Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I will even accept a one time link for the tax rates Mr Taxing guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Mountain has again left the building to check it out. I assure you he is in for a rude awakening if he dares to come back with the rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methos Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 And nobody wants to follow your links which are much longer than my posts. I think they would much rather see us debate the issue through our own wits; that is if you have any. That's the problem whosure, which of us do have the "wits" as you so eloquently put it. I know I don't, and I don't many that do. Some extremely smart individuals base their life work on matters that we discuss, and they know more about it than we ever will. Usually, there is a vast number of scholarly articles in which we can make some assertions on. Sure, we can use logic, but only after we have gone through and sorted out the information that we based it on. That is why Mountain, I, and many others ask for links. Logic is only as sound as the foundation it was cast. To say you don’t require any outside sources in making your assumptions is absurd. But it’s your world, if you choose to live it in the dark, well; again, it’s your world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 We are WAITING!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So tell us mr TAX guy, which rate is higher-------------->capital gains, or personal income tax rates for the rich? So tell us Mr. CON guy, which is higher ----------------> trade deficit, or the budget deficit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Mountain leaves the board cause he is nervous as to why I asked such an incredulous question. (hehehehehehehehehehehehe) The answer will become clear when he returns from his links, but I am sure he will figure out the trap I have boxed him into, much to his chagrin I might add, hehehehehehehehe. Let's see if I can double up your childish tactics: hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 We are WAITING!!!!!!!!! Like I am WAITING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! for the answer to my question. hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe he Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 That's the problem whosure, which of us do have the "wits" as you so eloquently put it. I know I don't, and I don't many that do. Some extremely smart individuals base their life work on matters that we discuss, and they know more about it than we ever will. Usually, there is a vast number of scholarly articles in which we can make some assertions on. Sure, we can use logic, but only after we have gone through and sorted out the information that we based it on. That is why Mountain, I, and many others ask for links. Logic is only as sound as the foundation it was cast. To say you don’t require any outside sources in making your assumptions is absurd. But it’s your world, if you choose to live it in the dark, well; again, it’s your world. My friend Methos---------->the problem is that links do spin. Spin is whatever site you go to. Let me ask you something--------->was Bill Clinton an honarble President? NO. But that does not make him bad. By Bill Clinton standards, was JFK an honorable President? NO. And yet, he was great. By Bill Clintons standards, is GW a honorable President? YES. But he sucks!!!!!!!! So depending upon where we go, it will tell us anything we want to hear. I on the other hand, take what most people think and say it. Trying to convince anyone that Bill Clinton was a good guy who isn't already a liberal is a waste of time. But telling them his policys were not bad is different. That is the point!!!!!!!! Remove the pap, and Bill Clinton looks a whole lot better. I mean seriously---------->I don't care who he, or JFK screwed, my pocket means more to me by far than his indiscretions. What do we care? Anyone who brings up what he was doing with Monica is grasping at straws, and I just ain't buying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So tell us Mr. CON guy, which is higher ----------------> trade deficit, or the budget deficit? TOTAL=Budget deficit. We are trillions in the hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 I thought that was an excellent question Mountain, and I gave you an answer, now can you answer mine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 hehehehehehehe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Mountain can still not grasp the relative importance of this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Oopps, Mountain has left the building again as he trys to figure out exactly what it is I am doing. Oh well, maybe he will understand it when he gets a lick of sense, or maybe when he learns that YOU never ask a question that you already do not know the answer to. Maybe he will return, maybe he will again run away. In either case, by the morning, I will answer it for him and show the linkage of the question to his illogic logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 TOTAL=Budget deficit. We are trillions in the hole. And how are we going to get out of this hole? By lowering the tax rates? By cutting taxes again for the rich few, hoping it will "trickle down"? Spending cuts? Where? So many questions, so few answers. Or, only hard answers at this point because Bush has only made those choices more painful. I know what supply-siders would say - Lower the taxes and the revenue will just flow like wine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savetheplanet Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 why don't you answer my question Whosure? Do you support the farm subsidies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So tell us mr TAX guy, which rate is higher-------------->capital gains, or personal income tax rates for the rich? 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains. Top marginal income tax rate: 35% So, a secretary's income is taxed at a higher rate than his/her bosses' unearned income. Sounds fair to me, if you are a conservative!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 15% tax rate on eligible dividends and capital gains. Top marginal income tax rate: 35% So, a secretary's income is taxed at a higher rate than his/her bosses' unearned income. Sounds fair to me, if you are a conservative!!!! The money invested in the capital has already been taxed. The gains are like gambling winnings. By rights, they shouldn't be taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 The money invested in the capital has already been taxed. The gains are like gambling winnings. By rights, they shouldn't be taxed. So, you think unearned income should either not be taxed or taxed at a lower rate than earned income? Talk about class warfare!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 My friend Methos---------->the problem is that links do spin. Spin is whatever site you go to. ... Links are spin? A link to the GAO is spin? Who knew? Telling us that the links we posted were spin is itself spinning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 The money invested in the capital has already been taxed. The gains are like gambling winnings. By rights, they shouldn't be taxed. Is this fair? That many forms of unearned income should be more lightly taxed than earned income may appear incongruous in a country that, according to the President, sanctifies the work ethic, but the explanation is not hard to fathom: wealthowners have more political power in America than nonowners of wealth. The list of tax privileges that wealthowners enjoy runs the gamut from the petty to the grandiose. The initial advantage is that taxes on unearned income are not withheld automatically, as are taxes on wages and salaries. Unearned income is also exempt from social security and other payroll taxes, which are the fastest growing federal taxes. I know, pointing out such unfairness is engaging in class warfare. Right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So tell us Mr. CON guy, which is higher ----------------> trade deficit, or the budget deficit? Hey you're doing that thing you told me I shouldn't do, Answering a question with a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fmccap Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 why don't you answer my question Whosure? Do you support the farm subsidies? Did you look at post 152????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trimdingman Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 So, you think unearned income should either not be taxed or taxed at a lower rate than earned income? Talk about class warfare!!!!!!! Gambling winnings should not be taxed. In Canada they aren't. When you gamble, there is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing, minus the fee to the middle man. To be taxed on the winnings would make it so that only a fool would risk it. In investment, you can, and more than likely will lose your shirt. Unless the government is prepared to cover your losses, they should not be taking any of your gains. I believe that everyone should have a maximum tax that he has to pay. If you are way over the income level, you would just pay it. There would be no accountants or government investigation required. If you pay that amount, you are covered. It would be in the $10,000 to $15,000 range. The tax rate would be 25% from the first dollar earned until you reach the cut-off. The money saved in beaurocracy would save many billions a year. There are countless other ways to cut down on government waste. Legalize drugs. It would be like when they ended prohibition. Most shootings are related to the drug trade. The price of narcotics would be comparable to the price of aspirin if it were legal. It is not illegal to eat rat poison. Why is it illegal to take heroin? Whole police departments could be eliminated, along with district attorneys, lawyers, prisons, customs officials and drug-sniffing dogs. There would be less purse snatching, home robberies, drive-by shootings, innocent by-standers getting shot, less medical resourses spent on shooting victims. Taxes could be reduced. Oh, we can't have that. People would lose jobs. Putting more money into peoples' pockets would create meaningful jobs, as people would be spending their money on things that they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Gambling winnings should not be taxed. ... So a young man or woman who just sits back and collects their dividends and income from their unearned trust funds should not be taxed? And, if it is, at a lower rate than their gardner, or their chauffeur or their maid or their nanny? Comparing unearned income to gambling winnings is a bit of a stretch don't you think? Just curious, how did you develop these theories? Have you read something? Have you heard somebody? What or who planted these ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mountaineerwv Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 Hey you're doing that thing you told me I shouldn't do, Answering a question with a question. Yep, I was thinking of you when I used that from the conservative playbook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.