|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 16, 2008 15:38:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 16, 2008 21:05:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 1:08:51 GMT -6
This is absolute typical liberalism (lower case). With liberals (lower case), it is always "What is wrong with America" or "Why can't America be more like France?" or "Fuck America" until they need votes, then they find God and wear the American flag on their lapels or fly the American flag on their homes to give that "proud patriot" look. Once they no longer need votes, it always defaults back to "What's wrong with America", "Why can't America be more like France" and "Fuck America" again. liberals (lower case) believe in nothing but wreaking havoc over normal, law abiding, moral citizenship. In the meantime, they are always too happy to opportunistically support America if it suits their needs.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 6:14:22 GMT -6
Wow, that quote almost makes sense. The whole article talks about one year of income and they toss in a quote about wealth distribution. My guess is that when Microsoft's market cap was nearly $1 trillion during the Clinton Administration, the gap between Gates' wealth and the wealth of the poorest American was greater than any similar gap in 1928, but the "economist" they used for the quote probably didn't have that one in his soundbite mix. A few guys running funds pulled in a few billion. Good for them. Hedge funds are good investment vehicles for some institutions and their success often inures to the poor and middle class, as pension funds and endowments are two huge investors in hedge funds and private equity. When a fund puts up a big gain, the manager gets a 20% cut and the investors make out like bandits. I'd be willing to bet that those guys featured in that article wrote some pretty damn hefty checks to Uncle Sam, too, but I guess the NYT forgot that part and would rather complain about hedge funds, even though they have done good for the world. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 17, 2008 8:16:45 GMT -6
Iowafan, Drunk again???
____________
Ralph, I'll bet they did pay some hefty taxes... I'll bet that it amounted to 15% (or less - depending on donations, etc.)... which is the current Bush Capital Gains rate.
What was your rate last year?
|
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 17, 2008 8:34:07 GMT -6
What was your rate last year? I guarantee it was more than 15%. Shoot, you include social security, medicare, state and federal and it's probably closer to 50% than 15%. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 8:49:43 GMT -6
Ralph, I'll bet they did pay some hefty taxes... I'll bet that it amounted to 15% (or less - depending on donations, etc.)... which is the current Bush Capital Gains rate. What was your rate last year? I know that everyone hates the treatment of carried interest as long term capital gain. Can those long-term gains even be offset by charitable contributions? I don't know that they can. Regardless, that "loophole" will end up being closed and the cost of pension funds and endowments to invest in hedge funds and PE funds will go up. The money to cover the higher taxes will ultimately come out of the universities' and retirees' pockets and guys running those funds will still pocket large chunks of cash. While the left will argue "fairness" regarding the capital gains treatment of carried interest, I think low taxes on carried interest provides a strong incentive for hedge funds and PE funds to form and provides a tremendous number of well paying white collar jobs. I guess that we want to eliminate incentives for the creation of such jobs so they can go to Hong Kong or London and white collar workers can get offshored, too. Then we can return to our strong blue collar manufacturing base and we'll return to the glory days. Not everyone can see the jobs created and appreciate the $500 million in taxes that that one hedge fund manager made. I wonder if Soros set his hedge fund to not take advantage of the carried interest loophole since he thinks taxes are too low and government is too small. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 17, 2008 12:42:54 GMT -6
Kind of makes your head want to explode, huh?
Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist... Soros... Capitalist...
Yes... the left wants to acquire all the money from the rich people and do absolutely nothing with it. No investment in education, medical care or the infrastructure. They want to continue spending 15-25% more than they take in like the Bush regime... "Becuz. Ya see... the Chineese LIKE owning themselves a bit of Uhmerika."
...And the Global War on Terror has become almost self-financing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 12:54:54 GMT -6
They want to invest in education? Have them do what Iowafan1 does for his Daughter......write a $4,500 check for tuition every 4 months. Oh wait!....they don't have to.......Iowafan1's federal tax dollars pays for their kid's education too!!! You're welcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 12:56:05 GMT -6
Shit! Damn near forgot! I pay for their fucking medical care too!
|
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 17, 2008 13:06:50 GMT -6
I can't wait when IAfan's old ass is collecting social security then I can bitch and complain that I'm subsidizing that old 'fuck'.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Apr 17, 2008 13:07:32 GMT -6
Thanks for your patronly citizenship Iowafan!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 13:26:20 GMT -6
lpcalihawk and SoCal,
#1: Because I made good decisions throughout my career, have a great work ethic (don't spend too much time trying to figure out what "great work ethic" means.....you're too far behind the power curve), the last damn thing you will ever have to worry about is my ass ever needing to count on Social Security. That being said.....I'm throwing down a lot of cash into that train wreck.....I might just take my share out of spite. #2: Unlike you and your socialism (lower case) loving, donut eating, white flag waving liberal (lower case) brethren, my American patriotism and appreciation of America runs 24/7/365. #3. Iagirl needs your assistance in Wastelands II (How background peeps ruin pictures - NSFW). Now be good little boys and go help the lady out.
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 13:31:57 GMT -6
What the hell percent of the federal budget is used on education? Other than the federal student loan program, that spending a joke. The schools that spend the most per child have the shittiest schools. Let's keep throwing federal money at it and cook up more big government No Child Left Behind type plans that take control away from ghost and his cronies. Shit, as much as ghost sucks ass, he's prolly better at providing edumucation than some bureaucrat in DC.
Infrastructure costs are now supposed to come out of income taxes? WTF? I thought that's what use taxes like the gasoline tax are for. If I don't drive on your road in bumbleshit Montana, eff you, I shouldn't have to pay for it.
And investment in "medical care" is just code word for status quo wealth transfer. Hasn't the government crowded out enough people from being able to afford health care?
|
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 13:39:22 GMT -6
lpcalihawk and SoCal, #1: Because I made good decisions throughout my career, have a great work ethic (don't spend too much time trying to figure out what "great work ethic" means.....you're too far behind the power curve), the last damn thing you will ever have to worry about is my ass ever needing to count on Social Security. That being said.....I'm throwing down a lot of cash into that train wreck.....I might just take my share out of spite. #2: Unlike you and your socialism (lower case) loving, donut eating, white flag waving liberal (lower case) brethren, my American patriotism and appreciation of America runs 24/7/365. #3. Iagirl needs your assistance in Wastelands II (How background peeps ruin pictures - NSFW). Now be good little boys and go help the lady out. Don't worry Iafan. The 60% majority who pays 3% or so of federal income taxes will vote someone into power who will determine that any family that ever broke into that 40% group who pays 97% of the income taxes is not "needy" and thus not deservant of getting anything "back" from Social Security. And when Barry eliminates the cap and forces you to pay more, you should be thankful because we will be one step closer to the liberal fascist utopian dream that the modern left wants to make of the country. I did manage to talk one person out of donating to Barry yesterday. He was rambling on and on about how awesome Barry is, then I told him about the lifting of the Social Security cap. The guy prolly makes 6 or 700 hundred a year, enough to pay Unkie Same a lot change and still eke out a decent middle class livelihood. I saw him pause and run the numbers, he thought about the 50 grand or so extra it would cost per year, and then said, "Well, maybe Barry doesn't need my money, he'll get plenty of it later if he gets elected." |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 17, 2008 13:48:57 GMT -6
lpcalihawk and SoCal, #1: Because I made good decisions throughout my career, have a great work ethic (don't spend too much time trying to figure out what "great work ethic" means.....you're too far behind the power curve), the last damn thing you will ever have to worry about is my ass ever needing to count on Social Security. That being said.....I'm throwing down a lot of cash into that train wreck.....I might just take my share out of spite. #2: Unlike you and your socialism (lower case) loving, donut eating, white flag waving liberal (lower case) brethren, my American patriotism and appreciation of America runs 24/7/365. #3. Iagirl needs your assistance in Wastelands II (How background peeps ruin pictures - NSFW). Now be good little boys and go help the lady out. Send the social security back on principal, pal. No, you won't because your piece of crap. Real clever with the picture on NSFW....it's pretty obvious you like pictures of 'dicks'.....isn't there some Moo Goo Gai Pan you should be sticking yours in about now. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 17, 2008 13:51:31 GMT -6
lpcalihawk and SoCal, #1: Because I made good decisions throughout my career, have a great work ethic (don't spend too much time trying to figure out what "great work ethic" means.....you're too far behind the power curve), the last damn thing you will ever have to worry about is my ass ever needing to count on Social Security. That being said.....I'm throwing down a lot of cash into that train wreck.....I might just take my share out of spite. #2: Unlike you and your socialism (lower case) loving, donut eating, white flag waving liberal (lower case) brethren, my American patriotism and appreciation of America runs 24/7/365. #3. Iagirl needs your assistance in Wastelands II (How background peeps ruin pictures - NSFW). Now be good little boys and go help the lady out. Don't worry Iafan. The 60% majority who pays 3% or so of federal income taxes will vote someone into power who will determine that any family that ever broke into that 40% group who pays 97% of the income taxes is not "needy" and thus not deservant of getting anything "back" from Social Security. And when Barry eliminates the cap and forces you to pay more, you should be thankful because we will be one step closer to the liberal fascist utopian dream that the modern left wants to make of the country. I did manage to talk one person out of donating to Barry yesterday. He was rambling on and on about how awesome Barry is, then I told him about the lifting of the Social Security cap. The guy prolly makes 6 or 700 hundred a year, enough to pay Unkie Same a lot change and still eke out a decent middle class livelihood. I saw him pause and run the numbers, he thought about the 50 grand or so extra it would cost per year, and then said, "Well, maybe Barry doesn't need my money, he'll get plenty of it later if he gets elected." Yes, we should all feel sorry for the family that makes 600,000 a year. Poor folks, just don't know how they will manage if Barry gets elected. I guess they will be in the soup kitchens with the rest of poors that you despise. You need to go on Dr. Phil and work out your childhood issues about poverty. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 13:58:23 GMT -6
Don't worry Iafan. The 60% majority who pays 3% or so of federal income taxes will vote someone into power who will determine that any family that ever broke into that 40% group who pays 97% of the income taxes is not "needy" and thus not deservant of getting anything "back" from Social Security. And when Barry eliminates the cap and forces you to pay more, you should be thankful because we will be one step closer to the liberal fascist utopian dream that the modern left wants to make of the country. I did manage to talk one person out of donating to Barry yesterday. He was rambling on and on about how awesome Barry is, then I told him about the lifting of the Social Security cap. The guy prolly makes 6 or 700 hundred a year, enough to pay Unkie Same a lot change and still eke out a decent middle class livelihood. I saw him pause and run the numbers, he thought about the 50 grand or so extra it would cost per year, and then said, "Well, maybe Barry doesn't need my money, he'll get plenty of it later if he gets elected." Yes, we should all feel sorry for the family that makes 600,000 a year. Poor folks, just don't know how they will manage if Barry gets elected. I guess they will be in the soup kitchens with the rest of poors that you despise. You need to go on Dr. Phil and work out your childhood issues about poverty. Lets emphasize the truth a bit, shall we? You treat the passage "They make $600,000 a year" as if they were given a prize of $600,000. You do realize they "earned" that $600,000 a year, don't you? You also realize that the taxes they pay on that $600,000 a year don't go to people who earn it. Those tax dollars go to people who "take" it. There are earners and there are takers. As for my Social Security, would I be any less of a piece of shit if I just take back the portion I contribute? That's all I would want anyway.....just so none of you slackers get it. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 13:59:02 GMT -6
Yes, we should all feel sorry for the family that makes 600,000 a year. Poor folks, just don't know how they will manage if Barry gets elected. I guess they will be in the soup kitchens with the rest of poors that you despise. You need to go on Dr. Phil and work out your childhood issues about poverty. I don't despise poors. In fact, I'd say that the things I believe in, like free trade, low taxes, smaller government and elimination of the damned ethanol subsidy would help the poors out much more than whatever great new handout scheme you and your leftist ilk are cooking up. I think that business owners like my buddy who are making $600k who employ many other people are going to get effed in the A if Barry's grand wealth redistribution plan comes into effect, and if the guys who take risks to operate businesses get effed in the A and decide it ain't worth it anymore when over half their income goes to the gubmint, where will that leave those who work for such business owners? Probably unemployed or underemployed and begging at the teat of big government for higher taxes and more redistribution. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 17, 2008 14:31:56 GMT -6
Yes, we should all feel sorry for the family that makes 600,000 a year. Poor folks, just don't know how they will manage if Barry gets elected. I guess they will be in the soup kitchens with the rest of poors that you despise. You need to go on Dr. Phil and work out your childhood issues about poverty. Lets emphasize the truth a bit, shall we? You treat the passage "They make $600,000 a year" as if they were given a prize of $600,000. You do realize they "earned" that $600,000 a year, don't you? You also realize that the taxes they pay on that $600,000 a year don't go to people who earn it. Those tax dollars go to people who "take" it. There are earners and there are takers. As for my Social Security, would I be any less of a piece of shit if I just take back the portion I contribute? That's all I would want anyway.....just so none of you slackers get it. You are a "taker" as well IAfan. If you are not, please quit using anything that tax monies go to (i.e. roads, libraries, etc.) It must be nice living in such a black and white world.....probably pretty lonely as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Apr 17, 2008 14:38:35 GMT -6
Lets emphasize the truth a bit, shall we? You treat the passage "They make $600,000 a year" as if they were given a prize of $600,000. You do realize they "earned" that $600,000 a year, don't you? You also realize that the taxes they pay on that $600,000 a year don't go to people who earn it. Those tax dollars go to people who "take" it. There are earners and there are takers. As for my Social Security, would I be any less of a piece of shit if I just take back the portion I contribute? That's all I would want anyway.....just so none of you slackers get it. You are a "taker" as well IAfan. If you are not, please quit using anything that tax monies go to (i.e. roads, libraries, etc.) It must be nice living in such a black and white world.....probably pretty lonely as well. I have never stated that roads should not be supported with tax dollars. Necessary roads (interstate commerce, etc.) are infrastructure. Necessary roads only! I'm not talking about the road that leads from the beaten path to my cabin on Bull Shoals Lake. That was an optional paved road that I paid for myself. As a matter of fact, I have stated repeatedly that tax dollars should go ONLY to infrastructure, national defense and those who have no ability to help themselves. Libraries should be funded either privately or through voluntary contributions, not tax dollars. Unlike the liberals (lower case) of today, our Founding Fathers agreed with me. |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 14:46:33 GMT -6
You are a "taker" as well IAfan. If you are not, please quit using anything that tax monies go to (i.e. roads, libraries, etc.) It must be nice living in such a black and white world.....probably pretty lonely as well. I have never stated that roads should not be supported with tax dollars. Roads are infrastructure. As a matter of fact, I have stated repeatedly that tax dollars should go ONLY to infrastructure, national defense and those who have no ability to help themselves. Libraries should be funded either privately or through voluntary contributions, not tax dollars. Unlike the liberals (lower case) of today, our Founding Fathers agreed with me. See, this is where I am more big gov than Iafan, as I think there is some market regulation and lender of last resort functions that are beneficial for the federales to perform. If Bear Stearns would have gone down on 3/17 (they had requests for $12 billion in withdrawals and only had $5 billion on hand on the previous Friday, so they were only a day or so away from filing BK), we'd all be royally effed in the A because the default wave that Bear collapsing would have caused would have shut the whole damn banking system down without the Fed standing behind it. That shit happened all the time not too long ago, so I am a little bigger government and tougher on crime than Iowafan. |
|
|
|
Post by lpcalihawk on Apr 17, 2008 15:13:12 GMT -6
I have never stated that roads should not be supported with tax dollars. Roads are infrastructure. As a matter of fact, I have stated repeatedly that tax dollars should go ONLY to infrastructure, national defense and those who have no ability to help themselves. Libraries should be funded either privately or through voluntary contributions, not tax dollars. Unlike the liberals (lower case) of today, our Founding Fathers agreed with me. See, this is where I am more big gov than Iafan, as I think there is some market regulation and lender of last resort functions that are beneficial for the federales to perform. If Bear Stearns would have gone down on 3/17 (they had requests for $12 billion in withdrawals and only had $5 billion on hand on the previous Friday, so they were only a day or so away from filing BK), we'd all be royally effed in the A because the default wave that Bear collapsing would have caused would have shut the whole damn banking system down without the Fed standing behind it. That shit happened all the time not too long ago, so I am a little bigger government and tougher on crime than Iowafan. The differences are quite astonishing. Did either of you 2 actually listen to the debate last night? Probably not, but I ask anyway. Did you not hear Barry talking about decreasing regressive taxes (the ones that tax productivity)? |
|
|
|
Post by Chuck Storm on Apr 17, 2008 15:34:59 GMT -6
See, this is where I am more big gov than Iafan, as I think there is some market regulation and lender of last resort functions that are beneficial for the federales to perform. If Bear Stearns would have gone down on 3/17 (they had requests for $12 billion in withdrawals and only had $5 billion on hand on the previous Friday, so they were only a day or so away from filing BK), we'd all be royally effed in the A because the default wave that Bear collapsing would have caused would have shut the whole damn banking system down without the Fed standing behind it. That shit happened all the time not too long ago, so I am a little bigger government and tougher on crime than Iowafan. The differences are quite astonishing. Did either of you 2 actually listen to the debate last night? Probably not, but I ask anyway. Did you not hear Barry talking about decreasing regressive taxes (the ones that tax productivity)? Barry wants to increase capital gains taxes in the name of "fairness". I don't doubt that he wants to decrease "regressive" taxes (the US doesn't have any regressive taxes that I know of, but I wouldn't expect Barry to understand that), but the taxes that Barry wants to decrease have nothing to do with productivity (as capital gains taxes are admitted to do by everyone who has looked at the issue, including Obama). |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Apr 17, 2008 15:38:14 GMT -6
What federal taxes are there that individuals pay are regressive? Telephone tax. Cable tax. Gas tax. Stamps. Landing fees/TSA security fees. Are there others? Those are all use taxes. So now the theory is that the poors don't get enough back in Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, now they don't even need to carry any weight for federal use taxes? Wow, the depth of Barry's economic genius is amazing. That'll get Iowafan on baord.
I didn't listen to the debate. I read all of Barry's propaganda on his website and found it to be very similar to his debate/speaking style, heavy on emotional appeal and light on substance.
|
|
