Pstalin deemed too stupid to answer own questions

[Caffy]

I doubt very much you have enough money to be considered the 1% of America that is extremely rich. As long as you dont have 7 houses worth 13 million dollars, you should be exactly where I stand.

Not yet, but I'm working on that whole 'American Dream' thing.

The top 1% is alot lower income than you'd think also. Roughly $350,000 per year.

[Slypieguy]

I was saying the 1% richest dont even have taxes.

LOL

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

38% of federal income tax= zero in your world I guess?

[Caffy]

LOL

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

38% of federal income tax= zero in your world I guess?

Nearly twice their "fair share."

[pyrow]

LOL

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percent_of_taxes_does_the_top.html

38% of federal income tax= zero in your world I guess?

Thats for individual people. Im talking about companies.

The top 1 percent in 2005 were those households with income of at least $307,500, and they got 18.1 percent of all "comprehensive" income, which includes all cash income plus the cash value of such benefits as Medicare and food stamps.


LOL FOOD STAMPS FOR MAKING 307,000 A YEAR



Oil Companies and stuff like that have tax breaks. When theyre making the most money in the world. LOL
/facepalm

[Slypieguy]

Thats for individual people. Im talking about companies.


Oh, I guess having the second highest corporate tax rate (behind japan) at 35% isn't good enough for you? ROFL keep trying and maybe you will stumble upon something that is even close to true

[Drunkenork]

The top 1% is included. 95% of america isnt "rich" they will still have taxes, but not enough to make them poor as shit like most of us are. I was saying the 1% richest dont even have taxes. the other 4% that are getting the increase can afford it. The people like me who live in a 40,000 dollar house cant afford to pay 30,000 dollars a year just to live.

@ Above

... Im saying what Obama is going to do. He will tax the big oil companies that make 100's of billions a year and have NO taxes. As well as other fuckers who do near the same.

Also, I don't know what the hell you are talking about. You are reasoning that rich people shouldn't be rich because you aren't. I am not rich by any means, but I busted ass and now I make good money. The only reason you live in a 40,000 dollar house and live on what you do, is because you settled for it. I also will be damned if you feel it's right to take someones earned money away from them just so you can be content with your choices in life.

BTW, those 1% that don't get taxed "which is a lie", even if the didn't (tend) to generate other income by ways of adding jobs and investing into their communities (tend).

If I missed your point / misread it, excuse me.

Btw, taxing big oil... where do you think they will get the money from? You think they will take it from investors and stake holders? They are just going to pass it along on oil pricing....

[pyrow]

vote mccain :ohno:

[Slypieguy]

vote mccain :ohno:

Is that all you've got now that your "omg rich ppl and/or evul corporashunz don't pay taxes!" argument has been destroyed?

[Caffy]

This week, the Senate will hold hearings on rising oil and fuel prices and the subsequent record earnings recently posted by U.S. oil companies. Some lawmakers have suggested that these profits are unseemly and, thus, should be subject to a new “windfall profits” tax.

Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:

(1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?
(2) What was the effect of the last windfall profits tax enacted in 1980?

The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy.

These figures do not include local property taxes, state sales and severance taxes and on-shore royalty payments.

The answer to the second question, according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), is that the 1980s windfall profits tax depressed the domestic production and extraction industry and furthered our dependence on foreign sources of oil.


Hmm.

[pyrow]

Yeah my plan to take over the world has failed. Vote McCain.

[Septus]

Is that all you've got now that your "omg rich ppl and/or evul corporashunz don't pay taxes!" argument has been destroyed?

On paper rich people pay enough taxes, but there are definitely huge loopholes that need to be closed (ie. keeping assets offshore, etc).

And yeah, they do pay a majority of the govt. income tax revenue, but they also make the most. From a utilitarian standpoint, they shouldn't be able to cheat the govt. just because they have enough wealth to juggle it around through loopholes.

[Mr.LichTwitch]

Too bad what it says on his website and what actually comes out of his mouth are 2 different things... or more like 4 or 5 different things, lol. And you're pretty naive to believe any of it. Bush campaigned on a policy of no nation-building and you see how he delivered on that. If you think Obama or any other of the party hacks are more trustworthy on delivering what they say they'll do (lol dem congress was supposed to end the war too), you have been had, sir.

Yet YOU are so fast to believe Obama and his ZOMG TRILLION DOLLARS in proposals like it's the fucking gospel.

[Slypieguy]

Yet YOU are so fast to believe Obama and his ZOMG TRILLION DOLLARS in proposals like it's the fucking gospel.

Lol, when a politician promises more spending, no matter what party they are in, that is one thing you can count on. Promising to do something that goes against the status quo =\= promising to do something that goes with the status quo

[Slypieguy]

On paper rich people pay enough taxes, but there are definitely huge loopholes that need to be closed (ie. keeping assets offshore, etc).

And yeah, they do pay a majority of the govt. income tax revenue, but they also make the most. From a utilitarian standpoint, they shouldn't be able to cheat the govt. just because they have enough wealth to juggle it around through loopholes.

And raising taxes on them even more will fix these loopholes? Now I'm confused

[Caffy]

Yet YOU are so fast to believe Obama and his ZOMG TRILLION DOLLARS in proposals like it's the fucking gospel.

Because Obama has a history of voting with the far left. It's not a stretch to think a far left guy would be honest about his intent to implement far left ideas.

Bush was a neo-con. Essentially a "Christian-Progressive" who campaigned like he was a conservative.

Kind of a big difference when a guy hides what he really is, vs a guy who openly proclaims it to the whole world, and has practiced it for his entire life. He comes from the same Saul Olinski school of "community organizers" as Hillary. Which is to say a radical leftist, socialist ideology based on a desire to go further than FDR.

Olinski's book "Rules for Radicals" has been described as a "pernicious guide for replacing freedom with socialism."

Do you really think some one who grew up following that idiology is joking when they say they want to impliment it?

[Septus]

And raising taxes on them even more will fix these loopholes? Now I'm confused

Nah. I jumped in without reading what was going on, just thought I'd add my two cents. :D

[Mr.LichTwitch]

Because Obama has a history of voting with the far left. It's not a stretch to think a far left guy would be honest about his intent to implement far left ideas.

Bush was a neo-con. Essentially a "Christian-Progressive" who campaigned like he was a conservative.

Kind of a big difference when a guy hides what he really is, vs a guy who openly proclaims it to the whole world, and has practiced it for his entire life. He comes from the same Saul Olinski school of "community organizers" as Hillary. Which is to say a radical leftist, socialist ideology based on a desire to go further than FDR.

Olinski's book "Rules for Radicals" has been described as a "pernicious guide for replacing freedom with socialism."

Do you really think some one who grew up following that idiology is joking when they say they want to impliment it?


So why do you think that a far left guy isn't being honest when he says that he would pull our troops out of a war? It's because people pick and choose what parts they want to believe and what parts they don't want to believe in order to compensate for their psyche.

[Caffy]

So why do you think that a far left guy isn't being honest when he says that he would pull our troops out of a war? It's because people pick and choose what parts they want to believe and what parts they don't want to believe in order to compensate for their psyche.

I do think he's being honest. People are just ignoring the finer points of what he's saying.

Obama plans to draw down and leave a "small" (50,000-75,000) force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. That's not any different than Bush, who wants to turn over control to the Iraqi's as fast as they can handle, and start a troop surge in Afganistan.

The difference is more in the reason they want to do it, than in what they want to do.

[blemm]

Dirtknap, seriously, I'm just asking you a question. What does this post

You fail because you assume that because you support one facet of a party, that you must support the party as a whole. We cant help the fact you were swayed by a pretty speech. Some of us just have higher standards, like ideas that work in the real world.

have to do with your reply

in case you haven't yet noticed, the US economy has been headed into the toilet for some time, your unemployment and foreign debt are at an all-time high, your health and education standards are lower than all the other 1st-world countries and you owe almost $1 trillion to China.

Oh and China is the new world superpower.

Yeah you guys are rockin alright.

Try pulling your head out of the sand someday.

?

Inquiring minds like mine want to know.

[Slypieguy]

Dirtknap, seriously, I'm just asking you a question. What does this post



have to do with your reply



?

Inquiring minds like mine want to know.

Absolutely nothing, he just falls back on the "when all else fails, just talk about how bad things currently are" strategy. The lulzy thing about it is Obama would fuck things up even worse. He can't seem to bring himself to acknowledge that there are people out there who think Obama is horrible and yet don't support McCain.

[dirtknap]

Dirtknap, seriously, I'm just asking you a question. What does this post have to do with your reply


he said: "Some of us just have higher standards, like ideas that work in the real world."

my response was that the economy of the US has been getting creamed by both the EU (which is more socialist than US) and china (which is full cummunist) in the past decade.

the old argument that socialism (ie: looking after the people) doesn't work in the real world is objectively false. it's free market economics that are the key, not whether you care about people begging in the street or not.

eg: San Francisco has more beggars than any major euro city i've visited in the last few years (i do a lot of travelling - 8+ trips a year).

[Helgeran]

my response was that the economy of the US has been getting creamed by both the EU (which is more socialist than US) and china (which is full cummunist) in the past decade.

the old argument that socialism (ie: looking after the people) doesn't work in the real world is objectively false. it's free market economics that are the key, not whether you care about people begging in the street or not.

eg: San Francisco has more beggars than any major euro city i've visited in the last few years (i do a lot of travelling - 8+ trips a year).
Actually China is very capitalist with the communist agendas mostly being true for the farmers. EU has a market that is much closer to a free market than a planned one.

[dirtknap]

Actually China is very capitalist with the communist agendas mostly being true for the farmers. EU has a market that is much closer to a free market than a planned one.

No China is straight communist with a little free market economics on the side. their currency is still fixed by the government, much to the chagrin of the US. they won't change it though, cause they are wtfpwning.