|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Gah. I hate these threads. You discuss one thing, but then people mutate it into a totally different subject you had no desire to get into. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I need to stop posting in them...
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I'll bring around to Iraq. It's a big waste of money and we can't afford this war especially with the Bush Tax Cuts in place.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I didn't want to talk about Iraq either. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Tesco, here is some basic information on the changes to the child tax credit.
IRS Newsroom The big thing for me is the $400 per child increase in the credit (to $1000 per child total). In my case, that is $1600 direct tax relief all by itself. Even if you have no tax burden, you can get some or all of that credit (hence my higher than 100% reduction in my income taxes.) [ September 17, 2003, 00:35: Message edited by: Alpha Kodiak ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ September 17, 2003, 02:30: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I don't think there is a confusion.
We (the govt) pay interest on the debt which adds to the deficit. As the debt grows so do our interest payments which add to the annual deficit. Eventually - if the debt keeps rising at $350B/year (Bush's own best case scenario - probably will be way higher) that interest payment will overwhelm the rest of govenment expenditure. The interest payment this year alone was the third biggest expenditure behind defense spending and entitlements. People like Alpha Kodiak would rather mortgage their children's future and collect an extra measly $400 per child now and let those same children pay multiple times over this amount in interest payments alone when they pay taxes. People like Fyron just want to bankrupt the government so that it has to cut everything. [ September 17, 2003, 02:24: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Ok, just Fyron swapped the terms then.
In any case, when running a country, like running a Space Empire, you can't spend more than you make for very long before your storage runs out. Selling mineral planets for cash to keep your production up just makes things worse. Some debt is OK, for investment purposes where you know (or are pretty sure) you'll make the money back. For the rest, make sure you're making more than you spend. Keep building a pool of extra money, which you can spend on bonus services, one-shot projects and stuff. Live well within your means, and then you'll have the money for the stuff you want. IMO |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
its ot land for iraq, war and politics.
I wish thermo would come back and post some stuff. Enjoyed his links but not his barbs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Here we pay 26% income tax, plus a percentage towards Pension and UI. Sales tax is 15% on everything except for unprepaired food. ( 7% goods and service tax, 8% provinical ) Even taxes are taxed. Some times it bugs me when time are tight. But I do not want to lose the standard of living i am used to. And I do not want others to lose that standard as well. So I pay the taxes and just complain about it once or twice a week. I would perfer if it was spent properly. As it looks like a good 30 to 40% is just wasted ( nooah stats numbers out of a hat, please i hope i made that up cause it sounds cool ) on commisions, digging holes in toronto and then filling them back in. I will be interesting to see how our economy goes in the next few years. As we have not been hit by the recessions that hit the USA. ( THough our bosses at work like to tell us were in a recession, we ask for the proof and they state that it is in the news... So we now carry the figures for the Canadain Economy and pull it out at meetings ... Were not liked too much by the flying circus ... but i go off on a tangent ) End this now before I actually post something that makes sence. I do not want to scare GEO. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Rex: Quote:
[ September 17, 2003, 04:11: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Just because people "like me" point out holes in your logic you shouldn't take it personally. [ September 17, 2003, 04:35: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
"Essentially more tax cuts WILL bankrupt the govt and you did say the govt should cut "obsolete" programs. So where's the slander?"
Obselete is a far cry from 'everything', and he did cite an example of a farm program that was designed to help them recover from a problem that is long since over, yet the program keeps on going. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
So I am guilty of hyperbole. Sue me!
The current popular theory amongt "govt program cutters" is that the only way you'll get real cuts is if you bankrupt the govt. Even if Fyron doesn't explicitly say this - his Posts do lead one to believe that he agrees with this at least partly. If Fyron is really a "Tax and Spend" liberal being a devil's advocate then I appologize. [ September 17, 2003, 05:01: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Thank you P-D.
There are no holes in my logic, I just did not post all of it because these sorts of discussions get nowhere. The slander lays in making blanket statements about me that are far from true and based off of very incomplete evidence. Hyperbole does not work at all here, as hyperbole is overstatement, not stating something else entirely. The difference between obselete and everything is much more than just one of scale, so it does not qualify as hyperbole. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
It is interesting that since you lost the argument of Bush lying about the tax cuts, which was the original point of this subthread, you shift gears to the rather tired "you don't care about the future" attack. Obviously, I am an awful father who would sell his children into slavery for next to nothing. Or, of course, there is the chance that you have no clue what you are talking about. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Huh!!?
AK Let's start again. Bush claims he want to cut taxes for the working class. Well MOST people who work make less than 25k a year. You got that!! MOST of their taxes are in the form of the payroll tax. Look at your check stub sometime if you don't know what that is - obviously you don't. ALSO most of these working people pay minimal or no income tax. So they could not have gotten an income tax cut or a miniscule tax cut at best. BUT their payroll tax didn't change one penny - is that clear? So they didn't get an income tax cut and they are still paying the same payroll tax. Not to mention we all pay excise tax for pumping gas, and using the phone (read your phone bill sometime). If most working people didn't get a tax cut and are still paying the same tax they've always paid how can you say that Bush wanted to give a tax cut to the working class and is not lying about that. Am I missing something here - or do you just not get it? Since you obviously don't understand govt accounting ALL tax is lumped into one general fund so even though the payroll tax is supposed to go to Social Security and Medicare it is being used to fund the war in Iraq or something. Also it is evident you don't care about the future because you support a tax cut that your children will have to pay back in spades so that you can consumer spend or something - what's so tired about that argument? [ September 17, 2003, 06:14: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
This is exactly what I was talking about Rex... please tone down your Postss.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissin...43&sid=4248349
Again, what was the reason for this war ? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Though I have to say, I'm not entirely pleased with the progress made toward this end... oh well, time will tell. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Moderating mode ON
Please cool the tax discussion and keep civil. Thank you all! Moderating mode OFF |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ton/index.html
The government isn't the only one who will lie when its ends are served. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
And saying most people that work make less then 25,000 is not technically accurate. According to the IRS statistics for 2002, most people make more then 25,000 a year. Out of 129,444,947 individual income tax returns filed only 42% made less then 25,000 a year. If you want to throw out those more well off and just look at those under 100,000, the numbers are almost equal with slightly more that made less then 25K. But this doesn't really tell you how well off these people are. When you consider that these are IRS statistics and many married couples file separatly and many teens living at home working part or full time jobs have to file also. Using U.S. Census Beauro statistics you get a clearer picture. According to them only 29.3% of housholds made less then 25,000, and 59.2% made between 25,000 and 100,000. The median household income is 43,057. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Quote:
I am looking at the census statistics you linked to and it says the median income for individuals is $25,839 and the majority of families make less than $50K I am assuming a family is most likely at least two adults. I can't find where you got the IRS figures from the posting you placed, but let's say it is 42% that is still the largest amount of workers by tax bracket. This is the point of the argument - they are the largest percentage of workers and they didn't get any real tax cut. When I said payroll tax - I meant FICA and SSI - the amount is ~8% and - I don't mean to sound snide - has appeared on every check stub I've received - and that is not refunded. AJT [ September 17, 2003, 20:03: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
On the census page the "Median Earnings: (dollars)" is 25,839, but that is including seasonal and part time workers, ie students. The Median for the male, full time, year round workers (still the majority of the workforce) is 39,996. The line right below where you were looking. The majority of families do make less then 50K, and the majority of families do have two adults. But the majority of families don't have two income earners. There aren't stats regarding that on either of these websites but I have seen stats previously that show the majority of families still have only one income. Although that is changing and has been for some time. Most of the families that have two adults working full time will be in the 50,000 to 100,000 range for total household income. Quote:
The workers making under 25K are statistically the largest single group if you slice the entire population into equal sized Groups. But that doesn't mean they that most workers fall into that group. And a significant number of workers in that group are part-time, not the primary income earners, and not supporting any dependants. That's not to say of course there aren't many people aren't in poor financial situations. But they aren't the majority of workers. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
I may regret entering into this again, but the one thing that keeps being overlooked is that you get the child tax credit regardless of how little you pay in income tax. I will receive a $4000 credit ($1600 higher than Last year) regardless of whether I owe taxes or not. There are some limitations on that, but they primarily apply to those with higher incomes rather than lower. You can argue whether it is a good idea or not, but you can't say the tax break isn't there.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
My point is that since it's technically not a tax to begin with you aren't going to get a refund on it. As you said yourself the ones getting refunds are going to be the ones actually paying taxes. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
No, I've said all all along that Social Security Tax is an income tax in disguise. People conveniently forget to include this tax when factoring in who pays what in this country.
If the social security tax were set aside I would most likely agree with you, but since it's being spent instead of being put in a "lock box" then it's an income tax - it's money taken out of your pay check based on income - it's being used to mask an even larger deficit - they can call it by any name they want but it's an income tax. Also we all pay federal taxes on gas, phone, etc and that wasn't cut either. Seasonal workers pay Social Security Tax Too - and I am still not getting how 42% is not the largest percentage by far. Most (I don't know the exact figure - this is an assumption on my part) people don't have children and it's only a $400 credit increase. Also (I don't want to look up the exact # but if you make UNDER a certain amount your not entitled to the credit. That was one of the big political squabbles). Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Quote:
But I would love it if he could do something about the medicare and SSI taxes. But that's the "third rail" of American politics. They tried to privitize some of that stuff. It wouldn't lower the outgo, but at least you'd know what you put in would be coming back to you someday. But even that idea got bLasted. [ September 18, 2003, 02:01: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
If so, then please do provide some facts here Geo showing that the top 1% got NOTHING from the tax break. Because that is what you just said. Of course AK was saying a while earlier that "everyone" who had kids got $400 bucks, but of course no one in the top 1% could possibly have any kids. And I seem to remember something about a dividend tax cut. I'm sure that no one in the top 1% of income has any stocks to speak of and didn't benefit from this dividend tax cut. I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*. And now for a complete about face... Actually I happen to agree with the statement "the tax cut don't benefit the top 1%". But only in the sense that the tax cuts were a terrible idea that hurt the country as a whole and thus no american benfited from them in the long run. I say this because running a defecit as massive as the tax cut entails I believe is not good for us at all and will come back to bite us in the ***, hard. I prefer my governments to be fiscally responsible and to actually cut spending when they cut taxes not increase it like the current fiscally irresponsible administration has done. And about the $400 that AK keeps talking about. Yes, many people "benefit" from this tax cut by getting X>0 number of dollars immediately. But that is quite clearly loaned money. No spending cut accompanied this tax cut and the defecit is going to be increased because of it. That is borrowed money. SOMEONE is going to have to pay it back some day, either directly or in the form of a collapsing currency should the government default on its bonds. I bet if I went to AK's house and said, "here's $400 bucks now, don't worry about paying me back now, I'll come along at some future time (probably when you can least afford it), and demand the money back then" that he might have a slightly different view on whether I was "benefitting" him or not. All this is arguable of course. A case can be made for running a defecit under certain conditions and even in the hypothetical visit AK may need that $400 bucks so much he is willing to take the risk. But I for one am going to be casting my vote in the next election for someonewho at least understands that cutting revenues should be accomanied by some plan for cutting spending. If a politician does not do so then they are a coward for trying to saddle some future leader with the consequences of their bad fiscal management. [ September 17, 2003, 22:44: Message edited by: teal ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
ok, ok, I wanted to get in here on the tax debate http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
First, the money going to free Iraq, I am as sure as I can be that the future Iraqi government will pay us back. Now before anyone points it out, I realize that we forgave the French the 2 times we bailed their butts out, but I think we would be very stoopid not to get repaid back, also I think we have a moral obligation to help the Iraqi's after we let them down after Desert Storm I when we encouraged them to revolt and they all died when Saddam slammed them down. Also, if we can help them along to democracy, then that will can not hurt. Income Tax--the top 50% of Income tax payers pay 96% of Income tax's, that is from IRS figures. I think a flat tax would be more reasonable (a very low one) then have a national sales tax, so if your rich and buy rich things, you pay! I would make congress put a super-majority requirement on that (both the flat tax and sales tax). Payroll Tax (SS and Medicaid)--Is a social program that is just a huge bloated, mismanaged organization. Both programs were implemented with good intentions, but are ran hideously. If I knew 90% of their budget went to the people that need it then I think it would viable, but when I hear a SS official say that we had to spend ever dollar (which went to new furniture and bonuses) so we can get more next year, that is messed up, a company cant survive with that attitude. Also, there is NO politician (right or left) that will EVER decrease Payroll Tax, that would make all liberals scream "they are taking these social programs from you". They do need to privatize them, or work to that direction, it is inefficient as it is now, more money will go to overhead and NOT to the people that need it. SS was started to SUPPLEMENT retirement, but has become many peoples sole retirement income (that just shows you that many people will not take responsibility for their own future when they think the government will do it for them, sad really), then they added disability ect... that just made it a bigger hand out program. The prescription bill coming along will be such a bad thing it wont be funny, not just because it will be ANOTHER social program, but it will force people out of their employers/retirement programs and into a national program, that will be bloated and cost more than what the private sector can do it for. Finally, something that has got my attention recently is the United States Constitution. Specifically Section 8. This is where the Founding Fathers spelled out things, like what is the role for the Federal Government. To make it brief, the US Government shall Provide for the Common Defense and general Welfare of the United States (and NO, I don't think they meant social welfare programs). To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, the States and Indian Tribes. To establish rule of Naturalization, uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies through the U.S. To regulate and coin money and fix Standard of Weights and Measurements. To establish Post offices and post roads. To raise and support Armies, but NO appropriation of money to the USE shall be for a longer term than 2 years. To provide and maintain a Navy. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. There are other things related to foreign relations ect...but you should get the idea of what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That the federal government is for the protection of the nation as the whole, and if you read more in the constitution, they wanted all rights go to the States for self government, so they can decide how the best way their population wanted to live. The only real exception was that there was no law against going across state borders, so if you didn't like how one state did things, there was no law that kept you from moving elsewhere. No where did the Founding Fathers say that the Federal Government was the be-all/end-all, cradle to grave, hold your hand for everyone. The Great Depression allowed the Federal Government to assume powers that were never intended for the Federal Government. True, many things helped the nation get back on its feet, but at a cost that we are still paying today. If States kept control, but was subsidized by the Feds, that would have been legal (as far as the Article 8 of the Constitution). I also think that most politicians had good intentions, but they unknowingly created a beast that will never be satisfied, the more money you put in it, the more it demands, it does not care about results, just more money. (and if you doubt that, just look at our education system, we could dump $100 trillion more each year and it would not improve children's education, because when you have kids that can not past a graduation test that they can take 5 times and only have to get 40% correct with the amount we spend now, well...). I am not naive enough to think we can get back to what our Founding Fathers intended. But there ARE too many Federal Government programs that need to be either privatized (so money gets to the people that need it) or shut down. I do not think we need to subsidies the phone industry, we don't need to subsidies farmers especially milk producers (I mean, a gallon of milk costs more than a gallon of gas), if we could get to a flat tax, then I would like to see no more deductions period. No more Corporate Welfare, it will be hard to just throw out a blanket statement that no more corporate subsides, but I am sure many of them are not needed other than a form of PORK. There is no reason NOT to help people that need help, but as a tax payer, there is NO reason that any program shouldn't be ran efficiently. That is just common sense, sadly that is lacking in our Government. Ok, golly that took me a while.... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
ACK, I cant put a picture here, so go this link...
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of _income_taxes.guest.html [ September 17, 2003, 23:31: Message edited by: Narrew ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
****snip**** I could of course be shooting off my mouth here. But I think not. In any case the statement "the tax cut's don't benefit the top 1%" seems to be blatantly false on its face. The top 1% got *something*. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Teal, No, I don't believe that is the theme of this thread, but I did mispeak. I left out the word "only". Rex's statement infered that the tax cut only benefitted the top 1%. That wasn't his use of words exactly, but that seems to be his meaning from the contrast against a "payroll tax cut". I was disagring with the notion that it only benefitted the top 1% of wage earners. This is patently false. [ September 18, 2003, 01:56: Message edited by: geoschmo ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Geo: Sorry about perhaps sounding a little harsh. I'm sure that if I had thought a little more I could have found a nicer way to point out your typo.
But I think my charicature of the forum topic stands as valid (as a charicature). You say that Rex's statement meant that *only* the top 1% of wage earner's benefited from the tax cut. By no stretch of the imagination could Rex have meant that literaly. Thus you are picking on him for saying something which is technically not true, but fail to really address the gist of his meaning (that the top 1% benefit *disproportianetly* (sp?) more than other tax payers). I gave into my penchant for sarcastic arguing by using this same tactic against you. As it always does, it backfired and made me look like a jerk and I should know better. To my mind, the ideal form of a debate is to always grant your oppenent their best possible argument (even if what they say is not quite that best possible argument). So when Rex spouts some tired argument about the top 1% of the tax payers being the one to benefit (implying *only* them in your mind), this should be read in its most powerful light (that the top 1% benefit more than everyone else does). Then one should try and argue with this new and improved best possible argument of ones debating oppenent. Admittedly, I have a lot of trouble doing this myself, but it is a good standard to try and live up to I think. If one is interested in actually feretting out some insight into questions and not merely scoring debating points. Teal |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
If I am incorrect and he meant that the top 1% benefit *disproportionally* as you suggest, then he is still wrong. Because the top 1% do not benefit from the tax cuts disproportionally. |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
So my question for you is. Do you think it is fair to have a tax system where the richest people pay proportiantely *less* of their income than poorer people? Your initial rhetoric is talking about a flat tax, so I would think that you think it is fair to have people pay an even percentage of their income to taxes. I agree with this as far as it goes, except in that I have seen some fairly compelling arguments that a progressive tax system is actually a good thing for the economy as a whole and thus I might favor that if these arguments hold water. But that is besides the point. The point is that a national sales tax is highly *regressive* in nature. In effect, what you are arguing here, is that poorer people should pay more of their income to taxes than rich people. It get's worse though. Federal taxes are of course not the only taxes that Americans pay. They also pay local and state taxes as well. Sadly many states already have a regressive tax system because they rely heavily on sales, excise, and property taxes, all of which are regressive. http://www.ctj.org/itep/whopays.htm What this means is that even if we instituted just a federal flat income tax that the poorest peole would be, on average, paying more of their income in total taxes than richer people throughout the 50 states because of the effect of these regressive state and local taxes. We need a progressive federal income tax system just in order to make the overall tax system flat! Narrew may be particuarly interested to know that Washington state is one of the worst states in the nation in terms of being particuarly regressive: Total local and state tax rate as a percentage of income in Washington state: poorest 20%: 17.5% of income 20% to 40%: 13% of income 40% to 60%: 11.5% of income 60% to 80%: 9.5% of income 80% to 95%: 8% of income 95% to 99%: 5.5% of income richest 1%: 3% of income I can't think of any possible reason why this is a "fair" state of affairs. Next time you listen to a politician spouting about a "flat" tax ask them about how they feel about sales and excise and property taxes as well. If you truly believe in equal tax rates then you can't in good conscience advocate these kinds of taxes. [ September 18, 2003, 03:46: Message edited by: teal ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:
Quote:
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Wouldn't you say that ending inheritance taxes is of disproportionately greater benefit to the wealthy? |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Speaking back to the article in question: if Bush really had wanted to help the workers of America he would have focused on the payroll tax and not on (I know this is a tired argument) the top 1%.
Geo I won't accuse of slander but what I meant is what I said (although a little tongue in cheek). Bush's FOCUS on the tax cut was for the 1% they got the largest amount of tax cut in terms of $ and % so arguably that was who the tax cut was focused on - sure the rest of us got some crumbs BUT IMO the FOCUS of his tax should have been on something else - and in this particular instance I proposed that it should have been relieving the working poor of the payroll tax burden. I know it's hard to accept and for conservatives it's a convenient thing to forget so that they can claim that 50% pay 96% of the income tax, but the payroll tax, business tax, excise tax and income tax is put into one big pot as revenue and spent as the govt sees fit. When you factor the payroll taxes and excise taxes into the revenue equation then *presto* all of a sudden the bottom 42% (not most but close to most) provide as much revenue as the top 1% but - here's the catch - they earn a lot less. [ September 18, 2003, 05:33: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Well, let's see. The Social Security tax, the largest of the payroll taxes, is the creation of the liberal darling FDR, and if Bush suggested cutting that, every liberal in the country would be screaming their heads off at the unfairness of it all. Then there is the Medicare tax. The liberals would love it if Bush suggested cutting that one, because they could immediately begin slamming him for cutting services to the elderly. There isn't much else to cut that I can remember on a paycheck stub. Of course, since I haven't seen a real paycheck in over a year (good thing I'm one of those wealthy conservatives), I may have forgotten something. And, yes, I am familiar with the so-called payroll taxes, as I have to pay SE tax on what contracting I can scrounge up, so I get to pay double Social Security. Oh, and you'll have to forgive me for taking the measly $400 per kid, I kind of like feeding them.
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Most "liberals" would be for a cut in payroll tax on people like you and me and that doesn't mean cutting social security. "Liberals" have proposed cutting the payroll tax - most of that revenue comes from the working poor after all - but it has been shot down by Republicans. The real underlying reason - of course - is that then they could not have passed an income tax cut which gives most of the money to the wealthy. So if your situation is truly what you say it is then you are getting your $400 extra per child from Bush but you probably would have been better off with a "liberal" proposal of lowering social security tax and not Bush's proposal of an income tax cut. EDIT: I trolled around the internet and found an article in the Washington Post that effectively explains my point. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer [ September 18, 2003, 08:02: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Isn't it nice that the focus of tax cuts is ALWAYS the wealthy? No matter what the tax cut is, it gets twisted to be about the wealthy (at least in some people's eyes...). http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif
|
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Republicans are all about big business and company owned cities and want a Capatilistic society that only favors the rich living off the backs of the slaves. The slaves being you and I, or poor folk. Demacrats are all about protecting people from their rights by trying to create a toltarian society whereas we all live in the future depicted in the Stallone movie Demolition Man were all the people were aloud to listen too were old comercial jingos. Given the choice between living under the rich, with the illusion that I have rights, or living in a politically correct society with no rights, I would choose the republican way every time. I hate the rich, but I know one thing they don't, I am resigned to the fact that death comes to us all, and you can't take your money with you, and at the gates to wherever, I will be there waiting for them with a smile on my face and baseball bat in my hands. [ September 18, 2003, 08:53: Message edited by: Atrocities ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
[ September 18, 2003, 09:32: Message edited by: rextorres ] |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Damn, I'm gald I don't live in the US... |
Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
Quote:
Clinton sold us down the drain to the chines for election money. This bad economy is mostly his doing, and to blame it on Bush is absurd. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif Ok you can blame a little of it on him. But not all of it. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.