This could explain a lot

[radarwhiz]

Just curious, Lee, if you don't mind, which percentile are you in? From what I've seen, it seems that most people who share your opinions tend to fall into the top percent. I most certainly do not and everybody I know would be in the lower end of the bottom 50%. They're all baffled when I explain my views on the subject and don't seem to understand that taxing is based on percetages not just a simple number. For those of us at the bottom, voting for someone who says they'll cut taxes for us only makes us a bit selfish doesn't it? But despite the numbers you pointed out, the bottom 50% claims the largest percent of the population so in order to get elected you sweet-talk that group the most.

[icingdeath88]

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

"WHEN AT FIRST YOU DON'T SUCCEED, REDEFINE SUCCESS"

(in his signature)

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

...paying the welfare checks...

The worst bit of welfare is that its use has completely changed since its inception. Getting one back on one's feet is very different than (when abused) a free ride.

Originally Posted by Cam

I find little motivation to cast a vote in any sort of election using a electoral system. ... I don't vote. I most likely never will.

At least as long as I live in New York State, I don't really have a reason to vote for this reason. Outside of New York City, the gap between Democrat and Republican is 20k votes - something I can contribute influence to. Beyond that gap, when you add NYC's influence, my support of either major candidate is handily absorbed in the hands of two Democrat voters for each Republican voter. No matter my choice, 29 Electoral College votes are submitted by my state. I may as well watch cartoons and eat cheez doodles instead of stand in line at my designated polling place!

This should also be testimonial to the difference between NYC and Upstate NY, which should be separated by a giant chainsaw for the benefit of both regions.

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Traffic tickets = state income.

Ohai, "speeding tax"! Does driving a green Forester hastily constitute tax evasion in its low albeit lofty profile?

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by lhopp77

A bit of income tax trivia:

Top 1 percent of income pays over 40% of total taxes

Top 10 percent pays 71% of total taxes

Top 25 percent pays 86% of total taxes

Top 50 percent pays 97% of total taxes

Equals---50 percent pf population does not pay squat???? They just live off the others and it is much of this group that wants to raise taxes on the rich.

More:

Of the top 15 RICHEST congress members--10 are Democrats!!!!!!!!!!


(Oh, selective caps is not called "yelling", it's called "emphasis" for the uninformed)

Lee

I can't even muster the energy to dignify this absurdity with a well-written and researched response, but the bull**** is easily exposed when we realize the top-taxed people/organizations contain the top tier of wealth.

The lowest tier of paid people are not "not paying squat", they are not being paid squat and therefore bearing a greater burden relative to their income, and I am going out on a very short limb to assume you think this is fair because the rich inherently deserve greater leniency simply due to the fact they are "successful", regardless of whether that success is legitimate, inherited, deceitfully acquired, negligent, or criminal in origin.

Frankly I think you either do not understand simple percentages and ratios (and possibly empathy) or intentionally wish to deceive those whom do not align to your personal interests and I would not put either option very far outside the realm of possibility.

Your argument is based in fallacious misuse of numbers and falls apart as if constructed from carefully placed grains of sand. Apparently stable in a vacuum of [containing no] opposing force, but crumbles at the slightest breeze.

When and if I care to further address any of your other points be sure to have your sources ready. You will need them, this I assure you.


If anyone here thinks the rich are having it more rough than the rest of us, you are either brainwashed or just incredibly stupid, neither option precludes prosperity.
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-ch...america-2010-4
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesam...er/wealth.html
http://www.alternet.org/economy/1457...to_get_it_back

Who do you think writes the laws in this country? Who do you think has immunity from criminal persecution? Who do you think is the cause of the widening wealth disparity of the "classes"? The poor don't control jack ****, the middle class doesn't control half of jack ****, the rich control pretty much everything, and they get their way pretty much everywhere, all the time, provided they don't fall out of favor with their pillow keepers.

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

Really, dude?

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Ohai, "speeding tax"! Does driving a green Forester hastily constitute tax evasion in its low albeit lofty profile?

Right, because I said speeding tickets were taxation. That's the same.

Again, I do not have much energy for this kind of discussion with such a small and potentially unmoving audience, but I hope it was obvious I greatly over-simplified the situation. Abuse varies by district and is subject to the whim of a disgruntled officer whom is bought more by local political "authority", rather than the people they are supposedly hired to serve, which is part of the problem itself.

Here in Anchorage we have it pretty good. Our police force does not appear to be corrupt, I have had and seen nothing but good things about them, but then again they have a lot of real work to do what with clearing out drunk homeless people, mopping up crashes, investigating domestic violence, what have you.

I drive without concern of being pulled over because the police are too busy with real problems. I don't cause them problems, so they don't give a **** if I blast by them on the highway, though I did get a thumbs down recently when I ran a corner a little too hard when it was icy out, they do care. Point is when you are a cop and you have **** to do you don't screw around with innocent people. I highly suspect that in a situation where one is less necessary one finds things to validate their self-imposed importance to society, and if you can do that by writing BS tickets and posturing/goading teenagers and senile people into arguing with you, you will do it.

[K_Dub]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

-Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

The Republican party was actually once empathetic to the common civilian. They didn't impose their will on the entire country, forcing their religious beliefs down the throats of a diverse population. Anyone who claims to want "small government" while denouncing a woman's right to choose, or freedom of religion has their perspective skewed.

To me, the modern Republican party represents small government only insofar as to not spend any money on domestic jobs. Big intrusion into every aspect of personal life, higher spending on war, cutting taxes for the rich while imposing the burden on the middle and lower class are in no way conservative ideals.

Remember; these "freeloaders" are American citizens, and deserve to eat and receive healthcare just as much as you, regardless of ethnicity. If we can find Billions of dollars in our budget to kill foreigners in their home country, and pad the bonuses of Wall Street fat-cats, then it seems like taking care of our own nation's destitute shouldn't be such an issue.

November 7, 2000 was the day that Democracy died in America. It will never be the same after that. We all know that "One Man, One Vote" works for other countries, but for some reason we can't get that right ourselves. I voted only once since then, but that was just to ensure that Palin didn't get within 100 yards of the White House. I didn't like the guy I voted for any more than McCain, just picked the lesser of two evils under any contingency.

As a self employed freelance worker with no union representation that puts me in a unique demographic. I pay almost 50% of my annual income in taxes, while being without health insurance or the eligibility to partake in the programs that I fund. That does not mean that I feel that we should cancel these programs just because I'll never get my share, that would be down right greedy. Ike would not approve.

NikFu: Like.

With that, I end my 15 hour work day (of which I only get paid for 8 because I'm on a flat rate at this company).

[radarwhiz]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

you either do not understand simple percentages and ratios (and possibly empathy) or intentionally wish to deceive those whom do not align to your personal interests

I suppose you would like to states to charge higher sales tax to the wealthy when they go to the grociery store or buy a car or gas because that would be "empathetic" to the "less fortunate". This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY where you're free to live your dream, work hard and earn as much money as you can and if you're successful enough we'll take it from you and hand it out to those who aren't. Can anyone say SOCIALISM?

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

I suppose you would like to states to charge higher sales tax to the wealthy when they go to the grociery store or buy a car or gas because that would be "empathetic" to the "less fortunate". This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY where you're free to live your dream, work hard and earn as much money as you can and if you're successful enough we'll take it from you and hand it out to those who aren't. Can anyone say SOCIALISM?

Following your current train of thought will lead you to fully manufactured straw man or red herring fallacy.

Your "taxing the rich because the poor aren't living the dream is socialism" argument is a fallacious one for many, many reasons, most of which I have no desire to delve into.

Firstly, sir, your cries of that evil ideology fall onto unwavering ears as you are likely well aware [re: in denial] of the socialist nature of many government and civilian institutions. Someone who gives a damn will be sure to chime in. I don't.

Secondly, you have by design omitted the cronyism rampant in today's capitalistic structure. This is a sign of either true ignorance, or complacency with the capitalist oligarchy, which is something of which I am willing to inform you.

I have to leave right now, but the gist of what I will explain to you is that the nations powers are not where they were designed to be by the writers of the Constitution. It is not supposed to be in the pockets of corporations. I understand if you think that is fair because "if you work for and aqcuire something you deserve it", but that is a selfish and greedy and wholly anti-progress, anti-freedom sentiment.

Thank you, BRB.

[K_Dub]

Originally Posted by radarwhiz

I suppose you would like to states to charge higher sales tax to the wealthy when they go to the grociery store or buy a car or gas because that would be "empathetic" to the "less fortunate". This is the LAND OF OPPORTUNITY where you're free to live your dream, work hard and earn as much money as you can and if you're successful enough we'll take it from you and hand it out to those who aren't. Can anyone say SOCIALISM?

I like Ike. In 1958-1959 the nation entered a steep recession. All too aware of what can and did happen only 30 years earlier, Ike had to do something. He imposed a 91% capital gains tax on the highest bracket earners. The economy stabilized, the GDP soared and the average American family enjoyed a 20% increase in annual income.

Don't call Ike a commie though, his ghost will come kick your butt.

This time around, when the economy tanked we gave Billions to that same demographic, hoping they'd somehow overcome the greed that brought down the system and invest in the working class out of the goodness of their hearts. How's that working out so far?

Also, anyone who claims to believe in a free market, but also thinks that tax laws should guide the economy needs a perspective check.

[RojoRocket]

Originally Posted by K_Dub

I like Ike. In 1958-1959 the nation entered a steep recession. All too aware of what can and did happen only 30 years earlier, Ike had to do something. He imposed a 91% capital gains tax on the highest bracket earners. The economy stabilized, the GDP soared and the average American family enjoyed a 20% increase in annual income.

Don't call Ike a commie though, his ghost will come kick your butt.

This time around, when the economy tanked we gave Billions to that same demographic, hoping they'd somehow overcome the greed that brought down the system and invest in the working class out of the goodness of their hearts. How's that working out so far?

Also, anyone who claims to believe in a free market, but also thinks that tax laws should guide the economy needs a perspective check.

LIKE!

Maybe Lee can jump in here with some more of his GOP website numbers.

Glenn Call me a Progressive

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Right, because I said speeding tickets were taxation. That's the same.

Whimsical figure of speech is a wh--

Oh, forget it.

[NikFu S.]

Phew, I was afraid you were going to argue with me.

This kind of discussion gets me a little offensive.

Originally Posted by RojoRocket

LIKE!

+2

[RojoRocket]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Phew, I was afraid you were going to argue with me.

This kind of discussion gets me a little offensive.


+2

Not at all Nik! Very eloquently stated! +1 to you as well.

Glenn

[RojoRocket]

This in the news today:
Judge Blocks Wisconsin Law on Union Bargaining
By MONICA DAVEY
Published: March 18, 2011

CHICAGO — A judge issued a temporary restraining order on Friday that prevents Wisconsin’s new law cutting collective bargaining rights for public workers from taking effect, at least for now.
The decision, issued by Judge Maryann Sumi of the Dane County Circuit Court, temporarily bars Wisconsin’s secretary of state from publishing the controversial law, one of the procedural requirements for it to come into effect in the state. Publication had been expected late next week, but Judge Sumi’s ruling delays that until at least March 29, when she plans to hold a full hearing on a lawsuit that questions the validity of the collective bargaining law based on the speedy manner in which it was carried out earlier this month.
An appeal is possible even before then.

I'm sure Beck, Rimbaugh et al are already rallying the $$$$ to fight this.

Glenn Call me a Progressive

[NikFu S.]

That whole Wisconsin deal has fierce protest from both sides, its easy to fall for the punditry.

The best argument I've heard yet is that even though the unions may be a bit crummy what little power they wield is being turned over to the elites. What more motivation do you need to oppose Mr. Walker's bill.

[sunvalleyray]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

Following your current train of thought will lead you to fully manufactured straw man or red herring fallacy.

Your "taxing the rich because the poor aren't living the dream is socialism" argument is a fallacious one for many, many reasons, most of which I have no desire to delve into.

Firstly, sir, your cries of that evil ideology fall onto unwavering ears as you are likely well aware [re: in denial] of the socialist nature of many government and civilian institutions. Someone who gives a damn will be sure to chime in. I don't.

Secondly, you have by design omitted the cronyism rampant in today's capitalistic structure. This is a sign of either true ignorance, or complacency with the capitalist oligarchy, which is something of which I am willing to inform you.

I have to leave right now, but the gist of what I will explain to you is that the nations powers are not where they were designed to be by the writers of the Constitution. It is not supposed to be in the pockets of corporations. I understand if you think that is fair because "if you work for and aqcuire something you deserve it", but that is a selfish and greedy and wholly anti-progress, anti-freedom sentiment.

Thank you, BRB.

Think Professor Paul Wooley from the London School of Economics would agree. Great article in The New Yorker - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...printable=true regarding the false assumptions that the market is efficient.

I have been away on a business road trip and see that several people still believe, as I once did, that the free market system is exactly that - free, efficient and fair. Read Professor Wooley's theory and then let's discuss.

Regarding who pays what in taxes...give me 90% of all income and I will pay 99% in taxes and still be super rich. The real issue is what is a fair rate of taxation not how much one pays. Statistics can be very misleading...93% of all lesbians are woman etc. meaning one can prove almost anything quoting numbers. Remember 87% of all tax payers make less than $100,000 a year!

I think the middle class is disappearing and that the American dream is a myth being sold to us by the super rich, like the owner of Fox News or the financiers of the Tea Party - the Koch Brothers.

Ray