For People earning over 250k you will have to pay a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of 39% how is that fair?

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?


The harder you work, the more you pay biotches. I gotta fund those $1 million dinners with Beyonce somehow.

its not fair. thats why ofama won. he tells the poor its ok not to work or try to find a job. he will take care of them and provide them with cell phones. so, they voted for him. you make to much to get those free handouts though. not to mention, he let american soldiers die while he watched from his situation room. he is the worst president ever, and yet people are still brain washed and voted for him. he will be the most disliked president in history by the time he is out of office. i really like that he had a meeting this week with top businessmen in the united states, to figure out how the national debt could be reduced. i know the solution to that, STOP SPENDING OUR FUCKING MONEY. every plan he has come up with to stimulate the economy has failed. remember the stimulas money we got a few years ago, that he expected us to spend at business's to boost the economy? what did you do with your money? i didnt spend mine, i put it into savings. i didnt need a new car or a tv for my house. most people saved it or used it to pay off bills. great fucking plan ofama. way to get the economy back on track.

Be smart, work hard, finally make the real money, but now you're expected to pay a higher percentage to take care of those who never really tried and don't want to take care of themselves.

And, if Ralph were being honest, he would understand that the people who "never really tried" and don't "want" to take care of themselves are a very small percentage of the population.

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?

That's what we call wishful thinking. You make 30k a year and you complain about tax increases for the rich?

guess what buddy, you're never going to be in the upper class. NEVER. it's a DREAM, FANTASY, NOT REAL LIFE.

Thank you for keeping MY interests in mind, as my household income is well above 1 million dollars. You stupid, delusional fool. Have fun competing with mexicans for lower wages while you vote less taxes for me.

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?

This is the line of bullshit the upper classes want you to believe; that it's not fair to tax THEM so heavily because YOU might be one of them some day.

The TRUTH, however, is that you will only make $200K per year when you're paying for your cup of coffee at 7-Eleven with a handful of small plastic $10 and $25 coins.

You are NEVER going to be rich. They are NOT going to let you into the club. You don't have the intellect, education and social connections you need to get INTO the club.

Stop kidding yourself and realize which side of the fence you're on, and don't waste one FUCKING moment of sympathy for the little rich boys crying poverty.

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?

The OP is like the southerners who fought for slavery but who were too poor to have slaves. I bet he buys a lot of lottery tickets cuz he loves his wishful dreaming.

Its the smallest actually, because all it is doing is getting rid of the tax rates which never should have been passed by Bush.

You republitards keep saying we have to stop blaming Bush... well stop fucking keeping all of his policies in place. This is what is bankrupting our country you morons.

I didnt vote for the socialist in chief but in hindsight I am glad he won. I cant wait to see all those rich liberals in Fairfax choke when they see the new tax hike he has in store for them.

40% Federal combined with the state income tax and the countys real estate and personal property tax will easily push them over 50% of their income going to the government. Think about that white guilt association members. 50%. You now have stopped working for yourself and work instead for the government. Forward comrades.

u asked for it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didnt vote for the socialist in chief but in
> hindsight I am glad he won. I cant wait to see all
> those rich liberals in Fairfax choke when they see
> the new tax hike he has in store for them.
>
> 40% Federal combined with the state income tax and
> the countys real estate and personal property tax
> will easily push them over 50% of their income
> going to the government. Think about that white
> guilt association members. 50%. You now have
> stopped working for yourself and work instead for
> the government. Forward comrades.

same tax rate as Clinton. Actually lower because real estate tax rates in fairfax are actually lower than in the mid 90s thanks to the "comrades" taking over.

I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids, so no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same, around a 35% tax rate. Sure I wish I didn't have to pay taxes, and of course I wish I had more cash, but the bottom line is there are people out there out need it more than I. Not only just the welfare issue, but it's also that our infrastructure is crumbling and in need of repair. My mother didn't raise me to be a selfish piece of shit, she taught me that charity is God's way. So sad to see that so many people here just can't stop thinking about themselves.

uh huh go on Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> u asked for it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I didnt vote for the socialist in chief but in
> > hindsight I am glad he won. I cant wait to see
> all
> > those rich liberals in Fairfax choke when they
> see
> > the new tax hike he has in store for them.
> >
> > 40% Federal combined with the state income tax
> and
> > the countys real estate and personal property
> tax
> > will easily push them over 50% of their income
> > going to the government. Think about that white
> > guilt association members. 50%. You now have
> > stopped working for yourself and work instead
> for
> > the government. Forward comrades.
>
> same tax rate as Clinton. Actually lower because
> real estate tax rates in fairfax are actually
> lower than in the mid 90s thanks to the "comrades"
> taking over.


Except that the average values are now higher so the net dollar amount is correspondingly higher.

You dopes always like to play the dumb percentage game thinking that nobody understands how percentages work. It's .2% less so that means that it's lower! lmao

Dumb turds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uh huh go on Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > u asked for it Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I didnt vote for the socialist in chief but
> in
> > > hindsight I am glad he won. I cant wait to
> see
> > all
> > > those rich liberals in Fairfax choke when
> they
> > see
> > > the new tax hike he has in store for them.
> > >
> > > 40% Federal combined with the state income
> tax
> > and
> > > the countys real estate and personal property
> > tax
> > > will easily push them over 50% of their
> income
> > > going to the government. Think about that
> white
> > > guilt association members. 50%. You now have
> > > stopped working for yourself and work instead
> > for
> > > the government. Forward comrades.
> >
> > same tax rate as Clinton. Actually lower
> because
> > real estate tax rates in fairfax are actually
> > lower than in the mid 90s thanks to the
> "comrades"
> > taking over.
>
>
> Except that the average values are now higher so
> the net dollar amount is correspondingly higher.
>
>
> You dopes always like to play the dumb percentage
> game thinking that nobody understands how
> percentages work. It's .2% less so that means
> that it's lower! lmao

And it also worth a shit load more money? Do you call that a negative tax jackass?

Suck a dick, no one is saying you have to buy a more expensive place

Johnnie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids, so
> no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same, around
> a 35% tax rate. Sure I wish I didn't have to pay
> taxes, and of course I wish I had more cash, but
> the bottom line is there are people out there out
> need it more than I. Not only just the welfare
> issue, but it's also that our infrastructure is
> crumbling and in need of repair. My mother didn't
> raise me to be a selfish piece of shit, she taught
> me that charity is God's way. So sad to see that
> so many people here just can't stop thinking about
> themselves.


Except that they're not spending much if any of that money on infrastructure. TOns of it goes to government employees and contractors to build McMansions and buy BMWs.

Don't give me that feel good shit.

­



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2013 04:35PM by chuckhoffmann.

Leeches Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnnie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids,
> so
> > no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same,
> around
> > a 35% tax rate. Sure I wish I didn't have to
> pay
> > taxes, and of course I wish I had more cash,
> but
> > the bottom line is there are people out there
> out
> > need it more than I. Not only just the welfare
> > issue, but it's also that our infrastructure is
> > crumbling and in need of repair. My mother
> didn't
> > raise me to be a selfish piece of shit, she
> taught
> > me that charity is God's way. So sad to see
> that
> > so many people here just can't stop thinking
> about
> > themselves.
>
>
> Except that they're not spending much if any of
> that money on infrastructure. TOns of it goes to
> government employees and contractors to build
> McMansions and buy BMWs.
>
> Don't give me that feel good shit.

Actually no, only .5% of the government funds go towards government employees. Contractors maybe, but then again 50% of contractor funding goes to Defense contractors, the same you assholes want to maintain and give MORE money to.

What was your point again?

out of the 4 trillion the government spends, 1.5 trillion goes towards medicare (old people) and social security (old people) who damn well deserve it.

250k per year combined income is wealthy? I will do some easy math for you, that is 125k each. Wealthy? Nigga please.

Google, "marginal rate." The MARGINAL RATE on income over 250K would go up to 39%. TAXABLE income over 250K; that's net after all deductions and exclusions.

Reading be good.

S a D Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dumb turds Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > uh huh go on Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > u asked for it Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I didnt vote for the socialist in chief but
> > in
> > > > hindsight I am glad he won. I cant wait to
> > see
> > > all
> > > > those rich liberals in Fairfax choke when
> > they
> > > see
> > > > the new tax hike he has in store for them.
> > > >
> > > > 40% Federal combined with the state income
> > tax
> > > and
> > > > the countys real estate and personal
> property
> > > tax
> > > > will easily push them over 50% of their
> > income
> > > > going to the government. Think about that
> > white
> > > > guilt association members. 50%. You now
> have
> > > > stopped working for yourself and work
> instead
> > > for
> > > > the government. Forward comrades.
> > >
> > > same tax rate as Clinton. Actually lower
> > because
> > > real estate tax rates in fairfax are actually
> > > lower than in the mid 90s thanks to the
> > "comrades"
> > > taking over.
> >
> >
> > Except that the average values are now higher
> so
> > the net dollar amount is correspondingly higher.
>
> >
> >
> > You dopes always like to play the dumb
> percentage
> > game thinking that nobody understands how
> > percentages work. It's .2% less so that means
> > that it's lower! lmao
>
> And it also worth a shit load more money? Do you
> call that a negative tax jackass?
>
> Suck a dick, no one is saying you have to buy a
> more expensive place


It's still more money you dumb turd. Yeah, you do have to buy a more expensive place because the value of the assessments are higher even if you stayed in the same place twat for brains.

uh huh go on Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Actually no, only .5% of the government funds go
> towards government employees. Contractors maybe,
> but then again 50% of contractor funding goes to
> Defense contractors, the same you assholes want to
> maintain and give MORE money to.
>
> What was your point again?


Fine with me. Cut them all. The whole government is way too big and wasteful.


>
> out of the 4 trillion the government spends, 1.5
> trillion goes towards medicare (old people) and
> social security (old people) who damn well deserve
> it.


Then wtf are you talking about infrastructure then?

Obama's the one who's avoided at all cost any mention of entitlements. What's his plan to deal with them? Pretending like there's no problem ain't gonna work and you can't tax people enough to cover what's coming.

chuckhoffmann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> uh huh go on Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > same tax rate as Clinton. Actually lower
> because
> > real estate tax rates in fairfax are actually
> > lower than in the mid 90s thanks to the
> "comrades"
> > taking over.
>
> If I remember correctly, real estate taxes in the
> county, at least back in the 70's, were something
> like $4 per $100 of assessed value. Now they're
> $1.075 per $100 of assessed value.


"The chart below shows “effective” tax rates. up until 1977, the actual rate was higher – but real estate was only valued at 40% of it’s total assessment. I have adjusted those earlier years to make an “apples to apples” comparison. The number represents the tax per $100 of assessed value – as in $1.09 for every $100 of assessed value."

meh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Moniz, Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For People earning over 250k you will have to
> pay
> > a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not
> sure
> > who voted for Obama but I for sure
> haven't.Right
> > now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000=
> total
> > income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job
> that
> > pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate
> of
> > 39% how is that fair?
>
> That's what we call wishful thinking. You make 30k
> a year and you complain about tax increases for
> the rich?
>
> guess what buddy, you're never going to be in the
> upper class. NEVER. it's a DREAM, FANTASY, NOT
> REAL LIFE.
>
> Thank you for keeping MY interests in mind, as my
> household income is well above 1 million dollars.
> You stupid, delusional fool. Have fun competing
> with mexicans for lower wages while you vote less
> taxes for me.


You, meh, are a liar.

A typical liberal..... you are a condescending pathological liar.

You related to WTL?

You disgust me.

we're all screwed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> its not fair. thats why ofama won. he tells the
> poor its ok not to work or try to find a job. he
> will take care of them and provide them with cell
> phones. so, they voted for him. you make to much
> to get those free handouts though. not to mention,
> he let american soldiers die while he watched from
> his situation room. he is the worst president
> ever, and yet people are still brain washed and
> voted for him. he will be the most disliked
> president in history by the time he is out of
> office. i really like that he had a meeting this
> week with top businessmen in the united states, to
> figure out how the national debt could be reduced.
> i know the solution to that, STOP SPENDING OUR
> FUCKING MONEY. every plan he has come up with to
> stimulate the economy has failed. remember the
> stimulas money we got a few years ago, that he
> expected us to spend at business's to boost the
> economy? what did you do with your money? i didnt
> spend mine, i put it into savings. i didnt need a
> new car or a tv for my house. most people saved it
> or used it to pay off bills. great fucking plan
> ofama. way to get the economy back on track.

The stimulus money STILL hasn't been apportioned, the phones started under Republican God (Ronald Reagan), the last time we were debt free as a nation was under Andrew Jackson.

Paying off the debt and reducing the deficit can't be done without raising taxes. It's just simple math. You cannot cut enough spending to eliminate the deficit unless you cut every federal program significantly. And that isn't going to happen... because everyone in Congress (Democrat and Republican) has his/her own pet program.

If you think he's the worst president ever, you know nothing about history. Buchanan, Van Buren, Hoover, Harding, Pierce, Fillimore, Tyler, Harrison, Carter, and Zachary Taylor were far worse. At least you're showing your ignorance for all of us to see.

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?

Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system in which the government owns the means of production. It has nothing to do with tax rates. Use the word correctly, or don't use it at all -- or do, if you're trying to make yourself look stupid.

The "Biggest tax hike in the Nation [sic] History" was in 1917, when the top marginal rate went from 7% to 67%. It later climbed in 91% in 1944, and has been declining ever since. 1917? 1944? There is something familar about those dates, something from elementary school history...Oh right, that's WWI and WWII, respectively. Obviously our great-grandfathers and grandfathers held the quaint delusion that one should pay for the things one bought, especially if one is a nation.

Odd that Mr. Romney, the Kochs, Mr. Buffet, the Waltons, and all the other captains of industry and finance were able to make and expand their fortunes during the era of confiscatory tax rates in Mr. Clinton's 1990s (39.6%) or Mr. Reagan's 1980s (started at 70%, ended at 28% for an average of 50.7%). Stranger still that the job creators somehow managed, against all odds, to create jobs during this period. What then to make of the Republican party's claim that an increase in the top marginal rate of 4.6% will grind the economy to a halt?

If past is prologue, nothing. Since rate has fallen from its WWII high of 91% to its current 35%, rates have gone up twice: during Bush 1 from 28% to 31% (3% delta, so much for "Read my Lips, no new Taxes") in 1991, and Clinton's 8.6% increase in 1993. Far from crashing the economy, this corresponded with arguably the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history -- I'm not claiming causality here, just that the increased tax rate did not stop growth.

You'll recall (maybe) that W's stated reason to reduce the top rate by 4.6% in 2003 was because the budget was in surplus and he said "you should have your money, not the government". The one chance that the Republicans had to actually reduce the debt a bit, today's political fixation, and they punted instead.

YellowDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Moniz, Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For People earning over 250k you will have to
> pay
> > a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not
> sure
> > who voted for Obama but I for sure
> haven't.Right
> > now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000=
> total
> > income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job
> that
> > pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate
> of
> > 39% how is that fair?
>
> Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system in
> which the government owns the means of production.
> It has nothing to do with tax rates. Use the
> word correctly, or don't use it at all -- or do,
> if you're trying to make yourself look stupid.
>
> The "Biggest tax hike in the Nation [sic] History"
> was in 1917, when the top marginal rate went from
> 7% to 67%. It later climbed in 91% in 1944, and
> has been declining ever since. 1917? 1944?
> There is something familar about those dates,
> something from elementary school history...Oh
> right, that's WWI and WWII, respectively.
> Obviously our great-grandfathers and grandfathers
> held the quaint delusion that one should pay for
> the things one bought, especially if one is a
> nation.
>
> Odd that Mr. Romney, the Kochs, Mr. Buffet, the
> Waltons, and all the other captains of industry
> and finance were able to make and expand their
> fortunes during the era of confiscatory tax rates
> in Mr. Clinton's 1990s (39.6%) or Mr. Reagan's
> 1980s (started at 70%, ended at 28% for an average
> of 50.7%). Stranger still that the job creators
> somehow managed, against all odds, to create jobs
> during this period. What then to make of the
> Republican party's claim that an increase in the
> top marginal rate of 4.6% will grind the economy
> to a halt?
>
> If past is prologue, nothing. Since rate has
> fallen from its WWII high of 91% to its current
> 35%, rates have gone up twice: during Bush 1 from
> 28% to 31% (3% delta, so much for "Read my Lips,
> no new Taxes") in 1991, and Clinton's 8.6%
> increase in 1993. Far from crashing the economy,
> this corresponded with arguably the longest
> peacetime expansion in U.S. history -- I'm not
> claiming causality here, just that the increased
> tax rate did not stop growth.
>
> You'll recall (maybe) that W's stated reason to
> reduce the top rate by 4.6% in 2003 was because
> the budget was in surplus and he said "you should
> have your money, not the government". The one
> chance that the Republicans had to actually reduce
> the debt a bit, today's political fixation, and
> they punted instead.


Uh oh... a man who knows the truth! Here come the attacks!

YellowDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system in
> which the government owns the means of production.
> It has nothing to do with tax rates. Use the
> word correctly, or don't use it at all -- or do,
> if you're trying to make yourself look stupid.


Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system in which the government either owns or CONTOLS property and the means of production.

Use the word correctly or don't use it at all -- or do, if you're trying to make yourself look stupid.

Al needs to open a history book. He also needs to read more than Drudge and Breitbart. The dismissal of facts by these idiots makes you want to throw in the towel for the future of this nation.

Low taxes don't spur growth. A 65-year study concluded it.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-year-study-finds/262438/

Some excerpts:

"In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003, President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a disappointing expansion followed by a Great Recession."

"Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality"

"Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession."


Taxes are not "the highest ever" like some of the rightie lunatics claim.


The rich are getting richer though. Good for you if you are extremely wealthy I guess.


But by all means, keep believing Rush, Cantor, Boehner, and McConnell when they say we need lower top rates. They figured out what 65 years of evidence disagrees with. A theory that the GOP has pushed for the last 30 years with no success to show for it. On top of it, I'm amazed by how many people who probably make $40k a year are concerned about the top tax rate. If you have never noticed, you aren't in the same tax bracket. You probably have zero capital gains, but think the capital gains tax will put you in the poor house.

The Feds need the money, Obamaphone!!!!

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YellowDog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system
> in
> > which the government owns the means of
> production.
> > It has nothing to do with tax rates. Use the
> > word correctly, or don't use it at all -- or
> do,
> > if you're trying to make yourself look stupid.
>
>
> Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system in
> which the government either owns or CONTOLS
> property and the means of production.
>
> Use the word correctly or don't use it at all --
> or do, if you're trying to make yourself look
> stupid.

Nope, you're wrong. Your sentence doesn't even make sense. Let's see why.

"...in which the government either owns or CONTOLS [sic] property..." What and whose property is being referenced here? All governments own property, whether feudal, capitalistic, socialistic, or communistic (of course here, everybody is the government). That is not a defining or determinant attribute. Private property was common in the former Soviet Union.

Who owns of all the material and implements needed for producing things is the determinant in each major system. In a feudal society, the aristocracy own everything, including the peasants. In a capitalistic society, private individuals (including companies, partnerships, etc.) own the means of production. In a socialistic one, the government (what Marx referred to as the "dictatorship of the proletariat", with the proletariat being representatives of the people) owns the means of production. And of course, in a truly communistic society, as defined by Marx, nobody or everybody owns the means of production. In such a society, people just do, just work for the benefit of all. Obviously, with the exception of certain religious cults (early Christians, interestingly enough, the Mormons at first), no such system has ever existed.

Nor should it at this time. It takes a while. Marx was a philosopher, educated in one of the finest universities in Germany. Nineteenth century German philosophy was hugely influenced by Georg Hegel, and thusly so was Marx. Hegelianism basically holds that history is a geist, a defining purpose moving through time until perfection is achieved. Marx in essence adapted this form of Idealism and couched it in socio-economic-historial terms, with each succeeding system being an improvement on its predessor. So feudalism evolves into capitalism, which evolves into socialism, which morphs into communism, the end of history -- this is meant in a positive way, as Marx considered communism is be the perfect state.

It's all about who gets to do resource allocation, not who owns a TV or a car.

Don't argue with your betters, boy. Your definition is an obviously cheap ripoff of some unrefereed blather on WorldNetDaily or the like. But you should at least learn how to copy and paste. Glaring mis-spellings and ungrammatical sentences to quickly reveal the buffoon that you are.

.
Attachments:

Dumb turds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Except that the average values are now higher so
> the net dollar amount is correspondingly higher.
>

Yes. And? So now if your home appreciated, it was also a tax hike? Good lord. I hope you don't handle your own finances. You'll be on the welfare rolls soon enough with your financial knowledge.


>
> You dopes always like to play the dumb percentage
> game thinking that nobody understands how
> percentages work. It's .2% less so that means
> that it's lower! lmao

Yes. That's how that works. If it were .2% more, that would mean it was higher.

More stupidity from Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al needs to open a history book. He also needs to
> read more than Drudge and Breitbart. The
> dismissal of facts by these idiots makes you want
> to throw in the towel for the future of this
> nation.
>
> Low taxes don't spur growth. A 65-year study
> concluded it.
> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/0
> 9/tax-cuts-dont-lead-to-economic-growth-a-new-65-y
> ear-study-finds/262438/
>
> Some excerpts:
>
> "In 1990, President George H. W. Bush raised
> taxes, and GDP growth increased over the next five
> years. In 1993, President Bill Clinton raised the
> top marginal tax rate, and GDP growth increased
> over the next five years. In 2001 and 2003,
> President Bush cut taxes, and we faced a
> disappointing expansion followed by a Great
> Recession."
>
> "Analysis of six decades of data found that top
> tax rates "have had little association with
> saving, investment, or productivity growth."
> However, the study found that reductions of
> capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes
> have led to greater income inequality"
>
> "Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate
> was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP
> and real per capita GDP were growing more than
> twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the
> same time, the average tax rate paid by the top
> tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in
> the last 60 years, while their share of income
> increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the
> recession."
>
>
> Taxes are not "the highest ever" like some of the
> rightie lunatics claim.
>
>
> The rich are getting richer though. Good for you
> if you are extremely wealthy I guess.
>
>
> But by all means, keep believing Rush, Cantor,
> Boehner, and McConnell when they say we need lower
> top rates. They figured out what 65 years of
> evidence disagrees with. A theory that the GOP
> has pushed for the last 30 years with no success
> to show for it. On top of it, I'm amazed by how
> many people who probably make $40k a year are
> concerned about the top tax rate. If you have
> never noticed, you aren't in the same tax bracket.
> You probably have zero capital gains, but think
> the capital gains tax will put you in the poor
> house.


And then you post a biased third-hard sourced article from the Atlantic. lmao

Here are some other excerpts which you conveniently left out...

"Does this story prove that raising taxes helps GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts GDP? No."

The NYT article intentionally misrepresents many of the conclusions of the CRS study and selectively presents only those aspects that support the position which it advocates.

For example, below:

"Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth."

That doesn't mean that overall tax rates don't. Or that corporate tax rates don't. Why would anyone expect that *productivity* growth would be affected since such investments don't relate much in any way to productivity. Likewise, most at that level are fully invested and don't rely on savings and to the extent that they might affect other groups, that influence is far overridden by other factors.

As another, of course changes to cap gains affect those with investments more at a *relative* level since they have more investments. You'll note that their gains parallel those of the markets/economy overall. Others also benefit in the same way. The change in relative percentage largely is irrelevant other than to class warriors like yourself. It has no real meaning or relationship to how well or not the remaining population is doing.

You might try reading the actual CRS study instead of what you were told to think it says.

The bottom line is the rich must be punished for their success. We must make everyone equal. Even if being equal means being equally poor then that is what we must do.
Attachments:

It really sucks that us rich folk will have to pay the same amount as everybody. I guess now even Romney will be paying more than 14%.

Damn it! They caught us! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It really sucks that us rich folk will have to pay
> the same amount as everybody. I guess now even
> Romney will be paying more than 14%.


They don't pay the same. They pay much, much more. We don't fund the government with percentages, we do it with dollars.

And they very likely won't be paying more. They'll just reallocate to other investments. Which is why the dividend stocks that Grandma relies on are taking a hit now as people are bailing out of them and into tax free munis. Doh! Those damn smart rich people!

And to the extent that you do cost investors money by raising taxes on their investment, they'll simply factor that into the cost of capital for those investments that they make. That means that it costs borrowers more to expand their business. Which they then factor into their pricing, hiring, etc. So in the end, who do you think ends up paying for that in one way or another? Doh!

Wouldn't it be better if we gave some incentives for those 1%-er to put their cash back into the economy?

I don't want to give the Feds anymore money. They have proven that they can't handle it. They spend WAY TOO much on overhead and crap that WE (Libs & Dems & Repubs, everyone) don't need. Why give them more?

I say let the smart rich guys use their money to create jobs for us!

Everyone wins.

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't it be better if we gave some incentives
> for those 1%-er to put their cash back into the
> economy?
>
> I don't want to give the Feds anymore money. They
> have proven that they can't handle it. They spend
> WAY TOO much on overhead and crap that WE (Libs &
> Dems & Repubs, everyone) don't need. Why give them
> more?
>
> I say let the smart rich guys use their money to
> create jobs for us!
>
> Everyone wins.


Ya think? lol

If you don't want them holding onto it, which is always the argument, then simply advantage investment (or alternately disadvantage not investing). Easy. Costs little to nothing. Effective and efficient as can be.

But you see that's really not the point. There's no punitive aspect to it in that case. Hell, they might even make more money! That would be HORRIBLE!

lulz

HOA MGR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wouldn't it be better if we gave some incentives
> for those 1%-er to put their cash back into the
> economy?
>
> I don't want to give the Feds anymore money. They
> have proven that they can't handle it. They spend
> WAY TOO much on overhead and crap that WE (Libs &
> Dems & Repubs, everyone) don't need. Why give them
> more?
>
> I say let the smart rich guys use their money to
> create jobs for us!
>
> Everyone wins.


Well bush proved he couldnt handle it, but no the rest of the government has actually done quite well with our money. See the fact that we are the worlds super power and that no country in the history of the world has had this amount of prosperity.

fucking idiot Since when did republicans become anarchists anyways. Oh right, when Fox News hypnotized them to think Ayn Rand was a realistic political platform.

Jesus christ

Lame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More stupidity from Al Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
>
> And then you post a biased third-hard sourced
> article from the Atlantic. lmao
>
> Here are some other excerpts which you
> conveniently left out...
>
> "Does this story prove that raising taxes helps
> GDP? No. Does it prove that cutting taxes hurts
> GDP? No."
>
> The NYT article intentionally misrepresents many
> of the conclusions of the CRS study and
> selectively presents only those aspects that
> support the position which it advocates.
>
> For example, below:
>
> "Analysis of six decades of data found that top
> tax rates "have had little association with
> saving, investment, or productivity growth."
>
> That doesn't mean that overall tax rates don't.
> Or that corporate tax rates don't. Why would
> anyone expect that *productivity* growth would be
> affected since such investments don't relate much
> in any way to productivity. Likewise, most at
> that level are fully invested and don't rely on
> savings and to the extent that they might affect
> other groups, that influence is far overridden by
> other factors.
>
> As another, of course changes to cap gains affect
> those with investments more at a *relative* level
> since they have more investments. You'll note
> that their gains parallel those of the
> markets/economy overall. Others also benefit in
> the same way. The change in relative percentage
> largely is irrelevant other than to class warriors
> like yourself. It has no real meaning or
> relationship to how well or not the remaining
> population is doing.
>
> You might try reading the actual CRS study instead
> of what you were told to think it says.

I read the CRS study. The conclusion is the GOP is full of shit. You really can't spin it another way. What they sell doesn't work. The fact it isn't a conclusive "No it definitely doesn't work" doesn't matter. The GOP continually says it does work and it will work if we just let them implement the rates they want. They already have the rates they wanted in 2003.

They have been pushing this bullshit that lower top tier rates spur economic growth and here is evidence that it doesn't. So are the people who peddle this crap idiots, or are they just self-serving rich guys? Their basic premise for the argument is flawed. The GOP claims that higher taxes discourages investment and business. So people just decide they don't want to make money anymore because the taxes are higher? The guys in the 1960's who paid much higher taxes didn't mind while they were building this country. Guess what? We were fighting a massive war in Viet Nam, launching social programs, and largely paying the bills at the same time! Amazing how that works.

I'm no "class warrior" besides the fact I want what is best for me. Lowering Mitt Romney's tax rate won't do anything for me, and it won't for you either unless you are the rare multi-millionaire who hangs out on FFU. Balancing the budget through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts will. The biggest threat to the economy is the continued inaction by the idiots downtown who can't come to a common sense, balanced approach. Extremes one way or the other will just speed up the path to collapse. Exposing the lie that tax cuts for the rich benefit the economy is just one step in the right direction. Don't worry though, the GOP machine got right on attacking the non-partisan CRS like they were funded by Rachel Maddow. Now you guys have some doubt to cling to again.

HOA MGR - The incentive is to make more money. Every rich guy knows that money doesn't do anything when you sit on it. Clinton raised their taxes and they responded by investing. Your argument fails. Again, you have apparently bit on this myth that all these rich guys suddenly lose the desire to make money because the rate went from 15-20% on capital gains.

YellowDog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > YellowDog Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sigh, socialism is a political/economic
> system
> > in
> > > which the government owns the means of
> > production.
> > > It has nothing to do with tax rates. Use the
> > > word correctly, or don't use it at all -- or
> > do,
> > > if you're trying to make yourself look
> stupid.
> >
> >
> > Sigh, socialism is a political/economic system
> in
> > which the government either owns or CONTOLS
> > property and the means of production.
> >
> > Use the word correctly or don't use it at all
> --
> > or do, if you're trying to make yourself look
> > stupid.
>
> Nope, you're wrong. Your sentence doesn't even
> make sense. Let's see why.
>
> "...in which the government either owns or CONTOLS
> [sic] property..."



Imagine the letter "r".

Now, place that letter in the erroneous word, "contols", after the letter "t".

Most brains are clever enough to make that correction without instructions.

Of course, most IQ's don't need an exponent to became valid.

More stupidity from Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I read the CRS study. The conclusion is the GOP
> is full of shit. You really can't spin it another
> way. What they sell doesn't work. The fact it
> isn't a conclusive "No it definitely doesn't work"
> doesn't matter. The GOP continually says it does
> work and it will work if we just let them
> implement the rates they want. They already have
> the rates they wanted in 2003.

No, it's not actually. The GOP isn't advocating as you and the article suggest, tax policy which only benefits individuals at the top 1% or 1/10th%. That's a false premise to start with. Likewise, the Dem approach to tax a much larger group than them is not shown to be any benefit to growth.


>
> They have been pushing this bullshit that lower
> top tier rates spur economic growth and here is
> evidence that it doesn't. So are the people who
> peddle this crap idiots, or are they just
> self-serving rich guys? Their basic premise for
> the argument is flawed. The GOP claims that
> higher taxes discourages investment and business.
> So people just decide they don't want to make
> money anymore because the taxes are higher? The
> guys in the 1960's who paid much higher taxes
> didn't mind while they were building this country.
> Guess what? We were fighting a massive war in
> Viet Nam, launching social programs, and largely
> paying the bills at the same time! Amazing how
> that works.


First, tax rates =/= tax receipts. Furthermore, you can't just compare two different time periods based on rates alone.

Actually, we did mind. And the economy was in the toilet for much of that time. So, apparently that didn't work out real well huh? lol

We didn't pay the bills then either. Other than Clinton's fluke surplus (see bleow) which had more to do with boomers all coming of age and converging with the Internet boom and some other factors, we've been running in the hole for every administration since WWII.


>
> I'm no "class warrior" besides the fact I want
> what is best for me. Lowering Mitt Romney's tax
> rate won't do anything for me, and it won't for
> you either unless you are the rare
> multi-millionaire who hangs out on FFU. Balancing
> the budget through a combination of tax increases
> and spending cuts will. The biggest threat to the
> economy is the continued inaction by the idiots
> downtown who can't come to a common sense,
> balanced approach. Extremes one way or the other
> will just speed up the path to collapse. Exposing
> the lie that tax cuts for the rich benefit the
> economy is just one step in the right direction.
> Don't worry though, the GOP machine got right on
> attacking the non-partisan CRS like they were
> funded by Rachel Maddow. Now you guys have some
> doubt to cling to again.
>


Yeah, obviously. lol Sad part is that you actually believe that too.

The study is fine for what it is, it's just a poor study. It doesn't answer the question as you pose it because it only addresses a single element within a much larger context. As a significant aspect, for example, it doesn't distinguish between income and capital gains, nor other tax policy, nor other economic factors which also come into play. Nobody suggests as you claim that simply lowering (which wasn't even proposed) rates alone on income for the top tier is some magic answer. Only in the minds of people like you who want to frame the argument in that way. Any more than someone suggesting that raising taxes in the same way will result in a boom.

It's simple. When you spend more than you take in, you will run a deficit. Whether you raise or lower taxes and still spend more than you bring in, you will run a deficit. If you raise taxes and continue to spend more than you bring in... wait for it... you will run a deficit. The problem with your premise is that your 'balanced approach' isn't. I means only raising taxes and not addressing the spending side. And if you want to dispute that, then show me the Obama administration's plans for reducing spending. Surely he's talked about this balanced approach long enough to have some. It's sure not in his budgets. It's sure not in the greatly anticipated cost increases for entitlements.


> HOA MGR - The incentive is to make more money.
> Every rich guy knows that money doesn't do
> anything when you sit on it. Clinton raised their
> taxes and they responded by investing. Your
> argument fails. Again, you have apparently bit on
> this myth that all these rich guys suddenly lose
> the desire to make money because the rate went
> from 15-20% on capital gains.


Wrong. Clinton LOWERED cap gains and dividend rates. That was the primary factor which contributed to the (temporary) surplus resulting from a windfall in tax receipts from investment during the dot com boom. Not even arguable, that's a fact.

The problem with you and yours' view is that it's a static analysis. You assume that people won't react to such changes. In fact, they will and you will not see anywhere near the receipts anticipated. They will invest but they will alter their investments accordingly. As is happening right now in anticipation with the moves away from dividends and towards other tax-advantaged distributions and toward tax free investments like munis. As above, it also will affect the availability of and increase the cost for capital investment since the higher net costs will simply be factored into the cost/risk analysis and either cause more risky/less profitable investments to be passed over or the higher costs passed on.

Smallest actually Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Its the smallest actually, because all it is doing
> is getting rid of the tax rates which never should
> have been passed by Bush.
>
> You republitards keep saying we have to stop
> blaming Bush... well stop fucking keeping all of
> his policies in place. This is what is bankrupting
> our country you morons.


Only an idiot thinks that a tax cut that cost a few billion in revenue is why were running trillion plus debts a year soon to be 2 or 3 trillion a year when obamacare starts.

You arent entitled to other peoples money get over it

look in the mirror Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smallest actually Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its the smallest actually, because all it is
> doing
> > is getting rid of the tax rates which never
> should
> > have been passed by Bush.
> >
> > You republitards keep saying we have to stop
> > blaming Bush... well stop fucking keeping all
> of
> > his policies in place. This is what is
> bankrupting
> > our country you morons.
>
>
> Only an idiot thinks that a tax cut that cost a
> few billion in revenue is why were running
> trillion plus debts a year soon to be 2 or 3
> trillion a year when obamacare starts.
>
> You arent entitled to other peoples money get over
> it

No, but it's a huge factor, especially when you have a surplus, cut taxes, then decide to fight two wars and pass a prescription drug program that shills for pharmaceutical companies. Nobody is entitled to anybody else's money. Economic equality isn't the goal. The goal is attempting to put people into a situation in which they can live without government aid.

Unfortunately, the solution for that is something most people don't want to hear- raising the minimum wage.

look in the mirror Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Smallest actually Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Its the smallest actually, because all it is
> doing
> > is getting rid of the tax rates which never
> should
> > have been passed by Bush.
> >
> > You republitards keep saying we have to stop
> > blaming Bush... well stop fucking keeping all
> of
> > his policies in place. This is what is
> bankrupting
> > our country you morons.
>
>
> Only an idiot thinks that a tax cut that cost a
> few billion in revenue is why were running
> trillion plus debts a year soon to be 2 or 3
> trillion a year when obamacare starts.
>
> You arent entitled to other peoples money get over
> it

These people DO think they are entitled to other people's money. They have no shame. They are losers.. sleazebags.. parasites.

Look at them; listen to them. They are the dregs of society. They live in the gutter and only pop out to grab a free meal.

Johnnie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids, so
> no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same, around
> a 35% tax rate. Sure I wish I didn't have to pay
> taxes, and of course I wish I had more cash, but
> the bottom line is there are people out there out
> need it more than I. Not only just the welfare
> issue, but it's also that our infrastructure is
> crumbling and in need of repair. My mother didn't
> raise me to be a selfish piece of shit, she taught
> me that charity is God's way. So sad to see that
> so many people here just can't stop thinking about
> themselves.

You, Johnnie, are a liar and an asshole.

LIAR__ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnnie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids,
> so
> > no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same,
> around
> > a 35% tax rate. Sure I wish I didn't have to
> pay
> > taxes, and of course I wish I had more cash,
> but
> > the bottom line is there are people out there
> out
> > need it more than I. Not only just the welfare
> > issue, but it's also that our infrastructure is
> > crumbling and in need of repair. My mother
> didn't
> > raise me to be a selfish piece of shit, she
> taught
> > me that charity is God's way. So sad to see
> that
> > so many people here just can't stop thinking
> about
> > themselves.
>
> You, Johnnie, are a liar and an asshole.

If you are paying 35% on a $30k salary, then you need to go back through your 1040EZ form and try again.

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism.

You need to brush up on your understanding of what "socialism" is.

Oblahblah Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Al Moniz, Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > For People earning over 250k you will have to
> pay
> > a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not
> sure
> > who voted for Obama but I for sure
> haven't.Right
> > now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000=
> total
> > income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job
> that
> > pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate
> of
> > 39% how is that fair?
>
>
> The harder you work, the more you pay biotches. I
> gotta fund those $1 million dinners with Beyonce
> somehow.

Know what? I'd be delighted to make 250k and pay 39% top marginal tax rate rather than what I make now (which is not a small amount, but less than 250k).

250k with 39% top marginal tax rate is still a *lot* more than 80k (less than what I make) with a top marginal rate of 25%.

Johnnie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids, so
> no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same, around
> a 35% tax rate.

I suspect you're including your Medicare/FICA and Social Security taxes in this.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Johnnie Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I make 30k a year. I'm single and have no kids,
> so
> > no tax breaks for me. I pay about the same,
> around
> > a 35% tax rate.
>
> I suspect you're including your Medicare/FICA and
> Social Security taxes in this.


I make 100K+ and I 'only' pay 28%. Something is off about their math or their morals (IE Liar).

If you're living here, the odds are that the more you make the more you're getting from the government.

The biggest tax hike will be on carried interest. It'll likely go from 15 to 35 percent, assuming that the top tax rate stays the same. Lots of money has been sitting idle in funds while deferring taxes at the rate of 15%.

Doubt_it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I make 100K+ and I 'only' pay 28%. Something is
> off about their math or their morals (IE Liar).

It's the same for me, and the 28% is the difference between my gross and net pay, so this includes FICA, Medicare, SS, state income tax, my 401(k) deduction and everything else.

The people who are bitching about taxes being raised don't really understand it, they are just reacting to a message being pushed upon them by a group with an agenda.

"This is socialism"

You know what's socialism? The fact Northern Virginia has higher taxes so that our money gets sent elsewhere in the state.

Lester Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The biggest tax hike will be on carried interest.
> It'll likely go from 15 to 35 percent, assuming
> that the top tax rate stays the same. Lots of
> money has been sitting idle in funds while
> deferring taxes at the rate of 15%.

If that's an argument against raising taxes, then the people who are buying it are very dumb, indeed.

Carried interest is a performance bonus given to hedge fund and private equity managers once they exit an investment, if the profits exceed a set goal.

It isn't a tax deferment, it is the share of profits that a manager takes over their 1 to 2% management fee. This is not a return on the manager's stake in the investment, it is money he takes in addition to his fees from other investor's profits. Thus it should not be treated as capital gains.

I'm convinced half this country doesn't really understand what tax "brackets" and "marginal" rates really mean. They hear 39% and think all their money is getting taxed at that rate.

Furthermore, even if your family grossed 300K, you probably only have a taxable income of around 200K if your'e doing things right (i.e., 401Ks, deductions, exemptions).

Finally, being worried about higher taxes by jumping suddenly from 30K to 250K is a bit absurd.

If you pay using estimated tax, the higher taxes won't be due until April 15, 2014.

They should let the tax cuts expire and do a reform of the tax rates during the year. The expiring laws include special tax credits and deductions which should be dropped in any reform.

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm convinced half this country doesn't really
> understand what tax "brackets" and "marginal"
> rates really mean. They hear 39% and think all
> their money is getting taxed at that rate.

Yup. But particularly they don't understand about MARGINAL tax rates; taht you're taxed x% on the first $y/year, and a% on the next $b/year, and p% on the next $q/year, etc.

> Furthermore, even if your family grossed 300K, you
> probably only have a taxable income of around 200K
> if your'e doing things right (i.e., 401Ks,
> deductions, exemptions).

Hard to get $100k in deductions unless you're paying a ton of interest on your house. Charitable donations cost way more than you get back in taxes, and 401k contributions are capped.

But yes, your taxable income is rarely your overall income.

> Finally, being worried about higher taxes by
> jumping suddenly from 30K to 250K is a bit absurd.


Absolutely. I'd much rather make $250k and pay 39% taxes on the last 50k than make $200k and pay 30% taxes on the last 100k.

hmmmm...
Attachments:

Oblama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hmmmm...


Yea except that peak and plummet started before Obama. FUckin tool

SIEGE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "This is socialism"
>
> You know what's socialism? The fact Northern
> Virginia has higher taxes so that our money gets
> sent elsewhere in the state.


Thanks to the current guy at the helm, Governor Bobby, Ken Cucinelli, and Sean Connaughton. Remember not a cent will go to Fairfax was what they said about capital projects.

11 billion goes to richmond, we get back 2 billion from the state. Thats 19 cents on the dollar. During Gov. Robb a decade ago this was 45 cents per dollar... or about 2.5 billion dollars more than we currently get.

Thanks Richmond! I wish WE would secede from the ROVA and see how they like being a shitty southern GOP state like Arkansas or Kentucky

ROVA to Kentucky in 3 easy steps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SIEGE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > "This is socialism"
> >
> > You know what's socialism? The fact Northern
> > Virginia has higher taxes so that our money
> gets
> > sent elsewhere in the state.
>
>
> Thanks to the current guy at the helm, Governor
> Bobby, Ken Cucinelli, and Sean Connaughton.
> Remember not a cent will go to Fairfax was what
> they said about capital projects.
>
> 11 billion goes to richmond, we get back 2 billion
> from the state. Thats 19 cents on the dollar.
> During Gov. Robb a decade ago this was 45 cents
> per dollar... or about 2.5 billion dollars more
> than we currently get.
>
> Thanks Richmond! I wish WE would secede from the
> ROVA and see how they like being a shitty southern
> GOP state like Arkansas or Kentucky


Racist bastard.

WhyUMad? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ROVA to Kentucky in 3 easy steps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > SIEGE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > "This is socialism"
> > >
> > > You know what's socialism? The fact Northern
> > > Virginia has higher taxes so that our money
> > gets
> > > sent elsewhere in the state.
> >
> >
> > Thanks to the current guy at the helm, Governor
> > Bobby, Ken Cucinelli, and Sean Connaughton.
> > Remember not a cent will go to Fairfax was what
> > they said about capital projects.
> >
> > 11 billion goes to richmond, we get back 2
> billion
> > from the state. Thats 19 cents on the dollar.
> > During Gov. Robb a decade ago this was 45 cents
> > per dollar... or about 2.5 billion dollars more
> > than we currently get.
> >
> > Thanks Richmond! I wish WE would secede from
> the
> > ROVA and see how they like being a shitty
> southern
> > GOP state like Arkansas or Kentucky
>
>
> Racist bastard.


Racist against who? I am immune to race. I have no issues against anyones race, I hate all races with assholes equally. I really hate hypocritical assholes like Bobby Mcgee down in Rich-becauseofNOVA-mond though.

B O Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bottom line is the rich must be punished for
> their success. We must make everyone equal. Even
> if being equal means being equally poor then that
> is what we must do.


Would you please indicate to me where in your posted poster that there is any mention the rich must be punished?

Tango Yankee.
Attachments:

Al Moniz, Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For People earning over 250k you will have to pay
> a tax rate of 39%. This is socialism. Not sure
> who voted for Obama but I for sure haven't.Right
> now my wife earns 45,000 and I earn 30,000= total
> income of 75,000 dollars but If I get a job that
> pays over 200,000 I will have to pay a tax rate of
> 39% how is that fair?

In the 50's the top rate was 70%. That's where the Republicans want to be socially. Those were the good old days right???

Go to England. The top tax bracket is almost 80%. That is why alot of the members of the British bands leave.

Have any of you braindead libs been paying attention to the rest of the world? Your anti-business, anti-success, high-tax brothers in Greece, Spain, and Italy have totally screwed up their economies. No jobs - and no one is going to create jobs in those anti-business environments. Idiot libs want the same failure for the USA.

Lib Zombie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Have any of you braindead libs been paying
> attention to the rest of the world? Your
> anti-business, anti-success, high-tax brothers in
> Greece, Spain, and Italy have totally screwed up
> their economies. No jobs - and no one is going to
> create jobs in those anti-business environments.
> Idiot libs want the same failure for the USA.


How are they doing in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany? The UK, Luxembourg, Belgium, and France?

High top marginal tax rates. Good social services. Good economies. It is possible for both-and.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/17/2012 10:06PM by Kardinal.

Kardinal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> snowdenscold Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > Furthermore, even if your family grossed 300K,
> you
> > probably only have a taxable income of around
> 200K
> > if your'e doing things right (i.e., 401Ks,
> > deductions, exemptions).
>
> Hard to get $100k in deductions unless you're
> paying a ton of interest on your house.
> Charitable donations cost way more than you get
> back in taxes, and 401k contributions are capped.
>
> But yes, your taxable income is rarely your
> overall income.
>


Not that hard (although I'm just guestimating here):

State income tax could easily run you 13K.
Property tax (at least in Loudoun, where it's a higher rate), could cost you 7K a year.
Mortgage interest (granted this is less now if you just refinanced) might cost you 20K.
Charity at this income might run you 15K+, unless you're a heartless tight-wad =)
Two exemptions (or more if kids) puts you in the 7.5K to 15K+ range.
401K's maxed out for 2 people are 34K.

So yeah, 100K difference between gross and taxable income is certainly doable. Even if it's only 80K my overall point still stands.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-16/world-s-wealthiest-lose-26-billion-as-fiscal-cliff-nears.html

haha poor billionaires, say thanks obama

everyone just wait till the governmebt goes after the middle class to get the debt crisis fixed. that 250,000 and over is going to go down to 100,000 then 70,000.

I heard in a conversation today among several co-workers that there is written into the Obamacare bills that the newly minted definition of a full-time employee legislated in there is now 30 hours a week. Once that became law (for the charging of payroll deductions and/or the necessity of employers to begin to have to now pay benefits for all these newly minted "30 hour a week full time employees" (once designated as "part time employees, therefore not before eligible for benefits from employers)", guess what will happen next?

All of these employers who employ hourly workers will start to take advantage of the new definition of "full time" and will begin cutting back the hours of everyone not on salary to under 30 hours a week so that they will continue to not need to pay all the extra benefits!

Those of you not working on salary, think about it! You will now have to meet your financial obligations on a paycheck that expresses a workweek of less than 30 hours a week. And, The employers will not be paying you overtime when you have to work more than 30 hours a week--they will simply hire another person at less than 30 hours a week with the hours left over from the hours taken away from every three of your coworkers! Of course, the hiring and "new jobs created statistics will go WAY UP, whole the rich folks will simply move themselves and their business out of the country to a more business tax-friendly country, possibly followed with their citizenship (which can be bought in many Caribbean countries--IF you are rich enough)! Now where does all that tax money from the rich going to come from? Something to be thinking about--you all better be making your back-up plans!