Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose GOP’s Windfall for the Rich

Politics • Views: 27,617

A new CBS News poll shows that the GOP’s plan to extend the Bush era tax cuts and give America’s wealthy class another massive windfall is rejected by the majority of the public.

“The American people want us to stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending, and that should be the priority of the remaining days that we have in this Congress,” incoming House Speaker Rep. John Boehner said Thursday. Boehner added that a House vote Thursday to extend the cuts for all but the highest-earning Americans amounted to “chicken crap.”

According to a new CBS News poll, however, Boehner is off-base in his claim that Americans “want us to stop all the looming tax hikes.”

The poll finds that 53 percent of Americans want the Bush-era tax cuts extended only for households earning less than $250,000 per year. That roughly matches the proposal put forth by the White House, which wants to extend the cuts only for incomes less than $250,000 for families and $200,000 for individuals.

Just 26 percent of Americans say they support extending the cuts for all Americans, even those earning above the $250,000 level, which is the GOP proposal.

Another 14 percent of Americans say the cuts should expire for all Americans. The Treasury Department says the cost of making the cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over a decade. The White House plan which would not extend the cuts on high earners would cost an estimated $3 trillion over ten years. (By point of contrast, the controversial deficit commission proposal released this week would save about $4 trillion in that time.)

Seventy percent of Democrats want to extend the cuts only on incomes below $250,000, according to the CBS News poll. Forty-seven percent of independents and 41 percent of Republicans agree.

Only ten percent of Democrats and one in four independents back the GOP proposal to extend the tax cuts for all. Even among Republicans, support for extending all the cuts is less than half at 46 percent.

Jump to bottom

395 comments
1 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:20:07am

Mandate!

2 Samita  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:20:38am

Progressive tax insults sensibility.

A single blanket exemption and then a flat tax either as an income tax or as a consumption tax - tear down the IRS and the waste involved with the crazy tax system we have.

3 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:21:03am

I believe the current GOP position on this is "Fuck 'em if they didn't vote for us."

4 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:21:05am

Well, the majority of Americans also supported the public option, if I recall correctly.

5 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:21:32am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

Mandate!

But I thought the GOP was strictly against man dates?

6 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:22:31am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

Mandate!

Class warfare!

7 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:24:51am

Of course they do.

But TeaGOP Party members have this amazing ability to assume that what THEY and their base want is what everyone wants because they and their base are real Americans and the rest of us are commie socialist mooslims who want to take away American Exceptionalism and make Grizzly Mamas serve healthy food to their cubs kids.
And we hate rich people and want to punish them for being rich...or something like that.

8 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:25:07am

To the GOP the "American People" are the rich. Remember Leona Helmsley "Only the little people pay taxes".

9 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:25:26am

Poor Joe the Plumber. Now he has no reason to open that business and earn over $250,000...

10 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:26:20am

re: #2 Samita

Explain your position.

11 Charles Johnson  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:26:28am

Trickle down!

12 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:27:09am
. Even among Republicans, support for extending all the cuts is less than half at 46 percent.

Wow.

So they can't even use the excuse that they're serving those who voted for them.

So why are they serving?

13 FQ Kafir  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:27:54am

A man like Assange would have a number of damaging "leaks" that would be triggered by his capture.

The first "leak" would be a warning shot.

He is apparently a man with a lot of bargaining power.

14 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:28:05am

re: #12 Obdicut

Wow.

So they can't even use the excuse that they're serving those who voted for them.

So why are they serving?


Those who donate to their campaigns.

15 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:28:42am

re: #14 ralphieboy

Those who donate to their campaigns.

DINGDINGDING! We have a winner.

16 FQ Kafir  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:28:48am

Ooops... sorry wrong thread!

17 nines09  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:29:12am

re: #11 Charles

Trickle down!


Is it raining or........

18 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:29:32am

re: #2 Samita

Progressive tax insults sensibility.

A single blanket exemption and then a flat tax either as an income tax or as a consumption tax - tear down the IRS and the waste involved with the crazy tax system we have.

Consumption tax? You expect retailers to become the tax collector for the IRS because you know they will never "tear down the IRS". Add to that, you're talking about telling poor people that only have 10 dollars to spend (on food or whatever) on any given day to for over another $2.50. And yes, sometimes people will have only 10 bucks to their name to spend for the day.

19 S'latch  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:30:38am

re: #18 Gus 802

Retailers are already tax collectors for most states. It's called the sales tax.

20 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:31:27am

Look, there was a time when giving tax cuts to upper income earners had a certain sense: they would be motivated to invest more in the US economy and create jobs that would benefit the economy overall.

Now that money is invested wherever it brings the hightest return, and if that rate is to be found in China or Indonesia, that is where the money will be invested.

And we will have more minimum-wage jobs at the Wal-Mart stocking shelves with the products they deliver to our market.

21 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:31:55am

Speaking of paying back your friends first;

Bankruptcy filings show generous pay for relatives of Crystal Cathedral founder

Financial documents filed Wednesday in the Crystal Cathedral bankruptcy case show generous compensation paid to insiders and family members of founding minister Robert H. Schuller in the year before the Garden Grove-based mega-church filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

During the same period, revenue plummeted, and church employees and vendors — from choral members to the livestock company that provided animals for its elaborate productions — were laid off or went without pay.

The church paid out more than $1.8 million to 23 insiders and members of Schuller's family in the 12 months leading up to the Oct. 18 bankruptcy filing, according to the financial statements. That sum included $832,490 in tax-exempt housing allowances given to eight people and payments to all five of Schuller's children and their spouses.

22 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:32:36am

re: #17 nines09

Is it raining or...

No, that's rich people peeing on you.

23 simoom  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:32:42am

Nice video but this thing makes me pretty uneasy:
Arstechnica: How an RC airplane buzzed the Statue of Liberty, with no arrests

The video was shot with a remote-controlled aircraft that has one video camera feeding images back to the operator, along with a second, passive camera taking the video that was edited together for the official release. The video was shot between 7 and 8am, those being the only hours they could safely avoid air traffic.
...
While you may think this sort of flying would catch the attention of the authorities and lead to terrorism scares, the response from the police was measured and sensible. "The reaction was very professional. They asked me what I was doing and I told them I'd land and explain it to them. After that we got talking and I showed them how it all works, what I'm doing and so on."

What's even more impressive is that the video was shot without any kind of official blessing. "I did not clear any of the flights through the authorities beforehand, but I did check local laws and regulations prior to departure."

24 S'latch  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:33:56am

re: #18 Gus 802

I suppose that if we switched to a consumption tax, exemptions could be made for impoverished individuals, or necessities like food might be exempt from the tax.

25 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:34:05am

re: #19 Lawrence Schmerel

Retailers are already tax collectors for most states. It's called the sales tax.

That's a state tax in every instance. If the federal tax system is re-worked to be a consumption tax, then retailers will have to levy not only state sales taxes, but also federal. No matter how you slice it, the onus would fall on retailers.

26 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:34:10am

I just have to say it makes feel all happy and warm to see the troops mobbing the President.

27 Samita  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:34:23am

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place. They already pay more because they earn more.
I'll never reach the levels of income where it would matter, but I'm a huge proponent of a flat tax or a national sales tax. Though I do understand the concept of a personal exemption around basic living costs (say 10K)

Another example is... the home owner tax break. I own a home and get this exemption.. but why should someone with a basic loan for a home at 100K get so "keep" ~ 3-4K in interest - and another person willing to lay out for an extravagant home of 400K get to keep 12-16K. seems like a tax break in the other direction.

28 nines09  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:34:24am

re: #22 Fozzie Bear

Thought I felt a trickle down my side.

29 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:34:54am

re: #19 Lawrence Schmerel

Retailers are already tax collectors for most states. It's called the sales tax.

For most states -- not all. It's a lot easier for them to deal with state revenue offices than it would be to deal with a federal tax collection body. It would require an administrative infrastructure so any idea of combining that with ending the IRS really doesn't make any sense. You would then be looking at combining state sales tax with a VAT which in some case would roughly approach 8% + 25% or roughly a combined total of 33% for taxable items. That's insane.

30 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:35:18am

re: #28 nines09

Thought I felt a trickle down my side.

Catheter issues?

31 nines09  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:36:09am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Above problems, I think, if I read the article properly.

32 Virginia Plain  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:36:27am

Chinese water torture.

33 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:36:50am

re: #27 Samita

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place. They already pay more because they earn more.
I'll never reach the levels of income where it would matter, but I'm a huge proponent of a flat tax or a national sales tax. Though I do understand the concept of a personal exemption around basic living costs (say 10K)

Another example is... the home owner tax break. I own a home and get this exemption.. but why should someone with a basic loan for a home at 100K get so "keep" ~ 3-4K in interest - and another person willing to lay out for an extravagant home of 400K get to keep 12-16K. seems like a tax break in the other direction.

How do you levy a consumption tax on all purchases, and then work in an exemption for the first 10k spent per person, per year, without tracking every single purchase that every single American makes?

34 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:37:12am

re: #27 Samita

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place. They already pay more because they earn more.


Because $5000 out of an income of $100,000 means nothing, but that same amount taken from an income of $40,000 makes a big dent.
And in my opinion those who have done well in this country using its resources paid for by all the tax payers can pony up more then those who have not.

(and please no protests about how hard high income earners work)

35 S'latch  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:37:38am

re: #29 Gus 802

I don't know if it would be so insane. But, it isn't going to happen anyway.

36 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:37:50am

I'm all for a windfall for the rich as soon as that includes me.

Grayson did a good job of pointing out who benefits most from it though.

37 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:38:00am

re: #29 Gus 802

For most states -- not all. It's a lot easier for them to deal with state revenue offices than it would be to deal with a federal tax collection body. It would require an administrative infrastructure so any idea of combining that with ending the IRS really doesn't make any sense. You would then be looking at combining state sales tax with a VAT which in some case would roughly approach 8% + 25% or roughly a combined total of 33% for taxable items. That's insane.

Which also have a negative effect on retail sales. That $500 LCD TV would now require another $165. Many people, most people, would be priced out of making immediate purchases if at all on higher priced items.

38 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:38:17am

re: #11 Charles

Trickle down!

Penicillin.

39 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:38:36am

re: #37 Gus 802

Which also have a negative effect on retail sales. That $500 LCD TV would now require another $165. Many people, most people, would be priced out of making immediate purchases if at all on higher priced items.

If they really deserved TV's they would make more money. Why do you hate freedom? /

40 KingKenrod  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:38:51am

re: #33 Fozzie Bear

How do you levy a consumption tax on all purchases, and then work in an exemption for the first 10k spent per person, per year, without tracking every single purchase that every single American makes?

You send everyone a check for 10k at the beginning of the year.

41 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:40:36am

re: #40 KingKenrod

You send everyone a check for 10k at the beginning of the year.

Then you would only be exempting 10k - (10k * consumption tax rate), not 10k.

42 KingKenrod  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:42:49am

re: #41 Fozzie Bear

Then you would only be exempting 10k - (10k * consumption tax rate), not 10k.

Then adjust it to compensate...make it more than 10k.

BTW, I'm not endorsing this.

43 nines09  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:43:47am

re: #20 ralphieboy
A large amount retail stores have TWO people who have decent wages and actual health benefits. The manager and assistant manager, the rest are part timers with no real health insurance. And it's not getting any better. I speak from experience, I was replaced by part timers.

44 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:43:53am

re: #42 KingKenrod

Then adjust it to compensate...make it more than 10k.

BTW, I'm not endorsing this.

Fair enough. That would be one way to do it, though I think a flat (consuumption-based) tax is a terrible idea, as it would hit the poor and middle class far harder than the wealthy.

45 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:45:08am

re: #27 Samita

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place.

"…the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. On the one hand, it is desirable that he should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation; on the other hand, it is quite as necessary that in this kind of taxation, where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger of inaugurating any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation. "

-Theodore Roosevelt

46 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:47:00am

re: #45 goddamnedfrank

"…the National Government should impose a graduated inheritance tax, and, if possible, a graduated income tax. The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government. Not only should he recognize this obligation in the way he leads his daily life and in the way he earns and spends his money, but it should also be recognized by the way in which he pays for the protection the State gives him. On the one hand, it is desirable that he should assume his full and proper share of the burden of taxation; on the other hand, it is quite as necessary that in this kind of taxation, where the men who vote the tax pay but little of it, there should be clear recognition of the danger of inaugurating any such system save in a spirit of entire justice and moderation. "

-Theodore Roosevelt

1000x this. It's a shame that such a great man is being systematically turned into a boogeyman by the right.

47 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:50:42am

re: #37 Gus 802

Which also have a negative effect on retail sales. That $500 LCD TV would now require another $165. Many people, most people, would be priced out of making immediate purchases if at all on higher priced items.

And it's the most expensive way to collect tax. And it drives sales to the internet, which then is also going to have to collect tax, making lots and lots of room for skimming and corruption, and also makes the black market bigger, where no tax is collected.

48 Interesting Times  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:51:15am

re: #46 Fozzie Bear

1000x this. It's a shame that such a great man is being systematically turned into a boogeyman by the right.

Remember how the Taliban dynamited those Buddhist statues? I wonder how many of Beck's rabid followers would love to do the same to Teddy's Mount Rushmore portrait.

49 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:51:47am

OT: Well, that didn't take long at all.

50 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:51:58am

I'm in favor of introducing more tax brackets, graduating up to about 90% at extremely high incomes. That's how we did it for much of the 20th century, and it worked out quite well. This wouldn't change tax rates at all for people making under whatever breakpoint designated for new tax brackets to be added, say 750k. Just make each million over 750k be taxed 3% higher than the last, up to a cap of 90%, or something to that effect. (As opposed to the way we currently do it, where all income at the top bracket breakpoint and above, whether it be 1 million or 500 million, is taxed at the same rate.)

51 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:53:00am

re: #48 publicityStunted

Remember how the Taliban dynamited those Buddhist statues? I wonder how many of Beck's rabid followers would love to do the same to Teddy's Mount Rushmore portrait.

That's why we carved the faces of great men into mountains. So it's harder to forget them.

52 Stormageddon, Dark Lord of All  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:53:57am

re: #27 Samita

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place. They already pay more because they earn more.
I'll never reach the levels of income where it would matter, but I'm a huge proponent of a flat tax or a national sales tax. Though I do understand the concept of a personal exemption around basic living costs (say 10K)

Another example is... the home owner tax break. I own a home and get this exemption.. but why should someone with a basic loan for a home at 100K get so "keep" ~ 3-4K in interest - and another person willing to lay out for an extravagant home of 400K get to keep 12-16K. seems like a tax break in the other direction.

Look at it this way, someone earning 500K a year taxable only has to pay the highest tax on the taxable income above a certain amount. What this means is the marginal increase in taxes is relatively small in real terms than what they'd get without a tax bracket. Using 2002 versus 2010, yields the individual paying an extra 17K in taxes. Note the 2002 figures start the highest tax bracket at a lower income than the 2010 figures do. which increases the amount of taxes taxed at the highest level. Also note that even if the tax cut reverts to the old values, the income levels do NOT revert so the highest tax bracket remains at the current value (adjusted for inflation).

Also keep in mind that Social Security is capped somewhere above 100K, which means that anyone making above 100K does not pay additional social security. IE, you only pay that 6.25% on the first 100 and something (for this purpose we'll call it 150K) so your effective tax rate goes *down* when you factor in social security. That ends up flattening the tax rate further for high income earners. In addition, the tax breaks/deductions given also help reduce the amount of taxable income and reduce the over all tax paid by the higher income earners.

The reality is that the current tax system is already incredibly friendly to high income earners, who have honestly, more at stake with a stable US than someone who doesn't earn that same level of money. Their increased stake should be recognized by at least a marginal increase in the rate they are taxed. A linear progress understates the increasing stake high income earners have in a stable and productive US and US Government.

Even as a Libertarian, I don't like big government, but I do feel the responsibility for the government should fall on the shoulders of those who can best bear the burden.

*IF* you want a flat tax, you'll need to make a significant amount of income exempt, certainly much more than the 10K you have thrown out there. Otherwise you're effectively shifting the tax burden most onto the people who can least afford it.

53 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:55:35am

re: #46 Fozzie Bear

1000x this. It's a shame that such a great man is being systematically turned into a boogeyman by the right.

It's ridiculous that such smack you in the face obvious concepts that Roosevelt was discussing even need to even be explained to full grown goddamned adults in modern America. We live in a society with a distressing number of stupid, shortsighted, "me me now" selfish, ignorant little fucking infants.

54 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:56:37am

It's ridiculous that such smack you in the face obvious concepts that Roosevelt was discussing even need to even be explained to full grown goddamned adults in modern America. We live in a society with a distressing number of stupid, shortsighted, "me me now" selfish, ignorant little fucking infants.

This 1000x. It's the "Fuck you I've got mine" mentality and it's been fully embraced by the GOP. They called it the "ownership society".

55 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:00:01am

re: #54 Dreggas

It's ridiculous that such smack you in the face obvious concepts that Roosevelt was discussing even need to even be explained to full grown goddamned adults in modern America. We live in a society with a distressing number of stupid, shortsighted, "me me now" selfish, ignorant little fucking infants.

This 1000x. It's the "Fuck you I've got mine" mentality and it's been fully embraced by the GOP. They called it the "ownership society".

They're Tories now, not Republicans. They worship the regressive feudalistic, landownership based enfranchisement society we surgically excised ourselves from.

56 Ming  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:00:11am

I think this is worth mentioning, because many younger people may not remember 30 years ago, when "supply-side economics", that cutting taxes spurs economic growth, made much more sense. Back in those days, federal marginal tax rates went up to 70%, and Reagan's deep tax cuts did, I believe, help the economy. But Reagan did greatly increase Social Security taxes; he was not oblivious to the need for revenue. He INCREASED some taxes, while REDUCING taxes with crazy-high marginal rates. This was great 30 years ago. The situation now is DIFFERENT; we're talking about, I think, something like a 35% rate versus a 39% rate. My point is that some Repu blicans seem to treat it as a religious truth that cutting taxes, any taxes, helps the economy. But the truth is more complicated: it depends on which tax, and other economic factors.

57 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:01:20am

re: #40 KingKenrod

You send everyone a check for 10k at the beginning of the year.

10,000 subjected to a 25% VAT would be A + (A X 0.25) = 10000 or 8,000 dollars. Although the 10,000 would not be spent only on taxable items it is essentially be "devalued" to being with. The tendency would also be for those Americans to waste the 10,000 dollars on unneeded junk unless they put it in a savings account.

58 nines09  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:01:33am

re: #54 Dreggas

It's ridiculous that such smack you in the face obvious concepts that Roosevelt was discussing even need to even be explained to full grown goddamned adults in modern America. We live in a society with a distressing number of stupid, shortsighted, "me me now" selfish, ignorant little fucking infants.

This 1000x. It's the "Fuck you I've got mine" mentality and it's been fully embraced by the GOP. They called it the "ownership society".

It's a bumper sticker gone Political Party. Remember, The One Who Dies With the Most Toys Wins

59 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:01:57am

To be fair, most of the people in the GOP base who go for this kind of terrible idea have no idea they are actively petitioning for the government to fuck them. They have been convinced through decades of propaganda that they must protect the rich, because the rich are the only reason they have jobs.

It's as if they believe that if the rich only had a little bit more, then we would start to see the rich spending it on job creation. It hasn't worked yet, even in times when the wealthy have a larger proportion of wealth than ever before.

The GOP attacks Keynes, and science, and everything else, because knowledge and reason stand directly between them and their goals. Of course the science of economics would be savaged by these people. It contradicts their goals, so they must attack the general theory, even as they invoke aspects of the general theory to support their claims, such as the laffer curve. (Never mind of course that a full treatment of the concept of the laffer curve reveals that diminishing returns don't kick in until some rate of taxation far above that ever levied in the US.)

60 Spocomptonite  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:02:15am

They'll ignore this poll, and then somehow come up with an explanation of how they can ignore this poll but then cite other polls to use against Democrats when its convenient for them without actually admitting they only use polls when its convenient for them, and the people who actually buy that thinly veiled explanation will be their base that accepts anything and ignores the rational "WTF?" (paraphrasing, of course) from everyone else no matter what.

TL;DR: This changes nothing.

61 Interesting Times  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:03:41am

re: #56 Ming

My point is that some Republicans seem to treat it as a religious truth that cutting taxes, any taxes, helps the economy. But the truth is more complicated: it depends on which tax, and other economic factors.

Reagan Budget Director: GOP Has Abandoned Fiscal Responsibility By Adopting ‘Theology’ Of Tax Cuts

“I’ll never forgive the Bush administration and Paulson for basically destroying the last vestige of fiscal responsibility that we had in the Republican Party. After that, I don’t know how we ever make the tough choices.”
62 MinisterO  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:05:47am

re: #2 Samita

Progressive tax insults sensibility.

Nonsense. Those at the top benefit more from government proportionally than those at the bottom. The system that allows the top few percent to earn 100 or more times the average should be paid for by those top few percent. It's not a natural arrangement.

A single blanket exemption and then a flat tax either as an income tax or as a consumption tax - tear down the IRS and the waste involved with the crazy tax system we have.

Every flat tax proposal I've ever seen would lower my taxes and those of people earning more that me. I assume these plans make up the difference by increasing taxes on people making less. That is an insult to sensibility.

63 Spocomptonite  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:10:29am

re: #40 KingKenrod

You send everyone a check for 10k at the beginning of the year.

Um, Census figures haven't come out yet, but based upon an estimation of the population that's $3.2 trillion, or ~150% of current overall federal tax receipts. How would that work?

64 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:10:52am

And why do Republicans hate the Father of the Free Market (TM), Adam Smith?

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

65 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:12:40am

Scott Brown exhibits a trait completely foreign to John McCain. Integrity:

News
Home / Newsroom / News
Dec 03 2010
Scott Brown Statement On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) today issued the following statement on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy:

“I have been in the military for 31 years and counting, and have served as a subordinate and as an officer. As a legislator, I have spent a significant amount of time on military issues. During my time of service, I have visited our injured troops at Walter Reed and have attended funerals of our fallen heroes. When a soldier answers the call to serve, and risks life or limb, it has never mattered to me whether they are gay or straight. My only concern has been whether their service and sacrifice is with pride and honor.

“I pledged to keep an open mind about the present policy on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Having reviewed the Pentagon report, having spoken to active and retired military service members, and having discussed the matter privately with Defense Secretary Gates and others, I accept the findings of the report and support repeal based on the Secretary’s recommendations that repeal will be implemented only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed.”

66 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:13:44am

re: #65 darthstar

How long do you think until his party turns on him?

67 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:15:18am

If the Bush tax cuts expired on the top 1 percent (who hold nearly 25 percent of wealth in this country) it would be a mere blip on the screen of their massive wealth. It's always good to look at this chart to see how while their earnings skyrocketed, the middle and below have remained stagnant.

Image: 6-25-10inc-f1.jpg

68 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:15:23am

re: #66 ralphieboy

How long do you think until his party turns on him?

Oh, they were pissed with him from the start.

69 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:17:06am

re: #27 Samita

From a logical perspective why should someone who earns more have to pay a higher % in the first place. They already pay more because they earn more.
I'll never reach the levels of income where it would matter, but I'm a huge proponent of a flat tax or a national sales tax. Though I do understand the concept of a personal exemption around basic living costs (say 10K)

Another example is... the home owner tax break. I own a home and get this exemption.. but why should someone with a basic loan for a home at 100K get so "keep" ~ 3-4K in interest - and another person willing to lay out for an extravagant home of 400K get to keep 12-16K. seems like a tax break in the other direction.

"Worlds governed by artificial intelligence
often learned a hard lesson: Logic Doesn't Care."
Yin-Man Wei
"This Present Darkness: A History of the Interregnum"
CY 11956

70 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:18:23am

re: #65 darthstar

Scott Brown exhibits a trait completely foreign to John McCain. Integrity:

McCain has just been unbelievably disrespectful to Mullen...I can't put my finger on it, but wow.
It could be his tone or his inference that Mullen and Gates support DADT because they want to keep their job or his comments that a great leader would ask all his subordinates their views before making a decision.
Now he is just spending his time asking questions about Wikileaks....

71 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:18:33am
72 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:18:34am

re: #66 ralphieboy

How long do you think until his party turns on him?

They loved him when he was Senator #41. Now they have a few more seats, so they'll care less about his support until the next election.

73 McSpiff  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:19:05am

re: #65 darthstar

Not one thing in that statement made me go "douche bag". That's increasingly rare with the GOP. Good on him.

74 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:19:39am

re: #70 webevintage

McCain has just been unbelievably disrespectful to Mullen...I can't put my finger on it, but wow.
It could be his tone or his inference that Mullen and Gates support DADT because they want to keep their job or his comments that a great leader would ask all his subordinates their views before making a decision.
Now he is just spending his time asking questions about Wikileaks...

McCain has disdain for everyone who isn't McCain.

75 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:20:04am

re: #68 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Oh, they were pissed with him from the start.

Yup. The Teahadis done got played.

Bwahahaha!

76 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:20:14am

re: #72 darthstar

They loved him when he was Senator #41. Now they have a few more seats, so they'll care less about his support until the next election.


And then he will be primaried by some nutjob TeaParty type for not being "conservative/crazy" enough.

77 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:20:36am

Would it be wrong to put in my yearly review goals for the next year "Have management follow through on at least one promise they've made"?

78 McSpiff  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:20:43am

re: #74 darthstar

McCain has disdain for everyone who isn't McCain.

He was promised the white house for supporting that Bush kid! How dare they turn on him!

79 McSpiff  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:21:22am

re: #77 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Would it be wrong to put in my yearly review goals for the next year "Have management follow through on at least one promise they've made"?

Depends, does a promise to fire you count?

80 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:22:02am

re: #74 darthstar

McCain is still campaigning against Obama.

81 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:22:09am

re: #70 webevintage

McCain has just been unbelievably disrespectful to Mullen...I can't put my finger on it, but wow.
It could be his tone or his inference that Mullen and Gates support DADT because they want to keep their job or his comments that a great leader would ask all his subordinates their views before making a decision.
Now he is just spending his time asking questions about Wikileaks...

McCain has been an embarrassment to himself in these hearings. I watched a video of his interaction with Mullen and it made me want to punch my monitor. Mullen, however, held his ground while McCain literally spit in face regarding his role as commander both past and present.

82 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:22:17am

re: #71 Killgore Trout

An Unscripted Moment on Palin's book tour
LOL

There is some great comedy in that story....

83 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:23:09am

re: #79 McSpiff

Depends, does a promise to fire you count?

They haven't made that one.

84 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:23:22am

re: #71 Killgore Trout

Another Palin fan, Shannon Dunham started camping outside of the Walmart at 3am for an autograph. "She's just a generational, iconic figure and a great example for our girls," Dunham said.

The Behemoth wept.

85 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:23:33am

re: #75 Slumbering Behemoth

Yup. The Teahadis done got played.

Bwahahaha!

WTF were they expecting in Massachusetts?

86 philosophus invidius  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:24:06am

re: #62 MinisterO

That is an awesome comment

87 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:24:55am

re: #71 Killgore Trout

An Unscripted Moment on Palin's book tour
LOL

You know, a great example isn't necessarily a good one.

88 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:25:29am

re: #85 Fozzie Bear

WTF were they expecting in Massachusetts?

BUT HE DROVE A TRUCK!

89 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:25:38am

re: #84 Slumbering Behemoth

Remember girls, it's ok to be ditzy, dumb and never finish anything you start because one day you could be just like Sarah.

90 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:26:50am

re: #85 Fozzie Bear

WTF were they expecting in Massachusetts?

He appeared to ride the wave of Teahadi populism into office. I imagine they expected 110% compliance with their various memes.

91 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:26:58am

OT personal policy statement.

Posting people's private information on a hate site full of those who write violent fantasies is very much something that the law frowns on. More importantly, employers frown on it.

If any of our stalkers out people or attempt to intimidate them with such an outing, I will, not might, but will remind the employers of those stalkers that they could be held accountable for the actions of their employees.

Others will join me. Letters are already penned.

Bret or Ricky, your insane legal theories notwithstanding, one look at your posts on the matter is all either of your employers needs to see.

92 webevintage  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:27:04am

re: #77 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Would it be wrong to put in my yearly review goals for the next year "Have management follow through on at least one promise they've made"?

You could, but they would have no idea what you were talking about.

Last year my husband took a new multi-department position with a raise and all these promises of how this would work. (silly man)
On paper and in training it sounded great...in reality it was one of the worst jobs he has ever had within his store.
Nothing and I mean nothing was what they said it would be.
After a year of fighting and stress he took a pay cut and went back to what he was doing before.
The money was nice, but the stress he was dealing with was not worth it.

93 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:27:13am

re: #84 Slumbering Behemoth

The Behemoth wept.

Yeah. "Now girls, listen to your momma grizzly. If someday you find yourself in the governor's mansion of your state remember that if the going gets rough, quit!"

94 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:28:03am

re: #34 webevintage


And in my opinion those who have done well in this country using its resources paid for by all the tax payers can pony up more then those who have not.

Quoted for truth.

95 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:28:05am

re: #89 Dreggas

Bitter, vindictive, anti-intellectual, reactionary...

96 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:28:29am

re: #81 Gus 802

I've got an employee (now, having been promoted to manager three weeks ago) who is a bit like McCain. At our one-on-one meetings, he's tried to control the conversation and talk about what my responsibilities as a manager are. When I told him we were to talk about his roles, he actually blew up at me. I just smiled and wrote his rant down. When the other person loses control, you get it. There's no need to get upset. Performance evaluations come up soon enough.

Mullen stayed cool while McCain was out of control. The more he rants, the less he matters

97 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:29:30am

re: #75 Slumbering Behemoth

Its almost as if he's a politician who would rather win reelection then follow rigid right wing talking points. Sen. Brown isn't stupid and to win in Massachusetts you just cannot be an ultra-right ideologue.

98 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:30:18am

re: #92 webevintage

You could, but they would have no idea what you were talking about.

Last year my husband took a new multi-department position with a raise and all these promises of how this would work. (silly man)
On paper and in training it sounded great...in reality it was one of the worst jobs he has ever had within his store.
Nothing and I mean nothing was what they said it would be.
After a year of fighting and stress he took a pay cut and went back to what he was doing before.
The money was nice, but the stress he was dealing with was not worth it.

Yeah, I know. Just needed to vent a little before I recycle a few buzzwords into a good sounding but totally meaningless and measureless goal.

99 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:30:55am

re: #96 darthstar

I've got an employee (now, having been promoted to manager three weeks ago) who is a bit like McCain. At our one-on-one meetings, he's tried to control the conversation and talk about what my responsibilities as a manager are. When I told him we were to talk about his roles, he actually blew up at me. I just smiled and wrote his rant down. When the other person loses control, you get it. There's no need to get upset. Performance evaluations come up soon enough.

Mullen stayed cool while McCain was out of control. The more he rants, the less he matters

He really is such a hot head. Did you catch his recent video during a small press conference in one of the Senate offices?

"It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy!" -- Deep thoughts by John McCain.

100 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:31:32am

re: #99 Gus 802

He really is such a hot head. Did you catch his recent video during a small press conference in one of the Senate offices?

"It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy! It's not the policy!" -- Deep thoughts by John McCain.

Let's go to the video tape:

101 KingKenrod  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:31:58am

re: #34 webevintage

Because $5000 out of an income of $100,000 means nothing, but that same amount taken from an income of $40,000 makes a big dent.
And in my opinion those who have done well in this country using its resources paid for by all the tax payers can pony up more then those who have not.

(and please no protests about how hard high income earners work)

They already do, we have a progressive tax system. The question is why what they pay now is not enough to satisfy their moral obligation.

102 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:32:51am

re: #98 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That's one thing I no longer have to worry about, now that I've got my own consultancy rather than being an employee. No evaluations. Just whether or not they consider me worth the money they spend on me.

103 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:32:57am

re: #101 KingKenrod

They already do, we have a progressive tax system. The question is why what they pay now is not enough to satisfy their moral obligation.

The question could also be why what they paid a few years ago was too much, and why we should consider extending the temporary tax cuts for the wealthy.

104 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:33:30am

re: #101 KingKenrod

No. It's not about a moral obligation. It's about what actually works to keep our government, society, and economy stable and functioning. Our society cannot survive a continuing wealth inequity.

105 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:34:00am

re: #97 sizzleRI

Politics is compromise. It would seem that Brown understands that. And he has to do for his constituents, not the national teabagger movement. I'll wager that most of the teahadis doing the loudest squawking aren't even part of his constituency.

106 MinisterO  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:34:45am

re: #101 KingKenrod

They already do, we have a progressive tax system. The question is why what they pay now is not enough to satisfy their moral obligation.

Um how about because their chosen leaders have run up a huge debt and destroyed the economy for all but the wealthiest and nobody else can pay for it?

107 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:38:12am

re: #105 Slumbering Behemoth

Watching that election from inside Massachusetts it was pretty clear that the tea party was not his base. I think he staged a return of the almost extinct moderate New England Republican.

108 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:38:42am

re: #100 Gus 802

You should check out the swamp... Even the other McCain - or one posting as him has joined in. They understand that they are in trouble, but too stupid to realize just how much.

109 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:38:43am

McCain On DADT Repeal: 'I Will Not Agree To Have This Bill Go Forward'

At the end of the today's hearings on Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) announced that he will still block the National Defense Authorization Act if it includes a repeal of the policy.

"I will not agree to have this bill go forward," he said. "Because our economy is in the tank."

Whut?

110 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:39:15am

re: #107 sizzleRI

Watching that election from inside Massachusetts it was pretty clear that the tea party was not his base. I think he staged a return of the almost extinct moderate New England Republican.

Which is frankly a good thing. The GOP needs more moderates to push back, and it would be delightfully ironic if the pushback came from east coasters.

111 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:39:33am

re: #102 Obdicut

That's one thing I no longer have to worry about, now that I've got my own consultancy rather than being an employee. No evaluations. Just whether or not they consider me worth the money they spend on me.

I've gone thru 5 managers in the last 4 years, have only actually met 1 of them, and am on a completely different coast, and they usually only call me when someone breaks something and need someone competent to roll in and clean up the mess. On the plus side, it means I have a pretty lax schedule and can make my own hours for the most part, on the down side, it means I'm out of sight and out of mind when new positions or opportunities open up.

112 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:40:26am

re: #109 Gus 802

McCain On DADT Repeal: 'I Will Not Agree To Have This Bill Go Forward'

Whut?

As everybody knows, openly gay people carrying guns will savage our market economy. Weren't you paying attention in your heteroeconomics class?

113 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:40:47am

re: #109 Gus 802

Ahahahahaha. Who mentioned dementia earlier?

114 dmon  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:41:32am

I was pretty pumped around 2000........ the economy was humming, my wages had increased at respectable rate for the last decade......taxes were as low as anytime in the last hundred years, and the projection was for a surplus....... I thought to myself....."this is fantastic, we can actually start paying down the national debt", it was not out of the realm of possibility for this nation to be debt free........ but noooooo, instaed they cut taxes, ran up deficits for the next decade, everyone not among the top earners had their wages stagnate....... I am worse off now than 10 years ago.....trickle down my ass!!!!!

115 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:42:42am

Local pundit here abouts was talking about DADT. He actually invoked MLK, saying we should judge someone by the content of their character, then in the next breath, said we couldn't trust homosexuals to serve.

116 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:43:18am

Arizona has death panels now.

The nerve of Brewer to claim these cuts are a result of "Obamacare" is enough to make me puke.

117 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:44:21am

re: #108 LudwigVanQuixote

You should check out the swamp... Even the other McCain - or one posting as him has joined in. They understand that they are in trouble, but too stupid to realize just how much.

Yeah, homophobe central. The GOP is going to ignore the Pentagon report and they're being led by that cranky fool Senator McCain. Unfortunately, they may actually win this battle but the battle continue.

118 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:45:18am

re: #115 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

That's a misquote. What MLK actually said was "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the things they do with their genitals." It's a common mistake.

119 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:45:48am

re: #117 Gus 802

Yeah, homophobe central. The GOP is going to ignore the Pentagon report and they're being led by that cranky fool Senator McCain. Unfortunately, they may actually win this battle but the battle continue.

Well that too.... But that is not what I was talking about.

120 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:46:19am

re: #118 Fozzie Bear

He was talking about BBC I am sure...

121 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:46:29am

re: #119 LudwigVanQuixote

Well that too... But that is not what I was talking about.

Oh. That. Yeah, I took a look at one of the swamps. Truly pathetic.

122 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:46:55am

re: #116 Dreggas

Gawd, that's ugly.


As for the politics of this, Arizona's right-wing governor, Jan Brewer (R), said the transplant cuts are necessary because of "Obamacare," the conservative shorthand for the Affordable Care Act.

But this literally adds insult to injury. Brewer signed these health care cuts into law on March 18. President Obama signed health care reform into law on March 23.

123 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:47:06am

re: #120 Dreggas

He was talking about BBC I am sure...

By BBC, do you mean the British Broadcasting Corporation, or ... ?

124 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:47:35am

BBL

125 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50:20am

re: #114 dmon

I was pretty pumped around 2000... the economy was humming, my wages had increased at respectable rate for the last decade...taxes were as low as anytime in the last hundred years, and the projection was for a surplus... I thought to myself..."this is fantastic, we can actually start paying down the national debt", it was not out of the realm of possibility for this nation to be debt free... but nooo, instaed they cut taxes, ran up deficits for the next decade, everyone not among the top earners had their wages stagnate... I am worse off now than 10 years ago...trickle down my ass!!!

But the tax cuts created jobs! Now the top earners are uncertain about the future of the Bush tax cuts so they can't create all the jobs such as the did in the past years because of the tax cuts. Once the tax cuts are extended, the job creation will begin to flow again!

//

126 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50:22am

re: #123 Fozzie Bear

well think about it.... you said:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the things they do with their genitals." It's a common mistake.

127 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:50:40am

This is all like some kind of grand theatre. McCain is playing Dr. Frankenstein, and Palin is starring as The Creature.

128 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:51:27am

re: #127 Fozzie Bear

This is all like some kind of grand theatre. McCain is playing Dr. Frankenstein, and Palin is starring as The Creature.

Must be the movie, because in the book, the creature was quite intelligent.

129 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:51:29am

re: #126 Dreggas

well think about it... you said:

HAHHAHA ok, got it.

130 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:52:11am

Oh that's right. Most of the big corps took those tax cuts and moved more of their manufacturing to China (and 3rd world countries) and their call centers to India.

What was I thinking.

131 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:52:20am

re: #128 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Must be the movie, because in the book, the creature was quite intelligent.

True. But she is scaring the crap out of the villagers. So there's that.

132 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:53:26am

re: #131 Fozzie Bear

True. But she is scaring the crap out of the villagers. So there's that.

Looks like I picked the wrong election cycle to quit selling torches and pitchforks.

133 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:55:56am

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

134 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:56:00am

re: #109 Gus 802

McCain On DADT Repeal: 'I Will Not Agree To Have This Bill Go Forward'

Whut?

I think McCain thinks the economy is gay, and that it's actually driving around in a tank.

135 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:56:37am

re: #134 darthstar

I think McCain thinks the economy is gay, and that it's actually driving around in a tank.

A fucking FABULOUS tank, thank you very much.

136 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:58:19am

re: #135 Fozzie Bear

A fucking FABULOUS tank, thank you very much.

THIS tank.

137 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:00:02pm

re: #130 Gus 802

Oh that's right. Most of the big corps took those tax cuts and moved more of their manufacturing to China (and 3rd world countries) and their call centers to India.

What was I thinking.

And they are still getting fed money for advertising campaigns in foreign countries.

One of my personal pet peeves.

138 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:00:47pm

re: #137 researchok

And they are still getting fed money for advertising campaigns in foreign countries.

One of my personal pet peeves.

Are they? Is that through the Department of Commerce?

139 engineer cat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:02:25pm

Majority of Americans Oppose

but it seems we will still get an extension of the $700 billion giveaway just the same since the president has apparently decided he's at least partially republican

excuse me while i sit in a corner mumbling incoherent imprecations and curses

141 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:05:14pm

re: #138 Gus 802

Are they? Is that through the Department of Commerce?

Through them and the FDEB or some other nameless entity

I read about that recently. I t was in refrence to some Bush era programs that his administration approved and have since carried on.

142 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:05:47pm

re: #64 ralphieboy

And why do Republicans hate the Father of the Free Market (TM), Adam Smith?

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

As indeed they do, right now.

Today, the working poor do pay into social security, but they also get benefits at the other end. So that's a wash, not really a tax. For the rich, social security is of little importance except if they hit a stretch of bad luck and become poor. If they remain rich into retirement, then some of their social security check will be taxed. For the rich, then, social security is not quite a wash, but it's close. They lose just a little.

The working poor don't pay any significant federal income tax. Tariffs are quite low on most of what they'd by. Gasoline tax again isn't really a tax, it's the toll on a toll road, collected somewhat indirectly. All in all, then, the poor don't pay anything into the federal coffers. They do draw on benefits; medicaid, AFDC, school lunches, etc. That's fine with me; as long as they put their shoulder to the wheel and try to earn at least a share of their own necessary expenditures, that's all we should ask.

The middle class pays some federal income tax but not nearly as much as the near-rich and the truly rich. So right now, the rich and the near-rich are the main source of federal tax revenue.

Perhaps they should pay still more, because we are running a deficit. On the other hand, perhaps the government should spend less. It's not as if all the spending now is money well spent. Or perhaps the government should spend less, and at the same time, the rich/near-rich should contribute more.

What would be the effect of raising taxes as Obama proposes?

The Treasury Department says the cost of making the cuts permanent for everyone is $3.7 trillion over a decade. The White House plan which would not extend the cuts on high earners would cost an estimated $3 trillion over ten years.

So, that's that, right? Not so fast. The treasury is required by law to make its estimates on the basis of "static scoring". That is, it must, by law, make believe that taxes have no effect whatever on people's economic behavior or results. In principle, if some law were proposed calling for 1000 percent tax on all incomes, the treasury would report that this tax would yield 140 trillion a year in revenue. After all, incomes aggregate to about 14 trillion.

The proposed tax increase we're actually talking about is nothing so extreme, but the point remains: any change in tax law is likely to have some effect on pre-tax income, especially once those affected by the tax have had time to make adjustments to the new law.

When deciding on how much to increase taxes, you have to factor this in. But higher taxes alone cannot cover runaway spending. The health care law just passed is a recipe for a lot of that, as if we didn't have several other runaway spending trains already on the tracks. Something is going to have to be done about spending.

This commission that is coming in with its report about now has a lot of painful suggestions. We're going to have to bite several bullets, some of them tax increases, and others of them spending cuts. If we don't, there's a lot more pain down the road.

Republicans are going to have to swallow hard and accept some tax increases, Democrats, spending cuts. Nobody's going to be happy with the result, but that's the best we can manage from where we are now.

143 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:07:28pm

re: #133 Fozzie Bear

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

She hasn't changed her opinions. She's just letting down the mask.

144 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:08:17pm

re: #71 Killgore Trout

"Am I doing interviews?" the former Alaska governor asked. "I thought I got to talk to the nice people. And where's our [Real American Country™] music and where's our good enthusiasm?" she persisted.

Oh, for fuck's sake... As one woman to another, I'm going to go ahead and say it right now: that is one counterfeit b***h.

145 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:12:17pm

re: #116 Dreggas

As a lot, they avoid the truth at all costs.

146 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:13:01pm

First a disclaimer.....I do make more than $250k per year. Having said that, and fully realizing that this puts me in the top 2% of family incomes in the US......I don't feel wealthy. I do admit that I don't have to live check to check and my only vice is buying woodworking tools. But I also feel I work very hard. There are some that say I am lucky but I would like to know where they were when I was sweating my ass off learning how to integrate in spherical coordinates for heat and mass transfer classes for my engineering degree. The Bush tax cuts save me $4500 per year and I can tell you for certain I would rather have that money than give it back to the US government. So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

147 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:13:16pm

Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politicsBy Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Sarah Palin has found a new opponent to debate: John F. Kennedy.

In her new book, "America by Heart," Palin objects to my uncle's famous 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, in which he challenged the ministers - and the country - to judge him, a Catholic presidential candidate, by his views rather than his faith. "Contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president," Kennedy said. "I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic."

Palin writes that when she was growing up, she was taught that Kennedy's speech had "succeeded in the best possible way: It reconciled public service and religion without compromising either." Now, however, she says she has revisited the speech and changed her mind. She finds it "defensive . . . in tone and content" and is upset that Kennedy, rather than presenting a reconciliation of his private faith and his public role, instead offered an "unequivocal divorce of the two."

Palin's argument seems to challenge a great American tradition, enshrined in the Constitution, stipulating that there be no religious test for public office. A careful reading of her book leads me to conclude that Palin wishes for precisely such a test. And she seems to think that she, and those who think like her, are qualified to judge who would pass and who would not.

If there is no religious test, then there is no need for a candidate's religious affiliation to be "reconciled." My uncle urged that religion be private, removed from politics, because he feared that making faith an arena for public contention would lead American politics into ill-disguised religious warfare, with candidates tempted to use faith to manipulate voters and demean their opponents.

Kennedy cited Thomas Jefferson to argue that, as part of the American tradition, it was essential to keep any semblance of a religious test out of the political realm. Best to judge candidates on their public records, their positions on war and peace, jobs, poverty, and health care. No one, Kennedy pointed out, asked those who died at the Alamo which church they belonged to.

But Palin insists on evaluating and acting as an authority on candidates' faith. She faults Kennedy for not "telling the country how his faith had enriched him." With that line, she proceeds down a path fraught with danger - precisely the path my uncle warned against, when he said that a president's religious views should be "neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office."

148 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:13:49pm

re: #142 lostlakehiker

Today, the working poor do pay into social security, but they also get benefits at the other end. So that's a wash, not really a tax.

It is a tax. That one benefits from that tax doesn't mean that it's not a tax. I do not understand why you keep trying to push this meme.

Tariffs are quite low on most of what they'd by.

Proof, any?

. Gasoline tax again isn't really a tax, it's the toll on a toll road, collected somewhat indirectly.

Man, you just love calling taxes 'not taxes' in order to prove the poor don't pay taxes. Why is that? A 'toll on the road collected indirectly' is, indeed, a tax. You don't get to redefine a tax is just so that you can try to prove poor people don't pay any taxes.

They do draw on benefits; medicaid, AFDC, school lunches, etc.

Except, of course, for a member of the working poor who doesn't receive any medical treatment and has no kids.


So right now, the rich and the near-rich are the main source of federal tax revenue.

Because they are the main people who have income. It's pretty simple.

149 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:15:30pm

re: #141 researchok

Through them and the FDEB or some other nameless entity

I read about that recently. I t was in refrence to some Bush era programs that his administration approved and have since carried on.

Yet they'll still complain and play the victim card from time to time. There's a lot of other programs that give certain industries free PR from the federal government such as those for the dairy industry.

150 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:16:12pm

My grammar and typing isn't doing very well today.

151 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:16:42pm

re: #146 Big Steve

You're a high-income earner. It really doesn't matter how you feel. It matters how much income you make compared to the population in general. This isn't a 'feelings' subject.

I think the main problem is when you hear 'rich', you think yachts, mansions, Bentleys-- a subjective appraisal.

But objectively, being rich is being much wealthier than the average. And you are.

I would love a system that rewarded you more for being wealthy because of actual work, rather than playing games in the markets or other rent-seeking behavior. But that has nothing to do with whether or not you make a lot of money.

152 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:17:11pm

re: #146 Big Steve

First a disclaimer...I do make more than $250k per year. Having said that, and fully realizing that this puts me in the top 2% of family incomes in the US...I don't feel wealthy. I do admit that I don't have to live check to check and my only vice is buying woodworking tools. But I also feel I work very hard. There are some that say I am lucky but I would like to know where they were when I was sweating my ass off learning how to integrate in spherical coordinates for heat and mass transfer classes for my engineering degree. The Bush tax cuts save me $4500 per year and I can tell you for certain I would rather have that money than give it back to the US government. So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

Compared to what the vast majority of Americans make, that is a lot of money. I know it doesn't feel like you are rich, but imagine how it must feel to be working for 1/10 that much, which many many people do. They sweat just as hard as you do.

I'm not at all attacking you, mind you. 250k isn't what I would call wealthy, but it really is a crapload of money to the average American. 250k doesn't buy what it used to, but 25k barely even feeds you and keeps a roof over your head, and a lot more people are making 25k than 250k.

153 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:17:59pm

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Speaking of paying back your friends first; Bankruptcy filings show generous pay for relatives of Crystal Cathedral founder

Must be they went broke helping the poor, bless their hearts.
//

Ha. As if.

154 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:18:55pm

re: #148 Obdicut

It is a tax. That one benefits from that tax doesn't mean that it's not a tax. I do not understand why you keep trying to push this meme.

Proof, any?

Man, you just love calling taxes 'not taxes' in order to prove the poor don't pay taxes. Why is that? A 'toll on the road collected indirectly' is, indeed, a tax. You don't get to redefine a tax is just so that you can try to prove poor people don't pay any taxes.

Except, of course, for a member of the working poor who doesn't receive any medical treatment and has no kids.

Because they are the main people who have income. It's pretty simple.

The poor often pay higher gasoline taxes because they are unable to afford newer and more efficient automobiles that get better gas mileage.

155 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:19:27pm

re: #149 Gus 802

Yet they'll still complain and play the victim card from time to time. There's a lot of other programs that give certain industries free PR from the federal government such as those for the dairy industry.

That and more- every congressional district has businesses/industries that benefit from these kinds of programs.

For example, P&G tells congresspeople in CA and ID increased off shore sales means bigger production/benefits for them.

You know the rest of the story.

156 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:20:45pm

re: #154 Gus 802

The poor often pay higher more gasoline taxes because they are unable to afford newer and more efficient automobiles that get better gas mileage.

Fixed.

157 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:21:13pm

And since the stalkers are reading this. No, the statements have not been ignored. There are also others not currently online who are lined up.

Dear stalkers:

As to a wrongful termination suit, again your legal theories are insane.

Attorneys will be thrilled to giggle at your ideas about ransom notes in the case of kidnapping! Ricky, that was laughable even for you.

It is very simple. You are trying a shakedown. If you do what you threaten to do, you face the consequences.

Posting threats from work - which employers will verify on their own with the links we will provide, is all it takes. When more than one person makes the complaint, the recourse of the employer is to just be done with the employee to prevent possible liability. Of course it works that way in the real world. How else would it work? Get real.

None of you are jail proof CEOs. You are the sort who are seen as completely replaceable, and you will be at even a hint of potential problems.

For the record, I do not have 50 letters set to go. I only have six others (confirmed, so far) ready to write.

158 recusancy  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:22:48pm

re: #146 Big Steve

So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

That's rich.

159 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:22:52pm

To Fozzie Bear and Obdicut......points well taken. Last year I paid $52,000 in income taxes and when I whined about it to my CPA she told me to quit crying because the cause of my taxes was my high income and would I rather make less and pay less taxes!

160 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:23:53pm

re: #154 Gus 802

The poor often pay higher gasoline taxes because they are unable to afford newer and more efficient automobiles that get better gas mileage.

Which is why I completely oppose dramatic increases in gas taxes to offset pollution, and instead prefer dramatic tax cuts/incentive for companies working on green/renewable energy.

Nothing screws the working poor more than prohibitive gas taxes. (okay, that last line there is hyperbole, but you get my meaning.)

161 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:23:53pm

"A new CBS News poll shows that the GOP’s plan to extend the Bush era tax cuts and give America’s wealthy class another massive windfall . . . "

Then I should consider the cash in my pocket a "windfall" if I walk through a bad eighborthood and don't get robbed.

They are not "extending tax cuts."

They are raising taxes.

162 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:24:47pm

re: #159 Big Steve

To Fozzie Bear and Obdicut...points well taken. Last year I paid $52,000 in income taxes and when I whined about it to my CPA she told me to quit crying because the cause of my taxes was my high income and would I rather make less and pay less taxes!

You paid about double in taxes what I have made in total this year. Five years ago I was making about 150k.

I didn't feel rich when I was making 150k, but holy shit I never knew how good I had it. It's all relative. I'll get back there again soon enough.

163 engineer cat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:26:04pm

re: #146 Big Steve

First a disclaimer...I do make more than $250k per year. Having said that, and fully realizing that this puts me in the top 2% of family incomes in the US...I don't feel wealthy. I do admit that I don't have to live check to check and my only vice is buying woodworking tools. But I also feel I work very hard. There are some that say I am lucky but I would like to know where they were when I was sweating my ass off learning how to integrate in spherical coordinates for heat and mass transfer classes for my engineering degree. The Bush tax cuts save me $4500 per year and I can tell you for certain I would rather have that money than give it back to the US government. So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

between me and my wife we also make over $250k/yr. however, the rollback of the bush tax cuts would only be on marginal income, that is, it would only be a rollback on tax cuts for the amount over $250k/yr, not taxes for the amount under that. based on that, i calculate that for us, a rollback of the bush tax cuts would only cost us less than $300/yr

i agree with you that $250k/yr is not really "rich", but on the other hand i'm not sure how much you would have to make over $250k/yr to have it cost you 4.5 grand a year in extra taxes on the amount over $250k/yr if the bush tax cuts are sunsetted - that is, the amount you make over $250k must be considerably more than for me and my wife. ???

164 elizajane  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:26:17pm

re: #116 Dreggas

Arizona has death panels now.

The nerve of Brewer to claim these cuts are a result of "Obamacare" is enough to make me puke.

It's enough to make various Republicans bandy her name about as a good potential VP candidate.

165 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:26:18pm

re: #162 Fozzie Bear

You paid about double in taxes what I have made in total this year. Five years ago I was making about 150k.

I didn't feel rich when I was making 150k, but holy shit I never knew how good I had it. It's all relative. I'll get back there again soon enough.

If I had an option to give half my taxes to you I would have. Are you looking for work? What field?

166 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:26:33pm

re: #161 NamDoc67

"A new CBS News poll shows that the GOP’s plan to extend the Bush era tax cuts and give America’s wealthy class another massive windfall . . . "

Then I should consider the cash in my pocket a "windfall" if I walk through a bad eighborthood and don't get robbed.

They are not "extending tax cuts."

They are raising taxes.

No, they are possibly extending a temporary tax cut. You can say otherwise all you want, but facts are facts. Nice reference to predatory poor people by the way. Real classy.

167 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:27:26pm

re: #158 recusancy

Hardly. Well to do, maybe, but not "rich". 250K just doesn't have the purchasing power it used too.

Would a compromise be acceptable where the level was set to 300-350K instead?

168 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:27:40pm

re: #161 NamDoc67

"A new CBS News poll shows that the GOP’s plan to extend the Bush era tax cuts and give America’s wealthy class another massive windfall . . . "

Then I should consider the cash in my pocket a "windfall" if I walk through a bad eighborthood and don't get robbed.

They are not "extending tax cuts."

They are raising taxes.

Because you know, having things like roads and a functioning military and science programs are just really not worth paying for.... Yes robbed you are! You are being robbed!

They actually lowered taxes last year for the vast majority of Americans.

What I would really like to see is the cut off for the highest bracket raised to 500k and all the loopholes for those who make more than that completely closed.

OF course, no GOP person would ever allow that.

169 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:28:38pm

re: #146 Big Steve

First a disclaimer...I do make more than $250k per year. Having said that, and fully realizing that this puts me in the top 2% of family incomes in the US...I don't feel wealthy. I do admit that I don't have to live check to check and my only vice is buying woodworking tools. But I also feel I work very hard. There are some that say I am lucky but I would like to know where they were when I was sweating my ass off learning how to integrate in spherical coordinates for heat and mass transfer classes for my engineering degree. The Bush tax cuts save me $4500 per year and I can tell you for certain I would rather have that money than give it back to the US government. So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

Only your income above and beyond $250K is due for a tax increase under the House plan. Is that income alone responsible for the $4500 in differential taxation you're talking about?

170 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:29:08pm

re: #159 Big Steve

Exactly. What really drove this home for me was when my wife was applying to medical school. All told, the application and preparation process, including taking classes before the MCATs, airfare to interviews, getting transcripts, taking a few summer classes to boost GPA-- cost about fourteen thousand dollars.

There is no way a person from a struggling, poor family could afford to apply to as many schools as she did, and have as good a chance as getting into a good program as she did. They'd have to set their sights lower, and apply to just a couple of schools that seemed likely to take them, not take the classes before the MCATS, not boost their GPA.

And because they would have to apply to fewer schools, their overall chance of not getting in-- and of all that money being wasted-- would be much higher. We could have afforded her not getting in; it would have sucked, but we would have dealt with it. A poor person couldn't.

What is my point? Money is useful for opportunities. Poor people can't pursue their dreams as effectively as a wealthy person can. They can't take a risk on a dream job. They can't fly to another state for an interview. They can't take classes to cross-train.

I am sure you're a decent person who 'deserves' all the money he's got-- but this isn't about 'deserves'. We all know people who 'deserve' to trip over a briefcase full of cash tomorrow morning.

What this is about is keeping our nation strong and our society stable, and it will not last if we continue to have the growth in wealth disparity that we do.

And I do wish that we could use a surgeon's scalpel, and only tax people who make money in craptastic ways-- but that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

171 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:30:29pm

re: #163 engineer dog
Come to think of it you are probably right. Much of that extra tax was because I lipped into that left over 1970's income thing (forgot what it was called).

172 HappyWarrior  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:30:31pm

re: #147 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politicsBy Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

Hadn't heard much from KKT since her defeat in the 2002 Maryland gubertorial race to Bob Ehrlich. Good op-ed by her here. Makes me sick to see Palin attacking JFK now. My dad's parents like the Kennedy family were Catholic and my dad and his siblings went to parochial schools but my grandparents like President Kennedy did not feel those schools should receive federal aid. It was after all their choice to send them to a school affilated with the Roman Catholic Church.

173 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:30:55pm

re: #160 Slumbering Behemoth

Which is why I completely oppose dramatic increases in gas taxes to offset pollution, and instead prefer dramatic tax cuts/incentive for companies working on green/renewable energy.

Nothing screws the working poor more than prohibitive gas taxes. (okay, that last line there is hyperbole, but you get my meaning.)

Yep. It's an oft made argument. If you theoretically raised gasoline to 10 dollars a gallon the wealthy will just keep on trucking or buy themselves the later Porsche Hybrid or anything other off the shelf automobile running 40,000 and above. The working poor will have no choice but to keep driving their "1982 Malibu" so to speak.

Others argue for a mileage tax. There again I would have some questions. Should someone making 250,000 plus a year and drives 100 miles a day pay the same mileage tax as someone making 15,000 a year? Should there be a "sliding scale"?

174 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:31:03pm

re: #165 Big Steve

If I had an option to give half my taxes to you I would have. Are you looking for work? What field?

I'm currently employed, but not terribly gainfully so. Thing is, I can't afford to leave because of health insurance. Once i'm out, i'll never get insurance again due to health issues, so I have to stay until the ban on denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions takes effect, or until I can find an employer generous enough to take me in anyway. (The field is legal IT)

My wife and I are probably going to move to Florida, where her family lives, within the next 6 months. Her father has a great job for me, and has promised to pay for insurance regardless of how much it costs. We just have to get there, and I have to find some way to make sure my aging mom is taken care of.

I'm actually more or less ok, but, if you have work in the FL area in any field, please let me know. I'm not 100% sure the thing with my wife's dad will pan out or not. I'd really rather not work for family if I can help it just because it can get weird.

175 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:31:15pm

Inhofe: "Nothing is going to happen in Cancun at UN Climate party and everyone knows it."

Jihad against the EPA.

176 MinisterO  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:31:49pm

re: #148 Obdicut

It is a tax. That one benefits from that tax doesn't mean that it's not a tax.

I think the point is that the lower income taxpayer gets his contribution and more back from the government in fairly direct way. The wealthy contribute more than they get back directly.

The problem with this thinking is that it doesn't account for the indirect benefits the wealthy enjoy. There's no attempt to account for the benefit a business gains from a labor pool that is relatively healthy, decently educated and economically stable, for example.

177 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:33:11pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Inhofe: "Nothing is going to happen in Cancun at UN Climate party and everyone knows it."

[Video]

Jihad against the EPA.

Nixon was a tree hugging hippy!

178 HappyWarrior  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:33:18pm

Saw an article someone linked to above by President Reagan's former budget director that the GOP has abandonded fiscal sanity for tax cut theology. I have to agree with him here. The way Republicans get nominated here in Virginia is based on who will oppose the most taxes. It's like there's a total disconnect in the Republican mindset about taxes. I flat out don't understand national Republicans. They want a huge defense budget but they want to cut taxes at the same time. Yes, taxes can be a pain but they can't have it both ways here.

179 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:33:27pm

hmm...the stalkers seem extra agitated about something.

180 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:33:55pm

re: #175 Killgore Trout

Inhofe: "Nothing is going to happen in Cancun at UN Climate party and everyone knows it."

[Video]

Jihad against the EPA.

Yes, evil idiots chortle at the damage they wreak.

181 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:03pm

re: #176 MinisterO

It also completely ignores the fact that a lot of the benefits for the 'poor' are not, actually, for the 'poor' at all, but for the children of the poor. Out of the three examples of benefits he gave, two were for children of the poor.

When I was 'poor'-- making about $20K a year-- I received nothing in benefits from the state. I probably could have, if I scratched around, but I didn't. I paid taxes.

Lumping benefits for the children of the poor in with benefits for low-income people is part of the problem.

182 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:17pm

re: #167 Slumbering Behemoth

Hardly. Well to do, maybe, but not "rich". 250K just doesn't have the purchasing power it used too.

Would a compromise be acceptable where the level was set to 300-350K instead?

OK. Now that had me wondering. You have two individuals. They both earn 250K a year. However, one of them has a net worth of 3,000,000 dollars in liquid assets yet the other has, through unfortunate circumstances, has a net worth of zero in liquid assets. Should they be treated equally?

183 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:33pm

re: #162 Fozzie Bear

I didn't feel rich when I was making 150k, but holy shit I never knew how good I had it. It's all relative.

Heh, I'll say. I grew up poor, raised by a single mother on welfare, who had a job as an apt. manager to keep a roof over our heads (no pay, just a free apt.).

I have a friend who's upbringing was far, far worse. Sometimes when we compare stories from our childhood, he'll look at me and sneer "you were rich".

I was anything but, however from his perspective I was.

184 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:42pm

re: #179 Killgore Trout

hmm...the stalkers seem extra agitated about something.

One of them fucked up and is blaming everyone else for it.

185 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:44pm

re: #170 Obdicut
Yea good points. When I was in high school a close friend's divorced dad owned a steel company and lived in the swankiest penthouse high rise in Cleveland. She and I used to visit him and once he said that making money was the damnest thing. There is some quality about making money that exists outside of luck, intelligence, or hard work.

186 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:45pm

re: #177 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Nixon was a tree hugging hippy!

RINO!
I wonder how far back today's GOP would have to go to find somebody they would support today. Taft?

187 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:34:59pm

re: #179 Killgore Trout

hmm...the stalkers seem extra agitated about something.

They're always agitated. Everyday is butthurt day for the stalkers.

188 iossarian  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:35:55pm

re: #186 Killgore Trout

RINO!
I wonder how far back today's GOP would have to go to find somebody they would support today. Taft?

Nero.

189 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:36:18pm

re: #182 Gus 802

That's an important point. We keep talking about the 'rich' but what we're really talking about is the high income earners.

There are a lot of the rich who have negative incomes.

190 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:36:24pm

re: #179 Killgore Trout

hmm...the stalkers seem extra agitated about something.

They really don't like that we have your back and that they face real world consequences for their stupidity. Of course Ricky is threatening me, Alouette, SFZ and others right now.

Either someone outs me to them or he outs everyone on his list. He backed down from that pretty quickly though.

191 HappyWarrior  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:36:51pm

re: #186 Killgore Trout

RINO!
I wonder how far back today's GOP would have to go to find somebody they would support today. Taft?

Doesn't the historical record indicate that Taft busted more trusts than Teddy Roosevelt. Oh, and he was quite non-religious too. There's a story I heard in a class I took on the presidents that Teddy Roosevelt told him to stop golfing on Sundays and I've read that he doubted Christ's divinity. I think a guy like Calvin Coolidge but with more staunch social conservatism is who the GOP wants.

192 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:37:04pm

re: #184 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

One of them fucked up and is blaming everyone else for it.

ah, I haven't figured it out yet. I think ChenZen is just fucking with them and they're too stupid to notice. He has all the passwords and admin access. He's probably going to fuck them over just like he did with LGF once he's done with them.

193 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:37:20pm

re: #170 Obdicut

Exactly. What really drove this home for me was when my wife was applying to medical school. All told, the application and preparation process, including taking classes before the MCATs, airfare to interviews, getting transcripts, taking a few summer classes to boost GPA-- cost about fourteen thousand dollars.

There is no way a person from a struggling, poor family could afford to apply to as many schools as she did, and have as good a chance as getting into a good program as she did. They'd have to set their sights lower, and apply to just a couple of schools that seemed likely to take them, not take the classes before the MCATS, not boost their GPA.

And because they would have to apply to fewer schools, their overall chance of not getting in-- and of all that money being wasted-- would be much higher. We could have afforded her not getting in; it would have sucked, but we would have dealt with it. A poor person couldn't.

What is my point? Money is useful for opportunities. Poor people can't pursue their dreams as effectively as a wealthy person can. They can't take a risk on a dream job. They can't fly to another state for an interview. They can't take classes to cross-train.

I am sure you're a decent person who 'deserves' all the money he's got-- but this isn't about 'deserves'. We all know people who 'deserve' to trip over a briefcase full of cash tomorrow morning.

What this is about is keeping our nation strong and our society stable, and it will not last if we continue to have the growth in wealth disparity that we do.

And I do wish that we could use a surgeon's scalpel, and only tax people who make money in craptastic ways-- but that opens a whole 'nother can of worms.

Just repeated for truth.

194 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:37:20pm

re: #188 iossarian

Nero.

Ha!

195 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:37:32pm

re: #182 Gus 802

OK. Now that had me wondering. You have two individuals. They both earn 250K a year. However, one of them has a net worth of 3,000,000 dollars in liquid assets yet the other has, through unfortunate circumstances, has a net worth of zero in liquid assets. Should they be treated equally?

I dunno. Aren't assets taxed?

196 KingKenrod  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:37:53pm

re: #182 Gus 802

OK. Now that had me wondering. You have two individuals. They both earn 250K a year. However, one of them has a net worth of 3,000,000 dollars in liquid assets yet the other has, through unfortunate circumstances, has a net worth of zero in liquid assets. Should they be treated equally?

I think so; the assumption being that taxes have already been extracted from the $3M in liquid assets, or will be through capital gains when the asset is disposed of.

197 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:38:01pm

re: #190 LudwigVanQuixote

SFZ... wtf? I mean... not that the others deserve any ill will at all, but SFZ is the most even tempered poster here. She doesn't even bristle when I would have long ago flipped my shit. How can you hate on that?

Those people have really SERIOUS issues.

198 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:38:12pm

re: #191 HappyWarrior

Doesn't the historical record indicate that Taft busted more trusts than Teddy Roosevelt. Oh, and he was quite non-religious too. There's a story I heard in a class I took on the presidents that Teddy Roosevelt told him to stop golfing on Sundays and I've read that he doubted Christ's divinity. I think a guy like Calvin Coolidge but with more staunch social conservatism is who the GOP wants.

Interesting.

199 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:38:38pm

re: #188 iossarian

Nero.

I was thinking Caligula. Excellent!

200 iossarian  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:38:47pm

Just want to point out that $250k a year makes you loaded. The reason people don't "feel rich" is that the bonkers income disparity that has grown up since the 70s means they are comparing themselves to people who have similar jobs to them (lawyers, bankers etc.) but make 10x as much.

What is funny about this is that it means a lot of naturally right-wing people are actually feeling the effect of being on the wrong end of class warfare.

201 Big Steve  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:39:44pm

re: #195 Slumbering Behemoth

I dunno. Aren't assets taxed?


No not unless you are pulling income or dividends from them or you have sold for a profit.

202 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:40:08pm

re: #195 Slumbering Behemoth

I dunno. Aren't assets taxed?

It depends. If you have cash assets that isn't taxed. IOW, if you're sitting on 14 million dollars (cash) in several checking accounts with zero percent interest there should be no taxes applied. Otherwise if the money is "moving" then capital gains and other taxes would apply.

203 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:40:41pm

BRB

204 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:40:54pm

re: #195 Slumbering Behemoth

There are almost no assets that are taxed.

205 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:41:13pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

I don't know, but they have said some pretty horrendous things on their blog that I won't even repeat.

206 goddamnedfrank  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:41:55pm

re: #195 Slumbering Behemoth

I dunno. Aren't assets taxed?

No. Florida use to have a tax on intangible assets, but they repealed it.

207 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:42:38pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

SFZ... wtf? I mean... not that the others deserve any ill will at all, but SFZ is the most even tempered poster here. She doesn't even bristle when I would have long ago flipped my shit. How can you hate on that?

Those people have really SERIOUS issues.

The one who started this, posted on his very own, his employment information. He is a sales associate at a big box electronics store.

If they out anyone, with the clear intent to intimidate (which is easily verified from their many, many other deranged posts) it is against any number of laws. More importantly, employers can and could be held accountable.

The deal is that if they do attempt to shake anyone here down, those employers are informed of their employee's actions. I suppose that one letter detailing it, might be ignored. Not multiple letters and complaints though.

You in?

208 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:42:46pm

re: #196 KingKenrod

I think so; the assumption being that taxes have already been extracted from the $3M in liquid assets, or will be through capital gains when the asset is disposed of.

Which shows the ridiculousness of the 'double-taxation' meme. Nobody screams about double taxation when an employer is taxed on money that they then pay their employee with, who gets taxed on that money, who then spends it on a TV, and gets taxed on that.

Taxes occur at moments of transition. There are cases to be made for actual taxes on wealth, but in general they don't work out well. The best way to do taxes on wealth is to have high estate taxes; fits the best with a bootstrappy philosophy, too.

209 MinisterO  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:43:27pm

How many median after-tax incomes does guy who makes 5 median gross incomes have left after taxes?

I won't shed a tear if a tax hike reduces it to 4.

210 HappyWarrior  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:43:27pm

re: #198 Killgore Trout

Interesting.


Yeah, it's funny that we associate paleoconservatism with religious based social conservatism but William Howard Taft and his son weren't that religious at all. Believe I read on wikipedia one day that Robert Taft was a wet during prohibition which is one of the few nice things I will say about Mr. Republican.

211 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:43:43pm

re: #201 Big Steve

re: #202 Gus 802

re: #204 Obdicut

Okay. As I've said before, I am woefully ignorant when it comes to economics/taxes/etc.. Can anyone recommend an non-politicized "Economics For Dummies" book that might educate me?

212 sliv_the_eli  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:43:49pm

re: #133 Fozzie Bear

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

Anybody still question who Helen Thomas and her ilk are really referring to when they claim they are only anti-Zionist?

213 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:44:12pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

And of course we have their site shut down as well by writing to their service provider.

214 dmon  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:44:21pm

I personally am not asking for much.... just an economic system where a person can do the right things, hold a steady job, not purchase stupid crap, and thru his wages rising faster than inflation be a little better off this year than last year........ What we have now is one party of our government enacting policies that keep the wages of 90% of the citizens either stagnant or losing ground. According to the GOP a perfect world would be when everyone below the top 95% earn minimum wages. Then this country will really take off and we will all be prosperous....oh....BTW once they get us all down to minimum wage dont even think of asking them to raise that!!!!!!.

215 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:44:46pm

re: #197 Fozzie Bear

SFZ... wtf? I mean... not that the others deserve any ill will at all, but SFZ is the most even tempered poster here. She doesn't even bristle when I would have long ago flipped my shit. How can you hate on that?

Those people have really SERIOUS issues.

You see, she has the word zionist in her name, but she doesn't agree with them, so she is obviously a dangerously deranged individual.

I have the word kafir in my user name, but don't routinely call for the mass execution or expulsion of all muslims, so this makes me a turncoat traitor in their book.

Its a sticky wicket.

216 elizajane  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:46:07pm

What's rich?

My family (2 adults w/ 3 children) must make about as much money as Big Steve does--a bit over $250K. I think we are rich. We clearly have more materially than we need. More importantly, our kids have opportunities that poor kids don't. We can afford tutoring and foreign travel and the best of everything from calculators to nutritious fresh food. They have SUCH a leg up over poor kids. Too much.

I think I see this more than some people of our income bracket because we've had a lot to do with much less wealthy children and have seen the difference. My kids were in really poor orphanages for half their lives. Even the kids who were adopted went mostly to families less well off than me. I could afford to basically repair all the damage done by 6 years of poverty (and it was not cheap!). Those other kids were great children, but they will never have the opportunities and advantages my kids do; a lot of them might never be able to graduate from high school because neglect and poverty do terrible things to your brain and your ability to cope in the world. I've seen it.

The income disparity even within our own country (never mind the rest of the world) angers me; but what makes me more angry is the stupidity and greed of people (not you, Steve) who absolutely cannot see this. The line from the Right that makes me just lose my nut is "But 46% of people in America don't pay any tax at all!" Guess what, idiots? 46% of Americans have practically NO MONEY. To suggest that they should chip in to the same degree as I should is just repulsive.

217 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:46:09pm

re: #200 iossarian

Exactly. When you see how incredibly wealthy some people are, even rich people feel poor in comparison.

Poor: Crash the car, have to walk to work for a year until you can save up enough for a deposit on a new car, because insurance lapsed because you just didn't have enough that month.
Middle Class: Crash the car, file insurance claim, get a new car. Have to pay higher premiums, and can't afford to buy a new TV as a result. Sucks a little.
Rich: Crash the car, file insurance claim, get a new car. Rent a beamer while the claim is processing. Minor inconvenience.
Wealthy: You don't drive a car, you contract with a limo service. They dare not crash, because they know you will sue them into oblivion, because you can afford the fees and they can't. If they do crash, you miss 1 hour of work, and act like your life is ruined for a week.

218 sliv_the_eli  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:47:05pm

re: #143 lostlakehiker

She hasn't changed her opinions. She's just letting down the mask.

And how many of her colleagues in the Washington press corps have long known what was behind the mask, but said nothing and even treated her as a respected elder of the media? And yet they want the people to trust that they only care to shine light into the dark corners and to speak truth to power.

219 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:47:09pm

re: #215 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I simply stopped paying attention to them after they fantasized about how great life would be under Putin, and talked about how great it was when the Spanish massacred the Muslims (and Jews, but, of course, they didn't bother dealing with that.)

Not really necessary to think twice about people who celebrate genocide and think an ex-KGB mafia dude makes a good world leader.

220 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:47:59pm

re: #211 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #202 Gus 802

re: #204 Obdicut

Okay. As I've said before, I am woefully ignorant when it comes to economics/taxes/etc.. Can anyone recommend an non-politicized "Economics For Dummies" book that might educate me?

Image: 570206.jpg

//

221 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:48:00pm

re: #207 LudwigVanQuixote

He is a sales associate at a big box electronics store.


Wow...I'll bet he has a name badge and everything.


The deal is that if they do attempt to shake anyone here down, those employers are informed of their employee's actions. I suppose that one letter detailing it, might be ignored. Not multiple letters and complaints though.


I don't think anyone is worth that kind of effort, myself. Getting some asshole fired from Circuit City or Best Buy isn't going to destroy him...he'll be stacking bags of steer manure a week later at Lowe's and his life will be unchanged.

Far better to dismiss him in and let him know just how irrelevant he is by ignoring him.

222 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:48:31pm

re: #207 LudwigVanQuixote

I would help any way I could if it came to such things, but nobody knows who I am in reality except Charles. I'm safe. Paranoia has its benefits, lol.

223 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:49:08pm

re: #219 Obdicut

I simply stopped paying attention to them after they fantasized about how great life would be under Putin, and talked about how great it was when the Spanish massacred the Muslims (and Jews, but, of course, they didn't bother dealing with that.)

Not really necessary to think twice about people who celebrate genocide and think an ex-KGB mafia dude makes a good world leader.

People come, people go. I wouldn't think twice about them except they keep popping back in to scream that Daddy doesn't love them anymore.

224 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:49:27pm

re: #220 Gus 802

Hahaha! It does exist. Would you recommend it, though?

225 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:50:09pm

re: #211 Slumbering Behemoth

Hrm. That's a very good question.

I point people to this for a history of taxation in this country, but it's a little light.

[Link: www.ustreas.gov...]

226 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:50:21pm

re: #224 Slumbering Behemoth

Hahaha! It does exist. Would you recommend it, though?

I have no idea. I've never heard many complaints about the "For Dummies" series of books.

227 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:50:49pm
228 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:51:18pm

re: #222 Fozzie Bear

I would help any way I could if it came to such things, but nobody knows who I am in reality except Charles. I'm safe. Paranoia has its benefits, lol.

They have no clue who I am either. Unfortunately for some other lizards, they had e-friendships with some of those who are now stalking them.

There are exactly two people here who have enough information to track me down in real life. Ricky is very keen to find out who I am.

229 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:51:28pm

re: #222 Fozzie Bear

I would help any way I could if it came to such things, but nobody knows who I am in reality except Charles. I'm safe. Paranoia has its benefits, lol.

You're only as safe as this site is secure...or any other site for that matter. My rule for internetting is simple: Don't do anything I wouldn't do publicly in real life or would want my family or employer to know about.

230 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:53:44pm

re: #229 darthstar

You're only as safe as this site is secure...or any other site for that matter. My rule for internetting is simple: Don't do anything I wouldn't do publicly in real life or would want my family or employer to know about.

My employer is more flamingly liberal than I am, and all Charles has is an email address. I'm not all that worried. There's nothing I have said here that would get me in any trouble with anyone.

I am, however, somewhat ticked that they would threaten others in such a way.

231 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:53:47pm

re: #229 darthstar

You're only as safe as this site is secure...or any other site for that matter. My rule for internetting is simple: Don't do anything I wouldn't do publicly in real life or would want my family or employer to know about.

Looking back, changing my email addresses a few months back keeps looking better and better.

232 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:53:58pm

re: #222 Fozzie Bear

I would help any way I could if it came to such things, but nobody knows who I am in reality except Charles. I'm safe. Paranoia has its benefits, lol.

It has come to such things. If they do something illegal, I will send you a template mail with all the links an employer would need.

Of course, if they were to just delete their threats and grow up, I would be satisfied with that.

233 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:55:17pm

re: #224 Slumbering Behemoth

I really liked this book, and it provides a pretty good background on the tax system:


Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class

234 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:55:26pm

re: #232 LudwigVanQuixote

It has come to such things. If they do something illegal, I will send you a template mail with all the links an employer would need.

Of course, if they were to just delete their threats and grow up, I would be satisfied with that.

ARE YOU THREATENING THEM?
/

235 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:55:30pm

re: #221 darthstar

Wow...I'll bet he has a name badge and everything.


I don't think anyone is worth that kind of effort, myself. Getting some asshole fired from Circuit City or Best Buy isn't going to destroy him...he'll be stacking bags of steer manure a week later at Lowe's and his life will be unchanged.

Far better to dismiss him in and let him know just how irrelevant he is by ignoring him.

On the contrary, punching a bully in the nose makes him stop.

236 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:56:45pm

re: #234 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

ARE YOU THREATENING THEM?
/


[Video]

No threat at all. I am promising that there are consequences for their actions.

237 Slumbering Behemoth Stinks  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:57:48pm

re: #233 Obdicut

Now that one sounds politicized. Thanks though. I think I'll start with the "Dummies" thing first.

Anyway, got to get some things done. Laters all.

238 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:57:58pm

re: #236 LudwigVanQuixote

No threat at all. I am promising that there are consequences for their actions.

I was using an artist's rendering of their probable reaction.

239 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:59:48pm

re: #237 Slumbering Behemoth

It's definitely politicized. I happen to think it's quite on the money.

240 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:00:37pm
241 Tigger2  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:01:03pm

re: #133 Fozzie Bear

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

Can they get an adjoining room for McCain.

242 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:01:07pm

re: #238 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

I was using an artist's rendering of their probable reaction.

They'll also need a bag of this...

Image: CHEETOS_Puffs.gif

243 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:03:36pm

re: #242 Gus 802

not to go OT too much but Target is selling a huge thing of some off brand of cheese balls (like what planters used to have) it's 4.99 and they are awesome.

244 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:04:14pm

re: #243 Dreggas

not to go OT too much but Target is selling a huge thing of some off brand of cheese balls (like what planters used to have) it's 4.99 and they are awesome.

Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Burp!

/

245 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:04:44pm

re: #242 Gus 802

They'll also need a bag of this...

246 Spocomptonite  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:05:08pm

re: #159 Big Steve

To Fozzie Bear and Obdicut...points well taken. Last year I paid $52,000 in income taxes and when I whined about it to my CPA she told me to quit crying because the cause of my taxes was my high income and would I rather make less and pay less taxes!

I like your CPA... btw, you probably paid more in taxes than she makes in a year. Just for further perspective.

247 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:05:50pm

My boss, though he can barely afford to pay me right now, just walked in and gave me a bag containing a rather enormous frozen turkey. Apparently one of the clients who has a turkey farm gave it to him. There was 200 dollars cash in the bag, with a note saying: "This turkey and this money are not in any way counted against what we owe you. This is for sticking with us for the months we couldn't afford to pay you. When we close this case, a check for some of what we owe you will be forthcoming."

As much as work has sucked lately, my boss is a ridiculously good guy. He called my wife out of the blue a few days ago just to tell her that none of what is happening at work is in any way my fault, and to apologize for not paying me for so long. He heard me and her arguing about money a week ago on the phone, and I guess felt the need to try to help.

I also just learned that he has sold his boat, his second car, and his vacation house in the last year to make payroll. He has also not paid himself in over a year, I have learned from accounting.

There are a lot of good people in this country, and a lot of people who come from money who would give it away to do the right thing. They could have laid me off, but they didn't. They could have cut my pay on the books, but they haven't, they have accumulated personal debt instead so they don't have to.

The world needs more people like him.

248 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:05:51pm

re: #244 Gus 802

I happen to like both, especially the new Jalapeno cheddar cheetos LOL.

249 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:05:54pm

re: #243 Dreggas

I can't trade off cigarettes for cheeseballs. Can't go there. I have a mental picture of Britney Spears with a pot belly, shuffling around in flip flops, with an orange ring around her mouth, saying, "Whazzup, ya'll?"

No cheeseballs. Not on sale, not regular price.

250 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:06:32pm

DAMMIT, MY COMMENT DONE BEEN ATE!

251 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:07:15pm

re: #216 elizajane

What's rich?

My family (2 adults w/ 3 children) must make about as much money as Big Steve does--a bit over $250K. I think we are rich. We clearly have more materially than we need. More importantly, our kids have opportunities that poor kids don't. We can afford tutoring and foreign travel and the best of everything from calculators to nutritious fresh food. They have SUCH a leg up over poor kids. Too much.

I think I see this more than some people of our income bracket because we've had a lot to do with much less wealthy children and have seen the difference. My kids were in really poor orphanages for half their lives. Even the kids who were adopted went mostly to families less well off than me. I could afford to basically repair all the damage done by 6 years of poverty (and it was not cheap!). Those other kids were great children, but they will never have the opportunities and advantages my kids do; a lot of them might never be able to graduate from high school because neglect and poverty do terrible things to your brain and your ability to cope in the world. I've seen it.

The income disparity even within our own country (never mind the rest of the world) angers me; but what makes me more angry is the stupidity and greed of people (not you, Steve) who absolutely cannot see this. The line from the Right that makes me just lose my nut is "But 46% of people in America don't pay any tax at all!" Guess what, idiots? 46% of Americans have practically NO MONEY. To suggest that they should chip in to the same degree as I should is just repulsive.

You are a good and virtuous woman on may levels. You have always had my deepest respect.

252 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:07:33pm

re: #248 Dreggas

I happen to like both, especially the new Jalapeno cheddar cheetos LOL.

I like the crunchy ones.

253 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:08:05pm

re: #247 Fozzie Bear


boss of the year material right there.

254 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:08:36pm

re: #246 Spocomptonite

I like your CPA... btw, you probably paid more in taxes than she makes in a year. Just for further perspective.

One of my former employees is now a CPA, and he was hired at $80,000 at his first job. Of course, he was one of fewer than 10 in the country to ace one of the four sections of the exam....

255 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:08:48pm

re: #253 Dreggas

boss of the year material right there.

I literally owe him my life.

256 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:09:00pm

re: #252 Gus 802

I like the crunchy ones.

Same as you like your frogs, eh?

257 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:09:10pm

re: #249 theheat

who said i traded smoking for them? (although I am planning to quit in the new year). The one problem with them is how damn addicting the cheesey poofs (call them that after watching south park).

258 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:09:21pm

re: #250 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

DAMMIT, MY COMMENT DONE BEEN ATE!

It was crunchy.

259 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:10:18pm

re: #148 Obdicut

It is a tax. That one benefits from that tax doesn't mean that it's not a tax. I do not understand why you keep trying to push this meme.

If I pay a tax of $1000, and receive a rebate of $1000 at the end of the year, is that really a tax? Hardly. I'm in pretty much the same position I would have been if there had not been any such law.

There's a world of difference between being forced to save at least something for retirement, and having the money go to benefit the general public. In the first case, money I pay in is not just gone; it's directly linked to some future benefit that goes to me.

There's a world of difference between a gasoline tax and federal income tax. Apart from the practical difficulties of putting toll booths at every intersection, what's the difference between paying for the wear and tear I myself inflict on the roads toll booth by toll booth, or gallon by gallon? Either way, I'm buying something of value, getting it, and paying for it.

Taxes that go to cover common expenses are different. They're actually taxes. Any money I contribute to that is just gone. I have no claim, now or in the future, to any benefit I'd not have got had I never earned the income and thus never incurred the tax. And thus there is a very real distinction between "taxes" which function almost exactly like market prices, and taxes which are exactly what they say they are, levies to raise sums for spending on the common good, or at any rate, spending which a majority of voters expects to serve the common good.

Now do you understand?

Proof, any? [re, tariffs?] The highest tariffs are on luxuries. Diamonds, prestige watches and Italian leather hand-made shoes, that sort of thing. You don't mean to say the poor buy mostly luxuries?

Economy cars with Japanese brand names are in many cases made in USA. Prices for Korean cars are comparable, from which I conclude that tariffs can't be high. Or do you require proof that tariffs on economy cars are low?

Housing? Not imported. Food? The U.S. hardly imports staples from abroad. Perhaps with regard to sugar you have a point. But that would be about the end of it. I'm no supporter of that tax. It's one of the few instances I can see of flagrantly regressive taxation. But it's not a big part of the monthly food budget. At any rate, it doesn't have to be. Shouldn't be.

Tobacco? We grow our own.

Clothing? Cheap but quite functional goods made in Bangladesh, China, and other poor or newly not-quite poor places flood in and are available at Walmarts etc. at low prices. That's not the hallmark of high tariffs.

Man, you just love calling taxes 'not taxes' in order to prove the poor don't pay taxes. Why is that? A 'toll on the road collected indirectly' is, indeed, a tax. You don't get to redefine a tax is just so that you can try to prove poor people don't pay any taxes.

Yes I do. You don't get to redefine taxes that aren't taxes as taxes, just so you can prove poor people do pay taxes. Taxes on tobacco and sugar, yes. Those are outright taxes. The tax on tobacco probably serves a social purpose and works to the ultimate benefit of all. The tax on sugar is regressive and I oppose it. I'll grant you both of those.

Except, of course, for a member of the working poor who doesn't receive any medical treatment and has no kids. He/she has, to some extent, free health insurance. Whether one has claims in any given year is a matter of chance. The insurance is there either way.

Because they are the main people who have income. It's pretty simple. They've got a lot more than I've got, but not enough to fund wide open spending. They already pay a lot more than I pay, and I respect that and appreciate it. [Yes, Big Steve.] I don't hate them for having more. If we have to raise taxes to cover necessary spending, then they should be a part of that, but so should I. At least to some extent.

260 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:10:44pm

re: #257 Dreggas

who said i traded smoking for them? (although I am planning to quit in the new year). The one problem with them is how damn addicting the cheesey poofs (call them that after watching south park).

No, I might consider taking up cheeseballs, since I'm quitting smoking. But no, no cheeseballs for me.

261 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:11:27pm

Speaking of burps.

Image: chart-020510-update.gif

262 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:13:38pm

re: #255 Fozzie Bear

I literally owe him my life.

For the record, Ricky Martinez writes:

.If you clowns attempt to get Chen Fire, we will out San Francisco Zionist, Killgore Trout, Alouette, Reginald Perrin, Fozziebear and Shiplord Kriel in retaliation.

To those listed here that don’t wish to be outed if Luddy carries out his threat to get Chen fired. I will make you and offer. We are down to 3 suspects of who Ludwig is. If we receive an anonymous email giving us Luddy’s identity and it matches one of our 3 suspects, we will not out any of you. Ludwig’s name, employer and address will be revealed on a 3rd party website should he carry out his threat. This will spare all of the grief of having your identity revealed and the main perpetrator will be exposed for the public to see.

If you all convince Ludwig to back off his threat to Chen, then no one will be outed.

This is our offer, either give us Luddy’s name or get him to back off.

263 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:15:20pm

re: #260 theheat
with the size of this container (it has a pound of puffed cheesey goodness in it) it really satisfies that hand to mouth fix and they are reallly good....

264 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:15:26pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

For the record, Ricky Martinez writes:

Out them for what exactly? The only reason they have to "out" anyone is to make them a target for real life harrassment, stalking and abuse.

265 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:16:03pm

re: #263 Dreggas

with the size of this container (it has a pound of puffed cheesey goodness in it) it really satisfies that hand to mouth fix and they are reallly good...

Noooo!

266 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:17:27pm

Hahahahaha oh noes they will "out" me!

What exactly are they hoping this will accomplish? It's not like anyone will care that I use a blog.

Losers.

267 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:18:08pm

re: #266 Fozzie Bear

Hahahahaha oh noes they will "out" me!

What exactly are they hoping this will accomplish? It's not like anyone will care that I use a blog.

Losers.

I'd be worried if I were you.

They might let it be known you aren't really a bear.

///

268 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:18:52pm
269 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:19:23pm

re: #265 theheat

really good cheddar flavor, light and crisp, not too filling. Can be easily reached from the couch or chair....

270 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:19:26pm

re: #264 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Out them for what exactly? The only reason they have to "out" anyone is to make them a target for real life harrassment, stalking and abuse.

Their other posts and actions make it very clear that is the case.

This is why they are in clear violation of the law. Any employer would see that instantly, and that any employer would fire them instantly.

271 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:21:55pm

re: #264 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

At the risk of being stupid, have the stalkers committed any actionable offense - something legal people could get their teeth in? All I know is being stalked sucks, and if I had something concrete to give to the police or Feds, I wouldn't talk about it, I'd just do it. This cat and mouse obsessive shit is creepy. If it's creepy and illegal, then why not turn the creep responsible in?

272 Spocomptonite  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:23:44pm

re: #211 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #202 Gus 802

re: #204 Obdicut

Okay. As I've said before, I am woefully ignorant when it comes to economics/taxes/etc.. Can anyone recommend an non-politicized "Economics For Dummies" book that might educate me?

My macroeconomics 101 textbook, "Principles of Macroeconomics" by Roy Ruffin and Paul Gregory, I found to be both approachable and detailed, if a bit flawed. I was highly annoyed by its lack of math, seeming to say, "there's these awesome advanced calculations you can do with this data, but we're not going to show you what they are" while I was practically in love with calculus at the time. Plus it kind of leaves some of the unintended consequences of fiscal/monetary policy behind.
But it's a good book to start at the beginning with, so long as you understand it doesn't include everything.

273 Interesting Times  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:23:48pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

For the record, Ricky Martinez writes:
...
This is our offer, either give us Luddy’s name or get him to back off.

This reminds me of a certain something said by a certain someone who's now at the stalker blog. Now we know why he was so anxious to wheedle your real identity out of someone, despite repeated statements from Charles that you were who you said you were.

274 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:23:48pm

re: #170 Obdicut

Seriously, this point was driven home so hard for me when I applied to law school. Same thing as your wife, except LSAT instead of MCAT. And looking around at the people in law school, yeah there are very very few who came from modest backgrounds. And by modest I mean attended public schools. My joke now is growing up I went to public schools in a lower middle class part of town and this convinced me my family was upper middle class. After starting law school I realized my family is very solidly middle class. Money buys opportunities. It bought many of mine.

275 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:24:15pm

re: #267 researchok

I'd be worried if I were you.

They might let it be known you aren't really a bear.

///

Statler and Waldorf are always watching Fozzie...he should be careful.

276 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:24:36pm

re: #271 theheat

At the risk of being stupid, have the stalkers committed any actionable offense - something legal people could get their teeth in? All I know is being stalked sucks, and if I had something concrete to give to the police or Feds, I wouldn't talk about it, I'd just do it. This cat and mouse obsessive shit is creepy. If it's creepy and illegal, then why not turn the creep responsible in?

It seems to me they are trying to use blackmail threats to get information. If they don't get the personal information on the poster they want they are going to release the private information they have collected on other people. I'm pretty sure that's not legal.

277 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:24:47pm

re: #269 Dreggas

Nope, not going there. I'm picturing the flip flops, the fat gut, the orange ring around the mouth, orange handprints on the sofa, orange handprints by all the light switches. As a cheeseballer, that would be my destiny.

Can't.
Do.
It.

278 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:25:09pm

re: #273 publicityStunted

This reminds me of a certain something said by a certain someone who's now at the stalker blog. Now we know why he was so anxious to wheedle your real identity out of someone, despite repeated statements from Charles that you were who you said you were.

Indeed.

279 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:26:08pm

re: #277 theheat

come to the cheesey side...

280 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:26:31pm
281 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:28:30pm

re: #142 lostlakehiker

As indeed they do, right now.

Today, the working poor do pay into social security, but they also get benefits at the other end. So that's a wash, not really a tax. For the rich, social security is of little importance except if they hit a stretch of bad luck and become poor. If they remain rich into retirement, then some of their social security check will be taxed. For the rich, then, social security is not quite a wash, but it's close. They lose just a little.

You forgot all the other taxes the poor pay. Social Security is paid with payroll tax, and many states have sales taxes, plus 'sin' taxes. Plus things like road tolls and transit fares.

The poor may not pay as much income tax, as they don't have much income. But they pay a lot of other taxes.

282 Gus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:28:41pm

First it was France. Now China.

486.1 kilometers/hour! World's fastest train is in China

And we're still strumming our banjos in the USA.

283 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:29:13pm

re: #276 Killgore Trout

It seems to me they are trying to use blackmail threats to get information. If they don't get the personal information on the poster they want they are going to release the private information they have collected on other people. I'm pretty sure that's not legal.

Probably only illegal when that line gets crossed, and the damage is already done. Basically, the same way restraining orders don't work.

284 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:29:23pm

re: #282 Gus 802

Steam power is the way of the future!

285 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:29:26pm

re: #282 Gus 802

First it was France. Now China.

486.1 kilometers/hour! World's fastest train is in China


[Video]

And we're still strumming our banjos in the USA.

Yeah, well we have the worlds' fastest drive thrus.

So there.
/

286 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:30:03pm

re: #146 Big Steve

First a disclaimer...I do make more than $250k per year. Having said that, and fully realizing that this puts me in the top 2% of family incomes in the US...I don't feel wealthy. I do admit that I don't have to live check to check and my only vice is buying woodworking tools. But I also feel I work very hard. There are some that say I am lucky but I would like to know where they were when I was sweating my ass off learning how to integrate in spherical coordinates for heat and mass transfer classes for my engineering degree. The Bush tax cuts save me $4500 per year and I can tell you for certain I would rather have that money than give it back to the US government. So just saying, if the cut off to lose the tax cuts is $250K so be it, but I will fight you if you think that is rich.

That $4,500 is equal to about six months of my disability. My heart fair bleeds for you. ///

287 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:30:16pm

re: #279 Dreggas

come to the cheesey side...

"Neverrrr!" - Luke Skywalker

288 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:34:16pm

re: #211 Slumbering Behemoth

re: #202 Gus 802

re: #204 Obdicut

Okay. As I've said before, I am woefully ignorant when it comes to economics/taxes/etc.. Can anyone recommend an non-politicized "Economics For Dummies" book that might educate me?

I recently got Economics by Paul Krugman and Robin Wells (yes, that Krugman.) from our public library as a refresher. I found it to be very very good 101 level treatment of both macro & micro. Then all you need to read is the General Theory ;)

289 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:34:21pm

re: #159 Big Steve

To Fozzie Bear and Obdicut...points well taken. Last year I paid $52,000 in income taxes and when I whined about it to my CPA she told me to quit crying because the cause of my taxes was my high income and would I rather make less and pay less taxes!

That's five years on my disability. Oh, the horror!

290 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:36:13pm

re: #176 MinisterO

I think the point is that the lower income taxpayer gets his contribution and more back from the government in fairly direct way. The wealthy contribute more than they get back directly.

The problem with this thinking is that it doesn't account for the indirect benefits the wealthy enjoy. There's no attempt to account for the benefit a business gains from a labor pool that is relatively healthy, decently educated and economically stable, for example.

We all benefit from that, whether we earn a lot or not. The benefit isn't directly tied to income. To the extent that government spending contributes to a healthy and decently educated public, it counts as "necessary" spending. That is spending that it would be folly to forgo.

That's why we fluoridate the water, vaccinate school children, put iodine in salt and vitamin D in milk, chlorinate drinking water, and on and on. That's why we have public schools and it's a good part of the reason why we have State universities. But these aren't gifts to the rich. They're part of the "common welfare".

Unfortunately, our public education system is only barely delivering on its promised benefits. This, despite spending quite a bit. The Kansas City school system federal case demonstrated that you could spend several times as much on KC schools as on rural Missouri schools, and absent real reforms such as Rhee attempted in DC, not have much to show for it.

My brother worked for a time as a teacher in one of those rural schools. They were starved for funds. Nothing, Nothing for them. No new books, no supplies, and minimum-wage salaries for the teachers after you factored in
the hours they had to put in. Meanwhile, in 1980's dollars, ten thousand a year per student, for KCMO schools.

The result of all that spending was that a lot of money was spent. No educational impact could be discerned.

291 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:37:05pm

re: #259 lostlakehiker

If I pay a tax of $1000, and receive a rebate of $1000 at the end of the year, is that really a tax? Hardly. I'm in pretty much the same position I would have been if there had not been any such law.

Which is absolutely nothing like Social Security. Not sure why you'd pretend it was.

Apart from the practical difficulties of putting toll booths at every intersection, what's the difference between paying for the wear and tear I myself inflict on the roads toll booth by toll booth, or gallon by gallon? Either way, I'm buying something of value, getting it, and paying for it.

Because a toll gate would be a tax on mileage and use, and a gasoline tax is a tax on gasoline. Not sure why this escapes you, either.

The highest tariffs are on luxuries. Diamonds, prestige watches and Italian leather hand-made shoes, that sort of thing. You don't mean to say the poor buy mostly luxuries?

You really call that proof? Yes, there are high tariffs on luxury stuff. However, what you said was:

Tariffs are quite low on most of what they'd by

Of course, this is subjective, but do you consider 20% tariffs to be low? What about 350% tariffs?

[Link: www.businessinsider.com...]

Food? The U.S. hardly imports staples from abroad. Perhaps with regard to sugar you have a point

The US imports tons of food from abroad. What on earth are you talking about?

[Link: www.ers.usda.gov...]

We export a lot more than we import. However, we import 8.7 billion dollars worth of grain alone per year. How is that 'hardly'?


Tobacco? We grow our own.

30% of tobacco used in US cigarettes is imported.

[Link: findarticles.com...]

This doesn't count cigarettes and cigars imported whole.


Clothing? Cheap but quite functional goods made in Bangladesh, China, and other poor or newly not-quite poor places flood in and are available at Walmarts etc. at low prices. That's not the hallmark of high tariffs.

Tarrifs on clothing range from 20-40%.

e/she has, to some extent, free health insurance. Whether one has claims in any given year is a matter of chance. The insurance is there either way.

He is receiving no benefit if he doesn't use it. For fuck's sake.

Can you acknowledge that much of what you said was benefits for the working poor are not, and are benefits for the children of the poor?

I don't hate them for having more.

Why are you babbling about hating them for having more? Nobody here is talking about hatred.

292 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:37:39pm

re: #287 theheat

"Neverrr!" - Luke Skywalker

Luke was a whiny little putz.

293 reine.de.tout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:39:19pm

Hi folks.
My twitter is ReineDeTout

Any other twitterer using any combination of my nic/name or either one alone, isn't me.

Thank you.

294 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:40:49pm

re: #285 researchok

Yeah, well we have the worlds' fastest drive thrus.

So there.
/

And the result is:

Image: EuropeanVSAmerican.jpg

295 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:41:12pm

re: #292 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Luke was a whiny little putz.

Luke was a model of stoicism compared to his father. Why a woman like Padme would have anything to do with Anakin makes my brain hurt...

296 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:41:47pm

re: #295 wlewisiii

Jedi mind trick.

297 wrenchwench  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:42:22pm

re: #268 Dreggas

Deputy supposedly shot at by drug cartel put on leave.

Good good good. I hope he eventually gets caught in the lie about being shot.

"I can make up a pretty good story when I choose to," Puroll tells Rubin at one point, "but I don't have to."

Mr. Credibility, right there.

298 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:42:31pm

re: #295 wlewisiii

Luke was a model of stoicism compared to his father. Why a woman like Padme would have anything to do with Anakin makes my brain hurt...

That wasn't just a lightsaber in his pocket, and he was glad to see her.

299 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:44:04pm

re: #285 researchok

Let's try that again:

[Link: www.junkmails.org...]

300 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:44:28pm

re: #293 reine.de.tout

Hi folks.
My twitter is ReineDeTout

Any other twitterer using any combination of my nic/name or either one alone, isn't me.

Thank you.

You're being followed by darthstar99...

301 Brother Holy Cruise Missile of Mild Acceptance  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:44:39pm

re: #298 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

and that Cantina

302 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:44:49pm

re: #296 Obdicut

Jedi mind trick.

Beat me to it///

You do think I'm sexy (waves hand).

303 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:47:29pm

re: #302 LudwigVanQuixote

Beat me to it///

You do think I'm sexy (waves hand).

But never for anything useful.

"It will cost you 15,000 to get to Alderan"
"It will be fine if we pay you when we arrive."
"It will be fine if you pay us when we arrive."

304 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:47:40pm

re: #293 reine.de.tout

Hi folks.
My twitter is ReineDeTout

Any other twitterer using any combination of my nic/name or either one alone, isn't me.

Thank you.

I have never and will never use twitter, so anyone claiming to be LGF's fozzie bear isn't me. Just for the record. I have no idea if anyone has done this, I just want that on record.

305 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:48:06pm

re: #262 LudwigVanQuixote

For the record, Ricky Martinez writes:

"Out"? "Out"?!

This is not the right word. None of the named targets have done anything or said anything here to be ashamed of.

What they mean, the only thing they can mean, is that they'll publicize the names and addresses so as to be able to target their real life homes and families.

306 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:49:19pm

re: #305 lostlakehiker

"Out"? "Out"?!

This is not the right word. None of the named targets have done anything or said anything here to be ashamed of.

What they mean, the only thing they can mean, is that they'll publicize the names and addresses so as to be able to target their real life homes and families.

Of course. This is why it is against the law and subject to termination.

Wanna join the list of those writing to employers?

307 darthstar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:49:24pm

re: #304 Fozzie Bear

I have never and will never use twitter, so anyone claiming to be LGF's fozzie bear isn't me. Just for the record. I have no idea if anyone has done this, I just want that on record.

I joined Twitter during the health care debate so I could watch some of the rantings fly by. I check it about once every three or four months...and usually without logging in. It just doesn't make enough sense to me to use it.

308 uncah91  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:50:10pm

250K a year doesn't make you rich, if by rich one means the absence of worry about money. Households that make 250K a year definitely still worry about money.

But why is this? Because so many of their costs (housing, car payments, private school tuition, maid service, vacation costs, savings for retirement, meal costs, gifts for the kids etc.) are so much higher.

Why? Because they making choices about how they live.

It's kind like Patrick Ewing's quote: "We make a lot of money, but we slaso spend a lot of money."

For reference, my wife and combine to make slightly south of 200K.

309 Killgore Trout  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:51:16pm

re: #305 lostlakehiker

"Out"? "Out"?!

This is not the right word. None of the named targets have done anything or said anything here to be ashamed of.

What they mean, the only thing they can mean, is that they'll publicize the names and addresses so as to be able to target their real life homes and families.

What makes it even worse is that as far as I can tell none of the folks they are threatening have anything to do with whatever they're pissed about.

310 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:52:39pm

re: #305 lostlakehiker

"Out"? "Out"?!

This is not the right word. None of the named targets have done anything or said anything here to be ashamed of.

What they mean, the only thing they can mean, is that they'll publicize the names and addresses so as to be able to target their real life homes and families.

I am so many degrees separated from my IRL identity on this site, there just isn't any way to track me down here. Yet, they threaten to out me. The whole thing is absurd.

Are they mental?

Stalkers, you are apparently reading this so just understand:
1. I don't care who you are.
2. I don't care what you think of me.
3. I would be slightly irritated if my identity were exposed, but it wouldn't make any difference, really.
4. Um... why? What's the point?

311 Kragar  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:52:44pm

re: #309 Killgore Trout

What makes it even worse is that as far as I can tell none of the folks they are threatening have anything to do with whatever they're pissed about.

Soft targets.

312 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:53:14pm

re: #291 Obdicut

Which is absolutely nothing like Social Security. Not sure why you'd pretend it was.

Because a toll gate would be a tax on mileage and use, and a gasoline tax is a tax on gasoline. Not sure why this escapes you, either.

You really call that proof? Yes, there are high tariffs on luxury stuff. However, what you said was:

Of course, this is subjective, but do you consider 20% tariffs to be low? What about 350% tariffs?

[Link: www.businessinsider.com...]

The US imports tons of food from abroad. What on earth are you talking about?

[Link: www.ers.usda.gov...]

We export a lot more than we import. However, we import 8.7 billion dollars worth of grain alone per year. How is that 'hardly'?

30% of tobacco used in US cigarettes is imported.

[Link: findarticles.com...]

This doesn't count cigarettes and cigars imported whole.

Tarrifs on clothing range from 20-40%.

He is receiving no benefit if he doesn't use it. For fuck's sake.

Can you acknowledge that much of what you said was benefits for the working poor are not, and are benefits for the children of the poor?

Why are you babbling about hating them for having more? Nobody here is talking about hatred.

Wool clothes, 25%. Japanese leather 40%, oh yeah, the poor use a lot of that. Truffles! French Chocolate! As to tobacco, if you recall, I granted you that one.

313 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:54:25pm

re: #306 LudwigVanQuixote

At what point is it considered a crime - threatening to do, or actually doing what they threaten to do - do you know?

314 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:55:04pm

re: #308 uncah91

My stepfather jokes that no matter how much he makes he is always roughly $10,000 behind. He may make more than he did 10 years ago (still not close to $250,000) but now instead of 2 kids in public high school he has college loans that he chooses to pay off (truly wonderful man to do that for us). He would never think to bitch about the choices he spends his money on. He knows he is lucky to be able to make those choices. Most people don't get to.

315 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:55:29pm

re: #312 lostlakehiker

You don't think poor people buy wool? Or auto parts? Or clothes made from synthetic fabric?

Why not?

316 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:57:17pm

re: #312 lostlakehiker

Wool clothes, 25%. Japanese leather 40%, oh yeah, the poor use a lot of that. Truffles! French Chocolate! As to tobacco, if you recall, I granted you that one.

Actually, FWIW, Japanese and East Indian/Pakistani leather is used a lot in lower priced shoes, jackets, handbags, livestock, and pet stuff.

317 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:57:33pm

re: #315 Obdicut

You don't think poor people buy wool? Or auto parts? Or clothes made from synthetic fabric?

Why not?

news to my friend who barely eked out a living repairing cars ;-)

318 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:57:42pm

re: #316 theheat

Actually, FWIW, Japanese and East Indian/Pakistani leather is used a lot in lower priced shoes, jackets, handbags, livestock, and pet stuff.

owned

319 Wozza Matter?  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:58:06pm

re: #294 LudwigVanQuixote

And the result is:

Image: EuropeanVSAmerican.jpg

in no universe could i *like* that on facebook and not be murdered come morning.

320 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:58:10pm

re: #310 Fozzie Bear

I think it's more that in the past they've threatened actual physical harm to people. Obviously nobody's employer gives a shit if they post on LGF.

They might, of course, give a shit about the stalkers posting on a blog that calls Muslims "[bigoted word]s" and extols their genocide, of course.

321 uncah91  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:59:25pm

re: #314 sizzleRI

Exactly.

I mean, Shaq is apparently close to being broke.

No matter how much money one makes, it CAN be spent.

Bring's to mind Chris Rock's bit about the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"

322 elizajane  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:00:10pm

re: #308 uncah91

250K a year doesn't make you rich, if by rich one means the absence of worry about money. Households that make 250K a year definitely still worry about money.

But why is this? Because so many of their costs (housing, car payments, private school tuition, maid service, vacation costs, savings for retirement, meal costs, gifts for the kids etc.) are so much higher.

Why? Because they making choices about how they live.

It's kind like Patrick Ewing's quote: "We make a lot of money, but we slaso spend a lot of money."

For reference, my wife and combine to make slightly south of 200K.

Everybody worries about money. If you have too much, you're still worrying about managing it, investing it, distributing it. I used to know the 9th richest person in Britain (I think that's the number--multi-billions, anyway). Had to quit her day job to manage her money. Thus is is possible to have too much money and still be worried in some sense about it.

323 Wozza Matter?  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:01:20pm

laters.

324 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:01:24pm

Really, when talking about taxation, one of the biggest problems is children.

If parents' income level wasn't, de facto, the income level of their children, the rich-poor gap wouldn't be such a big deal. But that's not the case; a poor parent has poor children. They have fewer economic opportunities available to them. This is something most people talking about rich people deserving their wealth don't really engage with; the children of the poor have not had the opportunity to either deserve or not a certain level of material wealth. They're dependent on their parents for it.

325 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:01:31pm

re: #320 Obdicut

I think it's more that in the past they've threatened actual physical harm to people. Obviously nobody's employer gives a shit if they post on LGF.

They might, of course, give a shit about the stalkers posting on a blog that calls Muslims "[bigoted word]s" and extols their genocide, of course.

I see. I live so far out in the middle of nowhere, even if they had my address, they would get lost on the way there and get eaten by strange toothless people who play banjos.

What charmers.

326 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:01:33pm

re: #321 uncah91

Exactly.

I mean, Shaq is apparently close to being broke.

No matter how much money one makes, it CAN be spent.

Bring's to mind Chris Rock's bit about the difference between "rich" and "wealthy"

Shaq could wind up broke but he still has tons of earning potential, he's still Shaq ;-)

327 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:01:35pm

re: #306 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course. This is why it is against the law and subject to termination.

Wanna join the list of those writing to employers?

At least 5 people in the Lubbock area have the same first and last name I do. If these assholes get the wrong one, their next interview will be with the state police. If they get the right one, well, that is their problem too.

328 sizzleRI  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:02:13pm

re: #321 uncah91

I quote that bit all the time.

"Shaq is rich. The guy who signs Shaq's check? He's wealthy."

329 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:02:33pm

Ohh this is hilarious...

Arachne, who claims to be an attorney writes:

Oh, and Quack Quack, you might be interested that we have a lot more legal muscle here than at the swamp. Unless, of course, you’re going to start telling people you’ve passed the ___________ bar exam.

What? Are you as an attorney threatening to out my identity with a clear intent to intimidate?

Or are you supporting Bret's original threat to Kilgore?

It is possible an actual attorney might be stupid enough to write this crap. It would be interesting to see what an action to have you disbarred might say if you actually are an attorney.

330 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:03:05pm

re: #324 Obdicut

Really, when talking about taxation, one of the biggest problems is children.

If parents' income level wasn't, de facto, the income level of their children, the rich-poor gap wouldn't be such a big deal. But that's not the case; a poor parent has poor children. They have fewer economic opportunities available to them. This is something most people talking about rich people deserving their wealth don't really engage with; the children of the poor have not had the opportunity to either deserve or not a certain level of material wealth. They're dependent on their parents for it.

Exactly

poor parents often have to work multiple jobs, thereby depriving their kids of parenting.

331 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:03:38pm

re: #328 sizzleRI

I quote that bit all the time.

"Shaq is rich. The guy who signs Shaq's check? He's wealthy."

People who make good money versus people with empires, yeah

332 William Barnett-Lewis  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:04:24pm

re: #314 sizzleRI

My stepfather jokes that no matter how much he makes he is always roughly $10,000 behind. He may make more than he did 10 years ago (still not close to $250,000) but now instead of 2 kids in public high school he has college loans that he chooses to pay off (truly wonderful man to do that for us). He would never think to bitch about the choices he spends his money on. He knows he is lucky to be able to make those choices. Most people don't get to.

Gah, I'd so love to be only 10k behind... LOL

Ah well, the Boss has 2 clients, I keep the home and we pay the bills in order of priority (food, mortage, utilities first, child expenses next, all else (car, phone, net, etc) out of the remains). We'll get caught up just in time for the next depression :oops:

333 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:04:47pm

re: #329 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohh this is hilarious...

Arachne, who claims to be an attorney writes:

What? Are you as an attorney threatening to out my identity with a clear intent to intimidate?

Or are you supporting Bret's original threat to Kilgore?

It is possible an actual attorney might be stupid enough to write this crap. It would be interesting to see what an action to have you disbarred might say if you actually are an attorney.

That's hilarious. You can be disbarred in some places for threatening to litigate without cause. I wonder if they are aware of that.

They should consult their legal muscle again, because apparently they strained it.

334 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:04:58pm

re: #327 Shiplord Kirel

I have an incredibly common name and run my own consulting company. My clients are people who would be revolted beyond belief by the stalker blogs.

And the physical threat part is just laughable.

335 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:06:58pm

re: #334 Obdicut

I have an incredibly common name and run my own consulting company. My clients are people who would be revolted beyond belief by the stalker blogs.

And the physical threat part is just laughable.

Oh the fan club, stroking their imaginary guns, imaginary law degrees, and their very real boy racer Mercury Cougars

336 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:07:14pm

I wonder if Chenzen is fast, or if he's furious

337 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:07:40pm

re: #329 LudwigVanQuixote

It is possible an actual attorney might be stupid enough to write this crap.

Orly Taitz, anybody?

It would be interesting to see what an action to have you disbarred might say if you actually are an attorney.

It takes quite a bit to get the state bar to stand up and take notice. And the proof better be etched in stone, because they aren't particularly diligent in matters that aren't "a big fuckin' deal" as Joe Biden might say.

Where's lawhawk?

338 uncah91  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:08:56pm

later on guys.

339 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:09:33pm

re: #333 Fozzie Bear

That's hilarious. You can be disbarred in some places for threatening to litigate without cause. I wonder if they are aware of that.

They should consult their legal muscle again, because apparently they strained it.

They are safe, they went to the Orly Taitz School of Law.//

340 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:09:49pm

re: #337 theheat

Orly Taitz, anybody?

It takes quite a bit to get the state bar to stand up and take notice. And the proof better be etched in stone, because they aren't particularly diligent in matters that aren't "a big fuckin' deal" as Joe Biden might say.

Where's lawhawk?

You pretty much hit it on the head. It takes some really serious misbehavior to get disbarred in most places, and even then, it's far from a certainty. Threatening people repeatedly with frivolous litigation is one way to get disbarred in some places. That's the ironic twist.

341 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:11:13pm

re: #337 theheat

Orly Taitz, anybody?

It takes quite a bit to get the state bar to stand up and take notice. And the proof better be etched in stone, because they aren't particularly diligent in matters that aren't "a big fuckin' deal" as Joe Biden might say.

Where's lawhawk?

GMTA!

342 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:11:40pm

re: #313 theheat

At what point is it considered a crime - threatening to do, or actually doing what they threaten to do - do you know?

The crime is supplying the real world address or other information to a hostile group that makes violent threats with the intent to intimidate. There are actual web harassment laws out there.

Prima Facie Chenzen and the stalkers fit the bill of obsessed people who stalk this blog and some of its members.

Prima Facie, they make numerous threats to the posters here.

Prima Facie a blackmail post of "do this or we will out you" (to this crowd that routinely threatens violence) shows intent to intimidate.

If they do actually post those names and addresses, then they have broken the law in a way that will produce consequences. This is why I have not sent mails yet.

The two most immediate consequences are that the attempted blackmailers, Bret and Ric face some issues with their employers and that their whole stalker site is shut down for violations of TOS.

343 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:13:06pm

re: #340 Fozzie Bear

You pretty much hit it on the head. It takes some really serious misbehavior to get disbarred in most places, and even then, it's far from a certainty. Threatening people repeatedly with frivolous litigation is one way to get disbarred in some places. That's the ironic twist.

My actual legal point....

344 theheat  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:22:32pm

re: #342 LudwigVanQuixote

I wish you well, LVQ. I guess I'm being cautious when I say what seems clear to you, or me, or anyone with reasonable intelligence, isn't always clear in the eyes of the law. Unless you make the case that someone is dangerous, and document it in crayon and on video, there usually isn't a stampede if knights in shining armor, coming to rescue the defiled.

Be careful. That's all I'm saying. And don't take for granted the "legal" people that should help you will.

345 TedStriker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:24:27pm

re: #133 Fozzie Bear

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

/Picard facepalm

346 MinisterO  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:35:28pm

re: #290 lostlakehiker

We all benefit from that, whether we earn a lot or not.

Sure we do, but the benefits are not shared equally. Calculations based only on direct payments are misleading and usually dishonest in intent. That last part refers to the right-wing think-tanks that publish propaganda masquerading as tax research.

I don't really care about examples of ineffective spending on education.

347 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 2:52:35pm

re: #166 Fozzie Bear

Facts are indeed facts. But words are merely words. Politicians are good at playing word games. There is even have a name for it ("spin") and we pay for large staffs of people whose task it is to mislead us all. You just choose to buy into the version that plays your tune.

If they want more in taxes next year than this, that's a tax increase. And that's a fact. You can verify it by comparing the two years' tax returns.

I do not consider poor people and criminals mutually inclusive categories. Apparently you do.

Or was that reference merely a way of changing the subject while at the same time attacking the messenger, since you failed to address my point.

348 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:10:02pm

re: #168 LudwigVanQuixote

Because you know, having things like roads and a functioning military and science programs are just really not worth paying for... Yes robbed you are! You are being robbed!

These things are not being fully paid for now. To the extent they are paid for, the money largely comes from middle and upper income tax payers. The lower 50% (like me) don't pay any federal income taxes at all.

My whole point, which you apparently don't get, is about spin: the absurdity of the mindset which believes that one is somehow being given something by the government (a "windfall") merely because the government declines to take from him more of what is his in the first place. He isn't "getting" or being "given" anything.

349 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:11:52pm

re: #348 NamDoc67

Nor would that person be making that money if he wasn't inside a civil society provided by the system of government in which he lives.

350 blueraven  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:31:05pm

re: #348 NamDoc67

These things are not being fully paid for now. To the extent they are paid for, the money largely comes from middle and upper income tax payers. The lower 50% (like me) don't pay any federal income taxes at all.

My whole point, which you apparently don't get, is about spin: the absurdity of the mindset which believes that one is somehow being given something by the government (a "windfall") merely because the government declines to take from him more of what is his in the first place. He isn't "getting" or being "given" anything.

So you pay no income tax at all? How is that...do you have a huge mortgage, a bunch of kids or what?

Because I know a lot of lower income families and single people making around 30k a year. They do pay income tax. They pay in all year. Some of them get a refund, but not all of what they paid in for federal income tax. I hear this crap all the time; that the bottom 50% pay nothing. It is bullshit.

351 palomino  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:36:20pm

re: #348 NamDoc67

These things are not being fully paid for now. To the extent they are paid for, the money largely comes from middle and upper income tax payers. The lower 50% (like me) don't pay any federal income taxes at all.

My whole point, which you apparently don't get, is about spin: the absurdity of the mindset which believes that one is somehow being given something by the government (a "windfall") merely because the government declines to take from him more of what is his in the first place. He isn't "getting" or being "given" anything.

What we're "getting" or being "given" is more govt services and expenditures than we can pay for. We can either raise taxes, cut spending, or do what's most likely and use a combo of the two. But if spending isn't cut while tax rates stay low, then yes, we are getting something out of it: more than we're putting in.

352 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:37:38pm

re: #349 Obdicut

Nor would that person be making that money if he wasn't inside a civil society provided by the system of government in which he lives.

And so . . . what then?

To the extent that I get what you are trying to say, which is not easy, you would probably like the proposal recently floated in Great Britain, whereby every employer would be required to increase worker's witholding taxes to 100%. The government would then send the worker whatever it felt was fair, as a kind of allowance, keeping the rest for its own morally superior priorities.

That's only just, after all, because no one would have anything but for the benevolent overseers in government. Right?

This is essentially an argument against private property.

And it is not a new argument.

353 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:41:12pm

re: #352 NamDoc67

To the extent that I get what you are trying to say, which is not easy, you would probably like the proposal recently floated in Great Britain, whereby every employer would be required to increase worker's witholding taxes to 100%

No, I think that's deeply stupid.

Why do you have to create a strawman in order to attack?

354 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:49:38pm

re: #350 blueraven

Well, your anecdotal experience must be pretty persuasive if any contrary view is "bullshit." The facts seem to be that the lower 50% do pay federal income taxes - somewhat less that 3% of the total. Pardon my generalization.
LINK

355 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:50:40pm

re: #354 NamDoc67

Thank you for admitting you were wrong.

Are you against progressive taxation in general?

356 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:54:49pm

re: #351 palomino

I'm not opposed to paying taxes, tax increases or spending cuts, or any combination.

I was pointing out that calling it a "windfall" - a very large net plus - when someone's taxes are not increased is just dishonest spin.

That's it. That's my point.

357 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:56:31pm

re: #353 Obdicut

OK - I'll bite.
So what were you trying to say?

Nor would that person be making that money if he wasn't inside a civil society provided by the system of government in which he lives.

358 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:01:28pm

re: #281 Romantic Heretic

You forgot all the other taxes the poor pay. Social Security is paid with payroll tax, and many states have sales taxes, plus 'sin' taxes. Plus things like road tolls and transit fares.

The poor may not pay as much income tax, as they don't have much income. But they pay a lot of other taxes.

I never said the poor don't pay state taxes. They do. Quite a bit. And that's not in the fee for service category, either. State sales taxes are sunk taxes, real taxes. If you pay them, you aren't in line for some later benefit you'd otherwise not get. You don't get any immediate benefit like better roads, either, apart from how state gasoline taxes give you the use of a road.

Road tolls and transit fares aren't really taxes. You'd pay the same road toll if a private company built the turnpike. You'd pay the same transit fares if a private company operated the bus system or whatever.

They're just a fee for service. Many of those prices are subsidized, because the person riding the bus is doing everybody else a favor by not congesting the roads.

The one non-tax "tax" that amounts to the worst injustice is a "sin" tax of sorts...it's state lotteries.

State lotteries are to a small extent an entertainment, and when you buy a lottery ticket, you're buying a bit of a thrill. Fair enough. But to a much greater extent, state lotteries are a fraud upon the poor and the unsophisticated. To whatever extent people think they have a decent chance of winning, those lotteries are a fraud. The poor don't even have an average chance of winning. They're not tapped in to strategy boards where you can check whether some of the winning tickets have been cashed in already; they tend to play numbers that have lots of 7's in them or whatever, so when they do win they're splitting a pot, and so on.

But even if they got cut an equal break so that each ticket had the exact same expected value as every other, the expected value of a 5 dollar ticket is only something like 3 dollars after taxes.

The poor, if they do win, will be "rich" for that year, and they'll be taxed that way. And then the vultures swoop in for the kill. Relatively few lottery winners are materially better off than if they'd never won, ten years down the road.

So you're all but certain to lose, and if you win, you lose anyhow. And states figure that's a fair way to raise money???

These kinds of lotteries are just wrong.

359 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:10:22pm

re: #357 NamDoc67

It's rather obvious. Saying that the money is 'his' in the first place is predicated on a society where ownership exists and is safeguarded by laws, upheld by a government. If he doesn't support that government through taxation, the government will cease to function, and what's his will not be his much longer.

360 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:10:29pm

re: #354 NamDoc67

Well, your anecdotal experience must be pretty persuasive if any contrary view is "bullshit." The facts seem to be that the lower 50% do pay federal income taxes - somewhat less that 3% of the total. Pardon my generalization.
LINK

That's because they make so little.

361 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:11:40pm

re: #358 lostlakehiker

Road tolls and transit fares aren't really taxes. You'd pay the same road toll if a private company built the turnpike. You'd pay the same transit fares if a private company operated the bus system or whatever.

This is not true. This does not take into account relative vehicle efficiency, that many people don't drive on the turnpike, etc. etc. Why do you continue to repeat it?

Can you explain, yet, why you think the poor don't buy wool clothing?

362 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:19:26pm

re: #350 blueraven

So you pay no income tax at all? How is that...do you have a huge mortgage, a bunch of kids or what?

Because I know a lot of lower income families and single people making around 30k a year. They do pay income tax. They pay in all year. Some of them get a refund, but not all of what they paid in for federal income tax. I hear this crap all the time; that the bottom 50% pay nothing. It is bullshit.

Simple exercise. Look up IRS 1040 for 2010. Assume a 30K salary, married with two kids. Right down the middle. Assume 4K is off the table because it goes to 401K or health care employee contributions or tax deductible day care or some combination of those. That leaves 26K taxable, reportable income.

Now look up deductions: 11400 for married filing jointly. 3650 each for four individual exemptions. Total, 26000. There's nothing left to tax.

A single person making 30K a year has a lot more money for him/herself than a breadwinner pulling the wagon for a family. The two cases are entirely different and there is no good reason why that single person shouldn't pay some sort of federal income tax.

But let's take a look at how much, and then see how much it would be if they made 300K.

Now, the single person gets maybe 10K off the table, pays at worst 15% on 20K. That's about 3000. The 300K person pays maybe 28% on the whole 300K; it's probably more but whatevah...

That's 84000. He's making ten times as much and paying 28 times as much. Maybe it should be yet more. Probably it IS yet more. Should he pay 40%? 50%? 70%? 90%? At that point, he doesn't have any more than the guy making 30K. And he's probably working longer hours.

Somewhere there is a limit to the possibilities for taxing the "rich" and getting additional revenue from it, year in, year out.

363 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:22:12pm

My last words on this subject.

I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.

Oliver Wendell Holmes

364 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:26:57pm

re: #361 Obdicut

This is not true. This does not take into account relative vehicle efficiency, that many people don't drive on the turnpike, etc. etc. Why do you continue to repeat it?

Can you explain, yet, why you think the poor don't buy wool clothing?

Because it's more expensive than synthetic. That's why I don't buy it.
Anyhow, 25% tariff on imported wool is neither exorbitant, nor likely to fall heavily on the poor. We're talking Norwegian or Icelandic sweaters and stuff. Luxury goods, in other words. Or near-luxury goods.


As to the other, it just flat IS true that gasoline taxes are a rough and ready proxy for the wear and tear and congestion that drivers cost the public. We could probably improve on gas taxes. Now that we have GPS systems and all that, we could have a direct tax on driving on congested roads. I'm not saying that the gasoline tax is a perfect proxy for fair pricing of services rendered. But it's a decent rough and ready proxy. Up to now, the administrative costs of a better proxy have been prohibitive.

As to "why I repeat" this stuff, it's because from where I sit, I'm right and you're wrong. Your objections seem contrived and strained to me. My basic points seem robust and solidly grounded. I repeat these points because I think I'm right, and I think I'm giving good reasons.

365 elizajane  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:27:44pm

re: #356 NamDoc67

I'm not opposed to paying taxes, tax increases or spending cuts, or any combination.

I was pointing out that calling it a "windfall" - a very large net plus - when someone's taxes are not increased is just dishonest spin.

That's it. That's my point.

That's a misrepresentation. In theory at least, the taxes were always due to expire, so the tax everybody ought to have been expecting for the next fiscal year would be the pre-Bush level. That has, again in theory, always been what taxes would be, as one plans ahead for savings, spending, etc.

To now call implementing that original plan a "tax increase" (rather than, say, the scheduled resumption of normal taxes as planned by Bush and a Republican congress) is the dishonest spin. IMHO.

366 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:28:40pm

re: #362 lostlakehiker

Now, the single person gets maybe 10K off the table, pays at worst 15% on 20K. That's about 3000. The 300K person pays maybe 28% on the whole 300K; it's probably more but whatevah...

This is incorrect. The person who makes 300k only pays 28% on that portion of his income which falls in the 28% bracket.

367 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:31:49pm
368 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:49:04pm

re: #364 lostlakehiker

Because it's more expensive than synthetic.

The tarrif on synthetic goods is even higher. As I already showed. Did you miss that?

Now, the single person gets maybe 10K off the table, pays at worst 15% on 20K. That's about 3000. The 300K person pays maybe 28% on the whole 300K; it's probably more but whatevah...

About 27% without any other deductions other than head of household. But you never actually cared about being accurate.

Anyhow, 25% tariff on imported wool is neither exorbitant, nor likely to fall heavily on the poor. We're talking Norwegian or Icelandic sweaters and stuff. Luxury goods, in other words. Or near-luxury goods.

What kind of 1800s mentality towards imports do you have?

As to the other, it just flat IS true that gasoline taxes are a rough and ready proxy for the wear and tear and congestion that drivers cost the public.

Thank you for admitting that it was wrong to say that they were the equivalent of a toll.


As to "why I repeat" this stuff, it's because from where I sit, I'm right and you're wrong. Your objections seem contrived and strained to me. My basic points seem robust and solidly grounded. I repeat these points because I think I'm right, and I think I'm giving good reasons.

You know, I believe you. It's really fucking sad. You don't mind that you say things that are immediately demonstrably untrue all the time. You think that your points are 'fundamentally sound', even though your facts turn out to be wrong constantly-- like claiming the US doesn't import a lot of staples, like saying 'we grow our own' tobacco, ignoring that we import 30% of what we use to make cigarettes here. You just don't care, because you're so convinced that your points are solidly grounded.

It's mind-boggling.

369 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:49:33pm

re: #366 Fozzie Bear

I think he was actually attempting to calculate the effective tax rate on the 300,000, and he got close.

370 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:55:27pm

re: #362 lostlakehiker

Why on earth, by the way, do you think that someone making 300,000 a year is probably working longer hours than someone making 30,000 a year?

Do you have anything to actually back this up, or is this just one of your many completely ungrounded assumptions that you need to rely on for your logic to have any chance of being convincing?

371 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 5:43:16pm

re: #365 elizajane

That's a misrepresentation. In theory at least, the taxes were always due to expire, so the tax everybody ought to have been expecting for the next fiscal year would be the pre-Bush level. That has, again in theory, always been what taxes would be, as one plans ahead for savings, spending, etc.

To now call implementing that original plan a "tax increase" (rather than, say, the scheduled resumption of normal taxes as planned by Bush and a Republican congress) is the dishonest spin. IMHO.

This sounds like something you'd hear in an accounting class.

Maybe I'm just too simple a guy, but as far as I know, as I said above:

If they want more in taxes next year than this, that's a tax increase. And that's a fact. You can verify it by comparing the two years' tax returns.

How politicians condition you to think about what they are doing to you is a fascinating thing to see in action.

372 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 5:49:18pm

re: #371 NamDoc67

Any response to my 359?

373 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 5:56:56pm

re: #371 NamDoc67

This sounds like something you'd hear in an accounting class.

Maybe I'm just too simple a guy, but as far as I know, as I said above:

How politicians condition you to think about what they are doing to you is a fascinating thing to see in action.

I bolded the extremely obvious anti-intellectualism in your post. Ponder for a minute: why is it that something learned academically is invalid to you?

374 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 6:01:59pm

Relevant:

The Reagan Years

Read that. All of it. If you are still a supply-sider after that, there's little hope for you.

375 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:22:39pm

re: #373 Fozzie Bear

I bolded the extremely obvious anti-intellectualism in your post. Ponder for a minute: why is it that something learned academically is invalid to you?

Ponder for a second: why is it you not only ingnored the substance of my comment, but editied it out altogether:

If they want more in taxes next year than this, that's a tax increase. And that's a fact. You can verify it by comparing the two years' tax returns.

. . . all in an effort to change the subject to an irrelevant ad hominem based on an assumption of your own creation?

376 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:23:15pm

re: #375 NamDoc67

That wasn't an ad hominem attack.

377 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:32:48pm

re: #372 Obdicut

Any response to my 359?

Yes.
Who's talking about not paying taxes?

378 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:36:28pm

re: #376 Obdicut

That wasn't an ad hominem attack.

If you say so . . .
I will have to refresh my reading skills and my understanding of rhetoric, starting back with Cicero again.

379 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:36:45pm

re: #377 NamDoc67

You're missing the point by a broad mile. You said this:

My whole point, which you apparently don't get, is about spin: the absurdity of the mindset which believes that one is somehow being given something by the government (a "windfall") merely because the government declines to take from him more of what is his in the first place. He isn't "getting" or being "given" anything.

The relationship between citizen and government is mutual. Both give to each other, or neither do. But it is fallacious to say that the property that a person acquired while under the protection of the government, in the society of laws safeguarded by that government, rights guaranteed by that government, solely belongs to him alone and he owes no duty of it to the government that he has a symbiotic relationship with.

Do you understand?

380 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:38:13pm

re: #378 NamDoc67

An ad hominem attack is a personal attack unrelated to the subject, and the assertion that, therefore, the arguments of that person can be ignored, due to that negative quality.

Noting that your argument is anti-intellectual isn't an ad-hominem attack, it is an actual response to your argument, not your personality.

Do you understand?

381 Fozzie Bear  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:36:30pm

I'm just a simple guy, but I think there's a difference between ad hominem and pointing out that you are making an appeal to "common sense" in your semantic argument. That doesn't really work, because semantic arguments are all about definitions. Definitions require specificity, not instincts.

(the bolded portion represents mockery and satire, not ad hominem. just so we have that covered.)

382 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:41:48pm

re: #379 Obdicut

You're missing the point by a broad mile. You said this:


The relationship between citizen and government is mutual. Both give to each other, or neither do. But it is fallacious to say that the property that a person acquired while under the protection of the government, in the society of laws safeguarded by that government, rights guaranteed by that government, solely belongs to him alone and he owes no duty of it to the government that he has a symbiotic relationship with.

Do you understand?

Who ever said that the citizen owes "no duty" to the government?

Unfortunately you are talking about a form of government that does not exist in the United States (yet). A citizen's right to personal property is inalienable, not in the gift of the government, which IS the people (supposedly), not the caretaker of the people.

In any event, I am not arguing about any form of government or any citizen's rights or obligations. This is you invention, superimposed onto my point.

My original and only point was a semantic and an arithmetic one.

Let me put it this way;
I have ten dollars in my pocket. You come to me and say, in a few minutes, you will require one dollar from me. The few minutes go by, and you return to say you have changed your mind and no longer require the one dollar. You then go to all your friends, and declare that you have given me the gift of one dollar - a veritable windfall!

This would be an absurd statement on your part.

This is how I read the headline to this post.

Beyond this, I am not interested in feeding further whatever your problem may be.

383 Dancing along the light of day  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:47:38pm

If the average American household income is $43,362 how can the politicians justify extending tax breaks above & beyond $250,000? I must have missed that.

384 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:48:11pm

re: #382 NamDoc67

You agree with your landlord that you will pay $100 for rent next month. He comes to you and tells you that, after all, he won't charge you $100, but $90.

$10 of windfall.

385 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:50:26pm

re: #112 Fozzie Bear

As everybody knows, openly gay people carrying guns will savage our market economy. Weren't you paying attention in your heteroeconomics class?

For some reason, I'm remembering Patrick Stewart in his Pink Panthers get-up in 'Jeffrey', although I'm sure the only savagery he performed on the market economy was buying fabulous shoes.

386 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:54:39pm

re: #133 Fozzie Bear

It's time for someone to put Helen Thomas in a nursing home. She's gone and lost it completely.

"Congress, the White House and Hollywood, Wall Street are owned by the Zionists," Thomas said during her remarks at an Arab-American workshop, according to The Detroit News. "No question."

*facepalm*

My anti-Israel crazies on Facebook dismiss nearly all media sources because they're all owned by Zionists.

Ha'aretz is an exception, for some reason.

387 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:54:52pm

Now I've got. If I had been smart enough to see it was just mockery, I never would have thought it was personal.

Of course, having deleted my actual point, you might have confused me by what you did address.

God forefend common sense having a seat here.

388 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:55:04pm

re: #136 Fozzie Bear

THIS tank.

That is a fabulous tank.

389 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 8:58:14pm

re: #147 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Sarah Palin is wrong about John F. Kennedy, religion and politicsBy Kathleen Kennedy Townsend

I'd have to see what she actually wrote, but I suspect that Palin simply has no clue how much Kennedy's Catholicism was an issue. I suspect that she thinks that he 'separated' the two to appeal more to Godless secular liberals, rather than red-blooded Protestants like herself--you know, the same people who today make little comments about Mormons when no one's looking real hard.

390 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 9:10:30pm

Sorry,

But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't, didn't already have . . .

My wealth didn't increase by any measure, but my freedom in how to use part of it was expanded.

391 NamDoc67  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 9:12:20pm

Sorry - forgot the reference:

re: #384 Obdicut

You agree with your landlord that you will pay $100 for rent next month. He comes to you and tells you that, after all, he won't charge you $100, but $90.

$10 of windfall.

Sorry,

But Oz never did give nothing to the Tin Man that he didn't, didn't already have . . .

My wealth didn't increase by any measure, but my freedom in how to use part of it was expanded.

392 Obdicut  Sat, Dec 4, 2010 3:02:43am

re: #391 NamDoc67

Only if you believe that debts aren't real, and that you don't really owe money you owe.

393 MinisterO  Sat, Dec 4, 2010 8:55:48am

re: #392 Obdicut

Only if you believe that debts aren't real, and that you don't really owe money you owe.

That appears to be the case with this one. I would recommend against engaging anyone in whose reality a sign change is not a symmetry.

394 NamDoc67  Sat, Dec 4, 2010 2:51:35pm

re: #392 Obdicut

Only if you believe that debts aren't real, and that you don't really owe money you owe.

Your logic is faulty, and so is your analogy, which is rigged to support it.

The correct anology to the current "tax cut" situation would be:
In 2003, your landlord reduces your rent from $100 to $90, with the stipulation that after 7 years, it will revert to $100. Before the end of the 7 years, he reconsiders, and keeps your rent at $90.

Where is your phantom $10 "windfall."

I don't know about your reality, but in mine, my obligations are neither due nor payable until, and unless, they accrue.

395 Obdicut  Mon, Dec 6, 2010 4:23:06am

re: #394 NamDoc67

Where is your phantom $10 "windfall."

Right there, where I have $10 more than I thought I would.

Sweet!


I don't know about your reality, but in mine, my obligations are neither due nor payable until, and unless, they accrue.

That's nice.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
2 days ago
Views: 89 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 258 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1