T1B

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:56 am**

88 wrote:I guess none of the socialists on this board are going to address my suggestion that the State ought to use the same force it uses to take my income from me to make recipients of my cash provide an equal amount of their labor to the State for free. I guess the socialists can't explain why they think it is fair and just to make some people provide their labor to the State for free while others get a free pass.

Hysterical strawman much you vapid DNAsponge?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 7:14 am**

Damn, how can everyone be vapid?? All walks of life...lawyers, fork lift operators, school teachers...liberals, conservatives...military types, peaceniks...stoners and old fashioned grandparents...intellectuals, jocks and party people.

All...vapid. Is anyone not vapid in TVO's world?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:37 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Funny that successful people in this country used to still strive to maximize their income when the top marginal rate was 70%.

Yeah, the 70s was such an economic boom time.

Goobs, the marginal rate was higher, but, you could deduct pretty much anything back then, so the effective rate was not that high.

What we really need is not so much lower rates as a simpler system. Steve Forbes' flat tax idea is a good one. Maybe if somebody who doesn't look like a really goofy pedophile starts pimping it, it'll get some run.

Unfortunately a flat rate takes some of the power away from the whores on both sides of the isle in DC. It would also result in homeless shelters being over run by cpas and tax lawyers.

If I was king, the fed tax rate would start at about 3% for poor folks. Those on the dole would not vote until they got a yob. The rate would max out probably around 25%. Only deductions would be uhhhh, how 'bout no fukking deductions?

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:50 pm**

flat tax or "Fair Tax" will never happen as there are all too many people in DC who think like Bri -- that it is perfectly fine to take money from one person and give it to another.
This place is looking pretty good as an alternative when the shit hits the fan.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Re ... irees.aspx

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 2:20 pm**

Yes, taxes are so unfair to the wealthy!

Sin,
Warren Buffett's secretary

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:46 pm**

no worries there, 88. Mstool lets absolutely nothing stop him from making stupid statements.

You can't stop mstool from talking out his ass, you can only hope to contain him.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:09 pm**

88 wrote: I guess unless you've worked your way up from nothing (not in West Virginia, by the way) to get to a point where you can earn $250,000+, you can't possible understand what its like.

You haven't worked your way up to anything. You are still a stupid, illogical, soulless fucktard.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:25 pm**

88 wrote:You've got to finance your wife's education.

No you don't. Why did you do that? She could have paid for it herself, instead of relying on a handout from you. Think of how much less debt you'd have if she paid for her own education.

Posted: **Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:48 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
88 wrote: I guess unless you've worked your way up from nothing (not in West Virginia, by the way) to get to a point where you can earn $250,000+, you can't possible understand what its like.
You haven't worked your way up to anything. You are still a stupid, illogical, soulless fucktard.

so what does that make you?

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 2:53 am**

Better than you.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 4:48 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Funny that successful people in this country used to still strive to maximize their income when the top marginal rate was 70%.
Yeah, the 70s was such an economic boom time.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent.

Idiot.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:03 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:Funny that successful people in this country used to still strive to maximize their income when the top marginal rate was 70%.
Yeah, the 70s was such an economic boom time.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-taxgrowth.htm

The highest period of growth in U.S. history (1933-1973) also saw its highest tax rates on the rich: 70 to 91 percent.
Idiot.

Not to mention highest union membership numbers.

Posted: **Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:31 pm**

Anyone making less than 40k a year does not pay much in the form of income taxes unless they are single with no kids. Guys I work with brag about their 7 thousand dollar tax refunds. It seems to me they would be better served to cash in on the advanced earned income credit and redo their W4's.

But, of course, they wouldn't have the discipline to save any of the extra take-home pay in their checks. They would rather let the gubmint earn interest on their money all year and get the lump sum. Some even pay out hundreds to get their refunds the same day their returns are prepared. Two weeks is just too long to wait.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:37 am**

88 wrote:
.m2 wrote:
88 wrote:. We live comfortably and have not racked up significant debt.

Something doesn't add up here....

88, makes OVER $250,000 a year and lives in (Cleveland).... and

... his wife is WELL educated and makes BANK.... and lives in (Cleveland).

Yet, the 88 family has debt ????????

All of his kids are in "junior high or high school" so we can't go with him having 15 kids at Harvard.

Hmmmm... all we have is 88 growing up in a rural part of the country (West Virginia).

Is "racism" playing a role...????

88 wrote:Don't worry, m2. Bammy will send you your check

Hmmmmmm ???

the truth
I can see why you wouldn't appreciate how someone who presently makes $250,000+ has debt. So, I'll explain it to you. You've got to finance your education. You've got to finance your wife's education. You've got to buy into your partnership. You've got to buy a house. All the while, you aren't earning very much money because you are just starting out in business. And, of course Uncle Sam is stealing a big chunk of your income from you every year. I guess unless you've worked your way up from nothing (not in West Virginia, by the way) to get to a point where you can earn $250,000+, you can't possible understand what its like. But don't let that stop you from passing judgment and making stupid comments.

I hope you'll hire someone to take care of your finances in the future.

You don't seem to be really good at it.

It's not a slam on you as a person.

Much like you should never take nutritional advice from a doctor (they know 0 about nutrition) ....

You should NEVER allow yourself to take care of your own money if you're a lawyer. You're not businessmen.

By the way... I do know about lawyers going into partnerships.

A good friend of mine... James Nias.... went into a partnership with a law firm in Austin, Tejas.

http://www.jw.com/site/jsp/attyinfo.jsp?id=201

If you want to learn how to make money and "keep it"... let me know.

the truth

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:59 am**

Toddowen wrote:How to make money and "keep it"....the m2 way?

Didn't you just get through discussing your money making method with shutyomouth recently?

Huh ?

Bloatspray, doesn't have any money and lives in a trailer.... in Bacon, Georgia.

I'd hardly think I'd be discussing business with someone that lives in "America's" third world.

the truth

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:29 am**

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:56 am**

Of those 63%, I would guess that a good chunk of them didn't turn profits that year, hence, no income to tax. The rest are likely taking advantage of a myriad stupid tax credits designed by liberals to influence corporate behavior.

Personally, I think the number, if correct, is about 37% too high. "Corporations" don't pay taxes. People pay taxes.

If a corporation has profits, share holders or the corporations private owner(s) show income. And you know damn well that gets taxed.

So why go after it in bigger chunks through corporations?

Because it plays well for populist moron voters.

It also gives pols influence with companies and vice-versa.

It also provides a reason to exist for the countless lobbyists in DC.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:11 pm**

Jsc, please don't go all TiVO on us.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:14 pm**

Diego in Seattle wrote:

we have almost the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

that comic is retarded as is the person who posted it/

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:33 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:
88 wrote:A corporation is not a person.
Stop right there.

You know there is a mountain of jurisprudence that says a corporation is a person. Yes, I know you're speaking of taxes and the jurisprudence is regarding standing in court, but still.

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:51 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Of those 63%, I would guess that a good chunk of them didn't turn profits that year, hence, no income to tax. The rest are likely taking advantage of a myriad stupid tax credits designed by liberals to influence corporate behavior.

You really are a fucking idiot.

Posted: **Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:24 pm**

88 wrote: You can't take a corporation out to lunch with you, can you?

Depends on how big it is, and how much you're willing to spend.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:13 am**

The fucking shitheads running things in DC now are screwing the country into the ground. We are doomed. Must be that is the change they believe in !!
Amazing.
Panama---hmmm.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:30 am**

Jsc810 wrote:... the jurisprudence is regarding standing in court, but still.

Not all of it. Please tell me you are not as dumb as 88braincells.

88 wrote: You can't take a corporation out to lunch with you, can you?

I think you meant: They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities."

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:32 pm**

88 wrote:What is wrong with those greedy fuckers? Shouldn't they be smiling all the way to work, where they are forced by the federal government to provide a greater percentage of their labor for free? I bet the slaves on the plantations in the South never bitched when they were asked to provide more labor to their masters for free.

Yea, you're just like a slave in the Antebellum South. I bet you tell your wife to dress up like Scarlett O'Hara so you can go all Mandingo on her ass.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:15 pm**

BSmack wrote:
88 wrote:What is wrong with those greedy fuckers? Shouldn't they be smiling all the way to work, where they are forced by the federal government to provide a greater percentage of their labor for free? I bet the slaves on the plantations in the South never bitched when they were asked to provide more labor to their masters for free.
Yea, you're just like a slave in the Antebellum South. I bet you tell your wife to dress up like Scarlett O'Hara so you can go all Mandingo on her ass.

so that makes it better somehow?

just do it and like it, dammit!! :?

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:53 pm**

titlover wrote:so that makes it better somehow?

When 88 shows up on this board with whip marks on his back, he can call himself a slave. Until then, he's making himself look like a never ending whine machine.

Posted: **Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:13 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Of those 63%, I would guess that a good chunk of them didn't turn profits that year, hence, no income to tax. The rest are likely taking advantage of a myriad stupid tax credits designed by liberals to influence corporate behavior.

You really are a fucking idiot.

Outstanding rebutal. You must have been a monster on the debating team.

So, I gather from you well thought out opnion, that you think it is a good idea for corporations to pay income taxes. Can I get an actual reason WHY it is a good thing?

You can still tax the profits. Just get them from the shareholder by taxing his dividend. But that requires taxing actual living breathing humans and they hate that. Much easier to tax a legal entity.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:50 am**

88 wrote:There will be no whip marks on my back as I am not willing to surrender any more of my liberty to the Man. Your crowd is going to have to find a new boy to pay their bills. Good luck with that.

Good god. STFU you Bush slurping right wing, liberty-stealing fuckstain.

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:52 am**

88 wrote:My name is Kunta Kinte!

Your name is Toby.

sin

Da Man

Posted: **Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:46 pm**

Is it true that the Stalinists are checking into the idea of taxing workers for the value of the health insurance provided by their employers ? Could imputed taxes be far off ???
Panama---hmmm.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:01 pm**

If this tax hike is such a good idea and only hits the rich, why is President Hussein waiting until 2011 for them to take effect?

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:17 pm**

88 wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:88 isn't the only one with this idea.

Upper-Income Taxpayers Look for Ways to Sidestep Obama Tax-Hike Plan

President Barack Obama's tax proposal – which promises to increase taxes for those families with incomes of $250,000 or more -- has some Americans brainstorming ways to decrease their pay, even if it's just by a dollar.

In the wake of Obama's tax proposal being unveiled, some Americans are doing everything they can think of to fall beneath the $250,000 mark so they don't have to pay more in taxes under the plan.
(ABC News/AP)
More PhotosA 63-year-old attorney based in Lafayette, La., who asked not to be named, told ABCNews.com that she plans to cut back on her business to get her annual income under the quarter million mark should the Obama tax plan be passed by Congress and become law.

So far, Obama's tax plan is being looked at skeptically by both Democrats and Republicans and therefore may not pass at all.

"We are going to try to figure out how to make our income $249,999.00," she said.

What is wrong with those greedy fuckers? Shouldn't they be smiling all the way to work, where they are forced by the federal government to provide a greater percentage of their labor for free? I bet the slaves on the plantations in the South never bitched when they were asked to provide more labor to their masters for free.

The problem is that you're really just shooting youself in the foot so that you can have your little tantrum.

You're taxes don't suddenly leap by thousands of dollars when you pass that threshold. If you make $251,000 you're not paying any more income tax than if you make $249,999. OK, maybe, what, about $0.50 more? But only $0.04 more than you would have paid before.

I guess $249,999 is enough to live on though, so if you want to be a fucking crybaby and limit your income just to get some kind of satisfaction (I really doubt that any of you will really do this though - expel hot air much?), then so be it. Who the fuck really cares?

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:19 pm**

If you think that, you're dumber than you think I think you are

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:20 pm**

Cuda wrote:If you think that, you're dumber than you think I think you are

I guess you don't understand the concept of marginal tax rates. Not too surprising.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:24 pm**

Clearly YOU don't understand them.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:28 pm**

So tell me where I'm wrong, H&R.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:31 pm**

Mikey,

You are correct in your example of $251K. But why are some of us being labeled as rich? We don't have personal assistants, drivers, etc. We are the ones who own small businesses and create jobs. We work hard and worry not only about our families, but those of our employees, many of whom we know quite well due to the small size of our companies.

Further we pay more on the first $50K, $100K, etc than do others in those brackets. We lose deductions that others are able to claim.

I seriously doubt you would feel the same way if you were suddenly faced with a 40% tax on the difference of your next raise or future earnings.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:37 pm**

I'm not saying that you should be happy with a tax increase, if you really want to call it an increase. The lower rate was really a tax cut, that will expire. But the difference between the taxes on $249,000 and $251,000 is virtually nothing.

You also pay no payroll taxes after the first $106,000. Don't forget that most of Bush's tax cut was paid for by raiding the Social Security Trust Fund.

And talking about deductions...you've got to be making a lot more than $250,000 for your AGI to be there, unless you're really bad at managing your money. My AGI is probably about 50% to 60% of my actual gross income.

Posted: **Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:49 pm**

So if you agree that I shouldn't be happy about it, what is wrong with doing everything possible to minimize its impact? Ie, adding family members to the payroll, purchasing things where possible in the company, instead of with personal income.

You can wrap a turd in a box and put a ribbon on it, but it is still a turd. Same with this it is an increase in taxes for those over $250K.

As for raiding Social Security, that has been going on as long as there has been Social Security. No Congress has ever put that money aside and allowed it to grow untouched. So I have no problem with it being "raided" as you say to reduce taxes. Hell, let's get rid of that outdated system anyway. It is doubtful that I will recieve any money from it anyway. If/when that happens we will have to call it what it is, just another tax increase.

T1B

Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan

Re: Obama's Tax Plan