|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2010 8:33:35 GMT -8
I love how win never wants to fact check the viral e-mails he reposts.  The Lincoln quote is wrong. ;D If it is wrong, what difference does that have on the factual data above it? Rev. William J. H. Boetcker was not a big enough name for such a huge quote so someone pinned it on Lincoln. So what? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 12, 2010 8:43:46 GMT -8
I love how win never wants to fact check the viral e-mails he reposts. The Lincoln quote is wrong. ;D If it is wrong, what difference does that have on the factual data above it? How do you know it is factual? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 12, 2010 8:44:35 GMT -8
All the times I have helped the Poor (Who will always be with us) I have felt good about it. In the future the government will make certain that we all get to feel good all the time! Too bad nobody reads Readers Digest anymore. I would certainly nominate you for most interesting person! ;D You can say that again with feeling. I do note however that what Joe says there is more like an ominous threat than the literal meaning if you get my drift. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 13:03:52 GMT -8
Oh, okay. I get it now. You want to return to the confiscatory tax rates of olden days without allowing the deductions of olden days. Just can't get enough of other people's money. Thanks for clearing that up. You get nothing. And, you understood exactly what I meant. It is too bad you don't understand that your own self interest depends on the self interest of others. Keep that in mind when you are tooling along on interstate 8 and some AH cuts you off because he thinks he owns the road and is slowing you down. Oh, but, you are very smart and you do get it. You just don't like taxes. You hate taxes. Taxes are the hydrochloric acid drops on your skin and it burns like heck. If you could not pay taxes you would be willing to give up nearly anything. That I get. You claimed above: What is the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in 2010? Why its about 35%. What was it then ('63) ? Why it was 91% !!! Well then, what was the top corporate tax rate in 1963? Why it was 52%!! Now? Well gee, its 35%! What is the capital gains rate now? 15% Was it then? Why it was 25%!
And: Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society. So, I would humbly suggest that the rates have gone down too much and the income levels differences are too extreme.
And you cite an article claiming that our poverty rate is "approaching" that of the 1960s... you know, back when top rates were 90+%. So how can poverty have been lower all these years with the current lower tax rates than what it was under the confiscatory rates of 40 to 70 years ago? Also, the calculation of poverty back then cannot be the same as it is today. For example, anyone today with a cash income below a certain figure is counted as "poor". Capital gains and net worth are not considered. So, some old geezer getting a low retirement check, but is worth millions in personal assets, gets counted as "poor". Also not counted are government aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which did not exist back in the day. And even with all that distortion in the calculations, the predicted increase in the poverty rate is 1.8% in the middle of a recession. The horror! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 13:43:53 GMT -8
>>>The period of our highest income equality and highest tax rates were during our most productive economic epoch, 1940 to 1970.<<< Back in those days there were so many deductions it's hard to remember them all. Sales taxes, gas taxes, all kinds of interest including credit card interest, etc. Those are all gone, but you guys who seem to want a return to the higher marginal rates of bygone days always seem to leave that part out. Then why wouldn't you want a return to this? Because the guys who want to return to the high rates of the past don't want to do it with allowing the deductions of the past. OBTW, the 91% rate kicked in at $400K back then. Not much sense in trying to earn that much money if all you get to keep is 9 cents on the dollar over that. And what kind of tomfoolery would the government do with the 91 cents on the dollar (plus all the rest of our tax money)? Consider this administration's brag about its 800 Billion stimulus package having created or "saved"  3.5 million jobs. Setting aside the ridiculous claim of having "saved" jobs, something they can never quantify, the cost in our tax money would be just short of 300 thousand dollars a job. But who's counting? Not very good stewardship of the public's money in my view. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 14:46:41 GMT -8
>>>You get nothing.<<<
I know. That's the point of your position. I get nothing.
>>>And, you understood exactly what I meant.<<<
Yes, I know. Your position is simply this....
"We want your guns, and the rest of your money."
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 15:28:56 GMT -8
>>> ...we look after each other, because it is in our own self interest. We are too interconnected...<<< Uh huh... you bet.... I just don't care for your version of "interconnected". "I used to say, "I", And "Me"
Now it's "Us", Now it's "We"....www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTKNahASSDI |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 16:14:12 GMT -8
>>>Polls consistently show support for ending"Old Belt Buckle's" give away to the rich.<<< Izzatso? You might want to tap your congress-creep on the shoulder and set him straight, or to get him to demagogue his colleagues. tinyurl.com/2ff3zoy |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 12, 2010 16:26:36 GMT -8
>>> ...we look after each other, because it is in our own self interest. We are too interconnected...<<< Uh huh... you bet.... I just don't care for your version of "interconnected". "I used to say, "I", And "Me"
Now it's "Us", Now it's "We"....www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTKNahASSDISo? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 12, 2010 16:27:59 GMT -8
You get nothing. And, you understood exactly what I meant. It is too bad you don't understand that your own self interest depends on the self interest of others. Keep that in mind when you are tooling along on interstate 8 and some AH cuts you off because he thinks he owns the road and is slowing you down. Oh, but, you are very smart and you do get it. You just don't like taxes. You hate taxes. Taxes are the hydrochloric acid drops on your skin and it burns like heck. If you could not pay taxes you would be willing to give up nearly anything. That I get. You claimed above: What is the marginal tax rate for the highest income earners in 2010? Why its about 35%. What was it then ('63) ? Why it was 91% !!! Well then, what was the top corporate tax rate in 1963? Why it was 52%!! Now? Well gee, its 35%! What is the capital gains rate now? 15% Was it then? Why it was 25%!
And: Our poverty rate is getting to what it was before the Great Society. So, I would humbly suggest that the rates have gone down too much and the income levels differences are too extreme.
And you cite an article claiming that our poverty rate is "approaching" that of the 1960s... you know, back when top rates were 90+%. So how can poverty have been lower all these years with the current lower tax rates than what it was under the confiscatory rates of 40 to 70 years ago? Also, the calculation of poverty back then cannot be the same as it is today. For example, anyone today with a cash income below a certain figure is counted as "poor". Capital gains and net worth are not considered. So, some old geezer getting a low retirement check, but is worth millions in personal assets, gets counted as "poor". Also not counted are government aid such as food stamps and tax credits, which did not exist back in the day. And even with all that distortion in the calculations, the predicted increase in the poverty rate is 1.8% in the middle of a recession. The horror! Our economy will not produce the benefits that you and I got. One point eight percent can get effed then, right? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 12, 2010 16:28:59 GMT -8
>>>Polls consistently show support for ending"Old Belt Buckle's" give away to the rich.<<< Izzatso? You might want to tap your congress-creep on the shoulder and set him straight, or to get him to demagogue his colleagues. tinyurl.com/2ff3zoyJay Inslee is about six four. I am sure he would enjoy your characterization. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 12, 2010 16:39:07 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 12, 2010 16:49:03 GMT -8
>>>You get nothing.<<< I know. That's the point of your position. I get nothing. >>>And, you understood exactly what I meant.<<< Yes, I know. Your position is simply this.... "We want your guns, and the rest of your money." You think the guns will help you if anything really happens to disturb our interconnectedness? They won't be enough. You will have to depend on a group. You'll never get away from being interconnected. Smarts don't work nearly as well when your alone, because we are social and more effective in groups. But, as I have said before, the second amendment is in the constitution and the constitution allows you to have guns. I disagree with it and I would just as soon not be in California when you are carrying one, (you may not be a good shot ;D ) but it is your right to have them. So, knock yourself out. Take the rest of your money? Actually no. It just seems that way to conservatives, because the hydrochloric acid of taxes burns even when taken in microscopic doses. Better that others go without jobs and opportunity, right? Actually, I would like you to pay only what is fair. Or, to rephrase a bit, I am willing to pay what is fair. I can't speak for you as we inhabit different universes. Perhaps, though, what we are paying is just a bit too low. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Sept 13, 2010 12:57:41 GMT -8
>>>It just seems that way to conservatives, because the hydrochloric acid of taxes burns even when taken in microscopic doses.<<<
Evidently, you think 35% is "microscopic". And you seemingly have no problem with a return to 91% even without the deductions.
Yes, we do live in alternate universes.
I am willing to pay what is "fair", I consider myself included in the "franchise", too. (you use the term "interconnectedness")
But there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxation. And the waste, fraud and downright abuse when it comes to dispensing the public's money is outrageous. This applies to all of our ruling class regardless of party affiliation.
What President Kennedy said was not a concept peculiar to his day.
In Federalist #22, Hamilton noted that taxes "...prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed --- that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 13, 2010 13:07:20 GMT -8
I lost track of what this was about, but does anyone dispute that with 40 Million on food stamps and the rise in the number of those below the poverty line under Obamanomics, that Obama and his policies are a failure and getting worse?
The significance of those rats crawling around on those people went over my head.
The idea that liberals do want our guns and a much larger chunk of our money to inefficiently spread around does not go over any thinking persons head nor does the connection between poor cities and Democrats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve A on Sept 13, 2010 15:05:26 GMT -8
So many tools here, so little time.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Sept 15, 2010 4:47:40 GMT -8
So many tools here, so little time. But some are very sharp tools. Be careful not to injure yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 17, 2010 20:31:35 GMT -8
>>>It just seems that way to conservatives, because the hydrochloric acid of taxes burns even when taken in microscopic doses.<<< Evidently, you think 35% is "microscopic". And you seemingly have no problem with a return to 91% even without the deductions. Yes, we do live in alternate universes. I am willing to pay what is "fair", I consider myself included in the "franchise", too. (you use the term "interconnectedness") But there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taxation. And the waste, fraud and downright abuse when it comes to dispensing the public's money is outrageous. This applies to all of our ruling class regardless of party affiliation. What President Kennedy said was not a concept peculiar to his day. In Federalist #22, Hamilton noted that taxes "...prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed --- that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four."What is the point of diminishing returns? Fraud waste and abuse is always the excuse, always. Why were we relatively more prosperous back when the rates were so high? Never mind I already know. The tax rate is too much, even though it is much less than it was and you gripe, whine, cry, throw tantrums and fulminate and get all excited. You will not be satisfied until you pay nothing. The real reason I would be willing to pay more is just to see you all get mad and have an apoplectic attack. That show would be worth the three or four thousand extra that I would pay. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 17, 2010 20:33:53 GMT -8
I lost track of what this was about, but does anyone dispute that with 40 Million on food stamps and the rise in the number of those below the poverty line under Obamanomics, that Obama and his policies are a failure and getting worse? The significance of those rats crawling around on those people went over my head. The idea that liberals do want our guns and a much larger chunk of our money to inefficiently spread around does not go over any thinking persons head nor does the connection between poor cities and Democrats. It is about 44 million poor. If you will remember, this recession is George Bush's. Obama is cleaning up after him. That is what the polls say most people think. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091602698.html?hpid=topnews |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Sept 17, 2010 20:50:07 GMT -8
I'll pass it along. He will understand, because I will describe your belief set. We will have a nice chuckle. Incidentally, I have seen him, in person, mentally disrobing a tea party imbecile. It was fun. But my intelligent, stubborn friend, bull$#!+ is alive and personified in the corporeal form of Angle, O'Donnell, Payloins, Miller, Paul, etc. They are walking, talking piles of it. Mice have been engineered to have human brains, you know. The civil rights act is wrong and should be repealed. British Petroleum was horribly abused and intimidated to clean a mess that was everyone's fault but theirs. Its very naughty to flog your dolphin unless you are in love with it. Do away with the Department of Education! I can see Russia from here and they fly over, don't you know. It was supposed to stink! I got a degree from Farley Dickinson about 17 years ago. By any standard, any standard mind you, the statements above are either outright lies or absolutely and painfully stupid. The I.Q.s of these individuals cannot, by any logical measure, reach the kumquat level if the statements are any indication of the minds who produced them. The sad thing is that they insult our intelligence too. I know why they call it tea party, because it certainly isn't Mensa. We have to vote for these people, though, because they are gonna save us! |
|
The Lincoln quote is wrong. ;D
3.5 million jobs. Setting aside the ridiculous claim of having "saved" jobs, something they can never quantify, the cost in our tax money would be just short of 300 thousand dollars a job. But who's counting?