Definition of 'rich' changing... already

[mraynrand]

Thunder Dan:

You did the same thing Obama does: you put payroll taxes in with income taxes. Why? Although it is a fraudulent, destructive ponzi scheme, SS is still a pension fund of sorts. So the effective income tax rate is around 10%, far lower than the 'rich' guy.

Also, even if you write off that 60K rent on the business, you still have to pay that 60K. You can't just sneeze at these money outlays. Finally, I bet that 'rich' guy has to pay the AMT and I bet it's a lot more.

[bobblehead]

RG,

You just got taken to school. Not only did ThunderDan answer your post, he did so eloquently and without derision.

You might learn a thing or two from him.

NOt really, dan went from claiming (made it sound like) the SS tax was 7.6% and ended up MUCH closer to RG's number (ended over 13%).

I wouldn't call that getting schooled. He also made many other points that weren't really the way he made it sound.

Schooled in the way to respond. No need to insult.

Fair enough...RG was a bit nastier than dan (at least it read that way)

[bobblehead]

RG,

Now i realize that you aren't just dishonest, but tone deaf.

Dan, you really need an economics class at your local community college. If you tell me where you live, I will find a class for you to enroll in. Macro Economics 101 or Micro Economics 101 would be a great place to start.

If you can't follow where you insulted him...then, really, there is little hope for you.

How is that insulting? He's trying to help the guy. You're an idiot. And RG just served for liberal dumbass homeboy Thunder Danny.

Trying to help a business owner and CPA? Insulting him before he even knows his background?

You are such a dumbass.

I question the truth of the business owner....I have a hard time believing many business owners (who aren't bleeding off the gov't) could support obama....really hard.

Of course you do. All the dems who support Obama are just poor, uneducated fools, lawyers, or finance guys.

See, we do agree on something political

[bobblehead]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

It certainly can...it just doesn't. I don't care what people do..have 10 babies, whatever. But the minute you engage in harmful behavior and expect me to FUND that behavior or bail you out of the consequences I am a hardcore conservative. Gays getting married...no problem here. Trying to make a church marry 2 gays....more of a problem. Forcing a doctor to perform an abortion that s/he doesn't want to....big problem. Getting an abortion in the first 11 weeks, not a problem. Getting a partial birth abortion 8 months and 2weeks into a pregnancy....murder.

[bobblehead]

And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

Don't you mean "congratulations, now I'm going to vote for Obama so I can gets me somma your loot"??

If you and RG have proven ONE thing it is that our tax structure is a fucking mess and we need a REAL change candidate who will implement a flat tax with ONE DEDUCTION based on #of dependents.

Remember...Marx...progressive taxation. We KNOW where the idea came from.

[retailguy]

And if you have already paid in over $45,000 in federal, social security and medicare taxes by the end of October you make more than 95% of all Americans. Congratulations. And I mean that very sincerely.

Don't you mean "congratulations, now I'm going to vote for Obama so I can gets me somma your loot"??

If you and RG have proven ONE thing it is that our tax structure is a fucking mess and we need a REAL change candidate who will implement a flat tax with ONE DEDUCTION based on #of dependents.

Remember...Marx...progressive taxation. We KNOW where the idea came from.

Bobblehead, the tax code is a mess, but it isn't likely to change for the better anytime soon. Flat/fair tax proposals will likely never become reality, and, in the "politics of class envy", it is likely to get worse, much worse before it gets better.

We used to have a highest effective rate of 70% before Reagan. We could approach those rates again before we get meaningful change.

[retailguy]

Retailguy-

First the social security limit on wages in 2008 is $102,000.

Now let's look at a couple of examples. Let's use 2007 tax rates because I'm not at my office. <snip>

Dan, yes, I am aware of the 2008 limit. I passed it many months ago. Working again on a W-2 is new for me, and I don't like it. I have always believed that it is the "least" tax advantageous way to earn an income, but it is what it is.

I was using the 2007 point of view because it is well defined and won't change. Apologies for confusing you.

I snipped your examples for two reasons, 1st, they aren't really representative of what we were discussing. We were discussing the social security taxes between a self employed individual and a w-2 individual. You were advocating a "discount" to the self employed taxpayer and I wasn't.

2nd, I think comparing a young kid 1 year out of college to a business person who has been doing this for years and is likely 20 years older misrepresents the point you're trying to make.

Mingling types of taxes also don't do you any favors (my viewpoint). Social security is a very different type of tax than federal income taxes. Someone mentioned it is partially a "savings plan". While in theory this is true, it is really just another tax.

Since it isn't just you and I reading this, lets review for everyone what a "regressive" tax is.

Regressive tax. In an absolute sense, this is a tax in which the rate falls as the taxable base increases, as with early Social Security. In a relative sense, it is a rise in total taxes paid as a percentage of one's income, as with most property and sales taxes.

http://www.utoledo.edu/as/pspa/faculty/LINDEEN/GLOS3260.HTM

I used this definition because I liked it, and it specifically mentioned Social Security. To adopt this viewpoint you'd have to "ignore" the savings plan aspect though (which isn't hard to do).

So, since social security has an "upper limit", not for medicare, but for social security itself, YES, those who exceed the limit pay a lower effective rate.

So, you want to call social security regressive, fine. But you really can't call the federal income tax regressive, and taking a taxpayer who has not maximized his limited options against a taxpayer who has strategically planned his tax position, is not only unfair, but it distorts your point. Also, taking advantage of legal tax planning options to reduce your tax doesn't make the tax itself regressive, as those "options" are available to all taxpayers. Whether or not you can utilize those options is not relevant in my opinion. Again, working on a w-2 gives you a limited set of options for tax planning.

In all fairness, this kid is ONE YEAR out of college. He's enjoying the fact that he's making money for the 1st time in his life. Hopefully when he got his tax bill, it was followed with a question of "How can I make this lower in the future?" If it wasn't, hopefully you explained that! This kid does have options to lower his federal income tax bill. Social security? Not so much.

Give me a few hours and I'll give you an example of social security and self employed.... Right now, I want to watch the game.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

[HowardRoark]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

[HowardRoark]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

Sorry, I meant "B".

As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never tried to convert you or ram anything down your throat. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you do.

As far as abortion, you are intellectually incapable of having that debate, so just stop while you are behind. How many times have you been asked where morals come from? Are there universal truths? The “values” question. You don't have answers.

Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It's a science issue. Keep worshipping your sky god Obama.

While I'm on the subject, what do you think about Peter Singer's ideas on the subject. At least he is honest.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

Not my point. Each one on your list could be individually debated. "C" is a little benaeath your pay grade isn't it?

My point is that all of the social issues (not your lame little list), require money to fund them. This money comes from taxes (unless you are Tex), so you can't have one without the other.

Oh, and I don't think the government really cares too much about you....yet.

I would hope that "c" would involve my input. I guess i have to spell out everything for you. Sigh.

Debated: How so? Should i not be free to do each one? Of course you dont' agree...because NOW you want to get involved in my life. Because YOUR morality/values tell you that it is ok.

You are a follower of Jesus and your religion has made it a point of FUCKING bothering others..you call it converting or bringing us to the lord. For the rest of us...we call it being a nuisance. There are many religions that don't proslytize.

You take that value and put it into the gov't where it certainly doesn't belong.

My lame list are things that are important to many. I guess your civil liberties don't matter.

You value certain "freedoms" more than others. Some of us don't value your freedoms the same way.

Sorry, I meant "B".

As far as the rest of your post, I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never tried to convert you or ram anything down your throat. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn what you do.

As far as abortion, you are intellectually incapable of having that debate, so just stop while you are behind. How many times have you been asked where morals come from? Are there universal truths? The “values” question. You don't have answers.

While I'm on the subject, what do you think about Peter Singer's ideas on the subject. At least he is honest.

How is B any different? Should i not be allowed to purchase alcohol on sunday? Why should it be at a different time than the rest of the week. And, yes, it did affect me..and businesses when i lived in the south (if you think i'm going to sunday brunch at 10 without a bloody mary you are crazy).

Proslytizing: Who said you? I was talking in general. But, if you don't think your posts are designed to influence or convert to your positions..then who is intellectually dishonest.

When someone talks about freedome FROM religion..they are talking MAINLY about christianity.

Abortion: incapable. LOL. Values..you and rand are so blindingly simplistic that you can't even conceive that i choose not to answer your questions not because i dont' have answers, but because it a)isn't worth my time b) IS A PRIVATE ISSUE. I fondly recall a time when people didn't pry into another's religion and values and it wasn't necessary to talk about your relationship with jesus in order to run for office.

You are the one..since your position comes strictly from a religious viewpoint. Certainly not scientific. The real point is that why is the gov't getting involved. At no point are any of our candidates saying anything better than it should be a state's right issue. At no point is any candidate saying it is morally wrong. So, you and the rest of your brethren would be wise to drop the whole morality issue. Stop subjecting us to your morality.

We are past that now. Abortion is legal. But, that doesn't stop your friends from bombing clinics, killing doctors, intimidating women and generally acting immoral (by your standards). I, don't have to worry about morality...i just have to follow the law. Since i agree with it..why would i spend any time worrying about it, debating it, etc. The law says it is legal. I shouldn't nor should anyone have to deal with conservatives prying into our lives.

And, i have been relentless honest about abortion. I have given my stance. Which if you had read..you would find that i agree with parts of singer. Course, i still believe that examing when something becomes human is valid.

And, you would have read that i would never have a child at a catholic hospital..pretty much aligning with the utilitarian viewpoint.

[HowardRoark]

How is B any different? Should i not be allowed to purchase alcohol on sunday? Why should it be at a different time than the rest of the week. And, yes, it did affect me..and businesses when i lived in the south (if you think i'm going to sunday brunch at 10 without a bloody mary you are crazy).

Proslytizing: Who said you? I was talking in general. But, if you don't think your posts are designed to influence or convert to your positions..then who is intellectually dishonest.

When someone talks about freedome FROM religion..they are talking MAINLY about christianity.

Abortion: incapable. LOL. Values..you and rand are so blindingly simplistic that you can't even conceive that i choose not to answer your questions not because i dont' have answers, but because it a)isn't worth my time b) IS A PRIVATE ISSUE. I fondly recall a time when people didn't pry into another's religion and values and it wasn't necessary to talk about your relationship with jesus in order to run for office.

You are the one..since your position comes strictly from a religious viewpoint. Certainly not scientific. The real point is that why is the gov't getting involved. At no point are any of our candidates saying anything better than it should be a state's right issue. At no point is any candidate saying it is morally wrong. So, you and the rest of your brethren would be wise to drop the whole morality issue. Stop subjecting us to your morality.

We are past that now. Abortion is legal. But, that doesn't stop your friends from bombing clinics, killing doctors, intimidating women and generally acting immoral (by your standards). I, don't have to worry about morality...i just have to follow the law. Since i agree with it..why would i spend any time worrying about it, debating it, etc. The law says it is legal. I shouldn't nor should anyone have to deal with conservatives prying into our lives.

And, i have been relentless honest about abortion. I have given my stance. Which if you had read..you would find that i agree with parts of singer. Course, i still believe that examing when something becomes human is valid.

And, you would have read that i would never have a child at a catholic hospital..pretty much aligning with the utilitarian viewpoint.

I agree with you on the alcohol on Sunday thing. Get your state law changed. It can’t be that difficult. That’s not a very tough subject.

As for as my proselytizing; of course I am trying to make the best case for my side of the debate. It would seem rather pointless to do otherwise. I have never tried to sway anybody on religion however. And where does this “freedom FROM religion” come from; another new Bill of Rights?

So these questions on morals and values just aren’t worth old Ty’s time. Where exactly is that bar set for issues that are worth your time. And secondarily, since when did I bring up religion? I brought up Universal Truths and morals. Quit bringing up religion.

I do not think abortion is a religious issue. It is a science issue, you are the one who keeps bringing up Jesus AND pushing YOUR morality of the pro-abortion agenda on me. Remember Ty, no morality is a morality. And no Ty, my friends do not blow anyone or anything up. That’s Ayers.

The law of the land is that drugs are illegal, why do you bring that one up? It’s the law of the land, no need to debate it. Your intellectual dishonesty has been noted.

[mraynrand]

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

The govt. won't look into your records unless you ask Obama an uncomfortable question. Since that won't ever happen, you will be OK.

And you should just rely on the collective opinion of British scientists for your moral guidance on abortion.

[bobblehead]

Rand,

You just keep spinning it any way you want.

Forgot, didn't mention...the fact that he doesn't include them is a point.

Democrats be their very nature are MUCH more intrusive. Just follow the money.

The little catch phrase around the area where I live is "I am conservative on fiscal issues, but more to the left on social issues."

It can't work that way.

I'll just keep repeating that every time someone wants:

a) do drugs
b) buy alcohol on sunday
c) get an abortion in peace
d) not have the gov't worried/making laws about sexual practices
e) get married

Or when unprecedented intrusions into my constitutional privacy rights through the Patriot Act . When the gov't isn't unlawfully spying on me.

1) pay for your rehabilitation
2) that is local ordinances and is not political party dependent
3) some people just think that is murder 3b) Don't ask me to pay for it or force a doctor to perform the "procedure"
4) you mean like gay marriage?? I agree the gov't should stay out of it.
5) marriage is an outdated concept...it should be performed by the churches only.