T1B

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Most people are already doing whatever they can to reduce their AGI and hence their taxes. If you're not doing everything legal to reduce your tax burden, you should be.

Why do you hate America?

Mikey wrote: The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love

Van wrote:Mikey likes heroin!

Tom In VA wrote:

Mikey wrote: The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love

Sounds like you've been through the desert on a horse with no name.

Tom In VA wrote:Mikey, you're too old for that stuff might I suggest a video game instead ?

88 wrote:

Mikey wrote: 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?

You, apparently.

88 wrote:It was never intended to disproportionately fall on anyone. It was supposed to be a form of supplemental income, which you could draw out based on how much you paid into it. It was originally supposed to work like an annuity, with payouts based on amounts collected and balanced using actuarial tables. Over the years, the payouts and benefits were raised, but the amount going into finance these benefits was not increased. Now, with the Baby Boomers sliding into retirement, things are getting desperate. Everyone knows that Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme, where new money is used in the near term to pay off current debts. But the day of reckoning is coming.

I think the Social Security program should be scrapped too. But I don't think the people who have paid into it their entire life should get fucked out of their dough. We ought to pay them back their cash, over time, to the extent we can. Congress should close the Social Security program this year for new enrolles. They should freeze benefits and set aside money in our budget to pay for benefits at the current level, frozen for eternity. In 40 years, the current recipients would die off and the program would go out of existence. They would collect their funds paid in, which was the original deal.

If you wanted to start a properly organized, voluntary retirement trust fund for new enrollees at the same time, then so be it. But the cost to participate should reflect the cost of the benefits to be paid out. The government cannot keep lying to people, and saying it can take in only a few dollars from them, but agree to pay them a lifetime of benefits. If they vote to sock it to the rich, you'll see a dramatic reduction in the number of persons who qualify as rich. It is human nature, dog.

88 wrote:The adults are talking.

88 wrote:Go run along, BSmack. The adults are talking.

BSmack wrote:Shocking that the rich guy could give a fuck about his poorer brethren.

IndyFrisco wrote:

BSmack wrote:Shocking that the rich guy could give a fuck about his poorer brethren.

Why the fuck should he? We all breate the same free air. If some slumfuck decides to waste the air he/she breathes not doing anything to better their situation, fuck'em.

BSmack wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:

BSmack wrote:Shocking that the rich guy could give a fuck about his poorer brethren.

Why the fuck should he? We all breate the same free air. If some slumfuck decides to waste the air he/she breathes not doing anything to better their situation, fuck'em.

You so realize that Social Security is paid into by WORKING Americans? Do you?

IndyFrisco wrote:I didn't say that they were jobless. I just said they weren't bettering their situation. Anyone who is taking orders for fries and burgers should be no older than 18. People who call others heartless because they demand accountability from everyone are the problem...well, maybe not THE problem but A problem, nonetheless.

FDR in a fireside chat wrote:But, in addition to this our immediate task, we must still look to the larger future. I have pointed out to the Congress that we are seeking to find the way once more to well-known, long-established but to some degree forgotten ideals and values. We seek the security of the men, women and children of the Nation.

That security involves added means of providing better homes for the people of the Nation. That is the first principle of our future program.

The second is to plan the use of land and water resources of this country to the end that the means of livelihood of our citizens may be more adequate to meet their daily needs. And, finally, the third principle is to use the agencies of government to assist in the establishment of means to provide sound and adequate protection against the vicissitudes of modern life -- in other words, social insurance.

Later in the year I hope to talk with you more fully about these plans. A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it "Fascism", sometimes "Communism", sometimes "Regimentation", sometimes "Socialism". But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.

FDR in a fireside chat wrote:A few timid people, who fear progress, will try to give you new and strange names for what we are doing. Sometimes they will call it "Fascism", sometimes "Communism", sometimes "Regimentation", sometimes "Socialism". But, in so doing, they are trying to make very complex and theoretical something that is really very simple and very practical.

Dr_Phibes wrote:so by working less, you're leaving others to pick up the slack and indirectly creating employment, not hogging it all to yourself. making for a working society rather than a working individual.

you're a good man, 88.

88 wrote: I'll get by just fine at <$249,999 AGI, if that is what President Obama wants me to live on.

smackaholic wrote:

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?

Goober McTuber wrote: I just find it hilarious that you are opposed to corporations paying income taxes, and that you've come to the conclusion that many of them aren't, thanks to the Democrats. Fucking idiot.

Goober McTuber wrote: I just find it hilarious that you are opposed to corporations paying income taxes, and that you've come to the conclusion that many of them aren't, thanks to the Democrats. Fucking idiot.

War Wagon wrote:Oh, that was a cold shot...

mvscal wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:It'll definitely be his ticket out of office.

We'll see. His core consituency consists of gibbering dumbfucks who aren't exactly in short supply these days.

Take Bsmack, for instance, just sitting there with a mouth full of nog spurt and a surprised look on his face. No matter. He will dutifully swallow and then go out and vote for more in 2012.

titlover wrote:

mvscal wrote:

IndyFrisco wrote:It'll definitely be his ticket out of office.

We'll see. His core consituency consists of gibbering dumbfucks who aren't exactly in short supply these days.

Take Bsmack, for instance, just sitting there with a mouth full of nog spurt and a surprised look on his face. No matter. He will dutifully swallow and then go out and vote for more in 2012.

nog spurt


i think i'm going to name my next dog that......

88 wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... wUXb42NPX0

Here it comes. Lean forward, place your weight on your elbows, relax and pray Uncle Sam has the decency to use a little lube.