 2013, the rate of tax is 23 percent of the gross payments for the taxable property or service.
From the fair tax website:

The FairTax is a national sales tax that treats every person equally and allows American businesses to thrive, while generating the same tax revenue as the current four-million-word-plus word tax code. Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate. The FairTax rate after necessitiesis 23%

Here's the article I already linked that explains about it is a 30% sales tax but they call it a 23% "tax inclusive" rate. (once nice thing about this article is how they claim they are totally honest about the "tax inclusive" deception and they always mention it, where the bit I quoted saying 23% makes no such disclaimer).

So, Dancin_In_Anson, you are now welcome to apologize and admit that yes, the plan's core component is a 30% sales tax. As I said, there are other elements, the "prebate", how the rate adjusts from the initial 30%, etc. None of these change the fact that the proposal indeed calls for a 30% sales tax. Are you now going to say that the house bill and the fair tax website itself is wrong about what's the fair tax proposal consists of?
 
2013-04-13 11:19:15 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've linked the bill.

But haven't read the book explaining the bill.

Thanks for playing.


Unlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help. Since you're here, care to address my direct quotes from the bill and from the fair tax website that clearly say it is a 30% sales tax?
 
2013-04-13 11:29:02 AM

Thrag: nlike you, I actually have basic reading comprehension abilities so I can read and understand a bill without additional help.


And your ignorance of the subject matter clearly shows that.
 
2013-04-13 11:38:44 AM

sugardave: Grand_Moff_Joseph: WHAR 1040 LONG FORM, WHAR?!


/you know that will be next

"I hid it in the stack of Romney's returns.  Happy hunting!"


Then they'll just go through with the blindfold until they FEEL President Obama's return.

/feel it in their gut
 
Displayed 50 of 330 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report