So what do the Liberals do now that Saddam is captured?

[ARogueTrader]

Let's try this.

True Statement A: Michael Moore and all liberals practice Hannityism.

True Statement B: Hannity and all conservatives practice Hannityism.

Hannity is therefore right in his opinions and Michael Moore is therefore wrong in his opinions.

Can you see the illogical, fallacious conclusion?

Quote from spect8or:

Oh, I see. We should all just shut up and be the 'good guys'. That'd work great.

Why don't I hear you whinging about the carp that whining bitch Michael Moore keeps spouting? Would be because you tend to agree with him? What makes that any different to me agreeing with Hannity?

 

[Maverick74]

Who says they deserve one?

Who says the rich deserve one?

Are you smoking something right now. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of our nations taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay only 4% of our nations taxes. And you are saying they deserve to get back more then the 4% they put in? Are you high?

 

[ARogueTrader]

Here is the problem with your figures.

What percentage of the top 50% wage earners wages go to:

Basic Housing Costs
Basic Food Costs
Insurance Costs
Health Care
Clothing (not fashion)
Child care

The point is, that in a society in which there are going to be rich and poor because of the way the system is designed, the tax burden in proportion to survival and bare necessity is much more oppressive to the poor.

I favor a flat tax personally, with no deductions.

Quote from Maverick74:

Who says they deserve one?

Who says the rich deserve one?

Are you smoking something right now. The top 50% of the wage earners pay 96% of our nations taxes. That means the bottom 50% pay only 4% of our nations taxes. And you are saying they deserve to get back more then the 4% they put in? Are you high?

 

[Pabst]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Here is the problem with your figures.

What percentage of the top 50% wage earners wages go to:

Basic Housing Costs
Basic Food Costs
Insurance Costs
Health Care
Clothing (not fashion)
Child care

The point is, that in a society in which there are going to be rich and poor because of the way the system is designed, the tax burden in proportion to survival and bare necessity is much more oppressive to the poor.

I favor a flat tax personally, with no deductions.

No two ways about it: A flat tax with a single bracket, i.e. 15-20%, will cause lower wage earners to pay more money than presently, and the very rich will save a ton. Keep in mind, with mortgage rates this low the deduction on interest payments dosen't add up to mucho dinero. There is very little true deductability built into this tax code.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Flat tax, based on consumption/use makes sense.

I don't suppose the wealthy are going to live in one bedroom apartments and eat macaroni & cheese and pancakes to save money.

Effectively, there should be a baseline, call it subsistence line, in which people should not be taxed at all below that line.

The ones who are really getting reamed are the middle class to upper middle class, who cannot afford the tax write-offs and expensive accountants who use sophisticated methods to fudge the numbers.

The only concept of a tax shelter the ultra poor have is sleeping outside an H&R block to stay out of the rain.

Quote from Pabst:

No two ways about it: A flat tax with a single bracket, i.e. 15-20%, will cause lower wage earners to pay more money than presently, and the very rich will save a ton. Keep in mind, with mortgage rates this low the deduction on interest payments doesn't add up to mucho dinero. There is very little true deductability built into this tax code.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Here is the problem with your figures.

What percentage of the top 50% wage earners wages go to:

Basic Housing Costs
Basic Food Costs
Insurance Costs
Health Care
Clothing (not fashion)
Child care

The point is, that in a society in which there are going to be rich and poor because of the way the system is designed, the tax burden in proportion to survival and bare necessity is much more oppressive to the poor.

Wait a minute, because the rich pay a smaller percent of their income towards basic necessities, the tax burden is more oppressive to the poor?!? What the hell does one have to do with the other.

Personally, I just don't care all that much about the alleged 'poor' in America. Their standard of living is light years beyond what the true poor in the world experience. In America, the 'poor' have every opportunity to change their condition. Beyond that, I couldn't give a damn about how 'oppressive' their tax burden is. I certainly can't stand the idea of me being taxed progressively higher the more I make based on some bogus 'responsibility' I have to help -- via handouts -- someone who has every freakin opportunity to help himself, but refuses to do what it takes, content sit back and collect handouts because you liberal assholes have taught them -- through years of indoctrination and repetition -- that they somehow have a 'right' to it.

Anyway, I can't be bothered going into the whole left vs right thing on specific issues. The main point was that you seem to think the left is correct about everything so when they fill the airwaves with their lefty hate speeches you don't see any problem with it. But when it's Hannity or Rush doing it, you fill up the whole Chit Chat forum crying foul.

 

[Pabst]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Flat tax, based on consumption/use makes sense.

I don't suppose the wealthy are going to live in one bedroom apartments and eat macaroni & cheese and pancakes to save money.

Effectively, there should be a baseline, call it subsistence line, in which people should not be taxed at all below that line.

The ones who are really getting reamed are the middle class to upper middle class, who cannot afford the tax write-offs and expensive accountants who use sophisticated methods to fudge the numbers.

The only concept of a tax shelter the ultra poor have is sleeping outside an H&R block to stay out of the rain.

Nonsensical. Give examples of legally "fudging the numbers." Anyone can pull a Helmsley. Risky stuff. The rich pay through the ass, especially wage earners. Yea business owners can always fudge, but show me how A-Rod doesn't pay.

 

[marketsurfer]

Quote from ARogueTrader:





I favor a flat tax personally, with no deductions.

agree. the next best thing to NO INCOME TAX.

best,

surfer

 

[ARogueTrader]

Ask Arthur Anderson about "legally fudging the numbers."

Many things on tax returns are subject to interpretation, and an audit.

My accountant always wants to push the envelope, where I choose to be more conservative.

If the money in tax were being paid 100% for military programs like SDI and oil exploration in Alaska, and not to help the poor and social welfare programs, would the wealthy wage earners still complain?

The issue is not the amounts being taxed, but where it is being spent.

It is an ideological issue, not really a tax issue.

There are quite a few wealthy democrats who pay just as much, if not more than the majority of conservative republicans.....and these people don't bitch about taxes.

Quote from Pabst:

Nonsensical. Give examples of legally "fudging the numbers." Anyone can pull a Helmsley. Risky stuff. The rich pay through the ass, especially wage earners. Yea business owners can always fudge, but show me how A-Rod doesn't pay.

 

[spect8or]

Quote from ARogueTrader:



It is an ideological issue, not really a tax issue.

BS it's not really a tax issue. To me, it's both.

Not only do I hate the amount of tax I have to pay, I hate where it gets spent too. At least if it was spent on stuff I liked it wouldn't bother me so much, but I'd still rather decision on what to spend my hard-earned was left up to me alone.