[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They are robbing the middle to pay the rich and blaming it on the poor [/quote]
Actually the rich and poor are robbing the middle, but okay.[/quote]
while I can see and appreciate the poor argument , I personally would rather redistribute some of my wealth so no one starves ans so every one gets the medical attention required to live well.
The Rich are a different story they are taking the middle’s money and convincing every one that it is the poor
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They are robbing the middle to pay the rich and blaming it on the poor [/quote]
I’ve linked quite a bit of factual numbers that shows this isn’t true at all, yet you continue to just say it over and over again…
[/quote]
Your Denial amuses me
Mitt’s dollar $.86
Pitt’s dollar $.72
you do the math
[/quote]
add back the foreign taxes paid, and re-run your figures, for like the 200th time.
Okay, I’ll do ti for you, because independent thought and critical thinking are hard.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/romney_tax_return_1040_2010/
His tax per the 2010 return: (We’ll ignore this is probably 10x more than you’ll ever pay in your lifetime.)
3,009,766
Add back his foreign tax credit: (We’ll ignore the carryforwards for now, which are amounts paid he didn’t get credit for)
129,697
Then, we’ll look at his 2011 return for state taxes paid addback http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2012/president/candidates/romney/romney_tax_return_1040_2011/
1,323,094
That means he paid a total of 4,462,557 million in 2011 in tax. His 2011 AGI: 20,901,075 for an effective % of 21%.
6% of that is state taxes paid, and we excluding/ignore consumption taxes, any phantom income, and again, the fact people bashing him will never, ever in their lifetime either give as much as he does to charity, or pay even a fraction of the tax he does.
So in essence, you benefit for services by our government HE pays for, more than he does, and have the balls to complain he doesn’t pay enough of your way.
lmao
The FairTax people. Look it up, support it. The fact that it, through companionship legislation, abolishes the IRS is reason enough.
working just the opposite of intent
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
Provide one ounce of evidence that the IRS numbers I posted, the last page that completely destroy your assertion here, are wrong or STFU please.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
STFU please. [/quote]
You know he cannot understand what you posted…so there will be no STFU, unfortunately.
Pitt, when you can waste $1.4 Million of taxpayer dollars for shit like this ^, it means you should be limited on the amount of money you should take from people.
Please take a look at that video everyone, it’s Covered California’s new method to attract people to sign up to Obamacare.
If you think shit like this is ok, you deserved to be castrated.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
We are not even talking in the Republican’s reign[/quote]
You want to know how I know that Buffet is lying?
Because I doubt he pays his secretary the amount of income it would take for her to pay a higher effective rate.
Admin professionals don’t make that much…[/quote]
Lol, and if she does no one should feel bad for her…[/quote]
She would firmly be in that magically “1%” everyone hates, but in this instance, she is akin to someone eating out of a dumpster, because Mitt Romney and some other person lefties are jealous of, yet still love the Kennedys Kerry.
[/quote]
This is an example of where you don’t get me , I personally feel it is because you let some media person do your debating .
I am an independent , I would tax Kerrys and Kennedys the same as Romneys . I know you think I dislike Romney because he is a rich white guy .
I dislike Romney because I listened to him take 4 sides to every debate
(1) I am for it
(2) I am against it
(3) I was never for it
(4) I was never against it
Find me one subject that he did not run this gambit on
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
Provide one ounce of evidence that the IRS numbers I posted, the last page that completely destroy your assertion here, are wrong or STFU please. [/quote]
Mitt’s dollar is worth $.86
Pitt’s dollar is worth $.72
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Pitt, when you can waste $1.4 Million of taxpayer dollars for shit like this [/quote]
We agree , that is some nauseating shit 
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
STFU please. [/quote]
You know he cannot understand what you posted…so there will be no STFU, unfortunately.[/quote]
Lamb chop , what do you think is so difficult to understand ?
The term “progressive” describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highes
sounds opposite of
Mitt;s dollar $.86
Pitt’s dollar $.72
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Kinda funny this was posted today:
[/quote]
Meant to post this here. …
Three observations about dividend income. One, the initial investment more than likely came from ordinary income that was taxed at ordinary income rates. Secondly, there is significantly more risk in earning income through dividend distribution. Lastly, some of those dollars invested become jobs that pay ordinary income.
The question is, what would happen if we taxed dividend distributions at ordinary rates? How would that affect R&D, jobs, the ability to expand, etc…?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Kinda funny this was posted today:
[/quote]
Meant to post this here. …[/quote]
Does that include locations like
Andorra
Bahamas
Cyprus
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Panama
Samoa
San Marino
Seychelles ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Kinda funny this was posted today:
[/quote]
Meant to post this here. …[/quote]
Does that include locations like
Andorra
Bahamas
Cyprus
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Monaco
Panama
Samoa
San Marino
Seychelles ?
[/quote]
Includes all foreign countries as far as I know.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
STFU please. [/quote]
You know he cannot understand what you posted…so there will be no STFU, unfortunately.[/quote]
Lamb chop , what do you think is so difficult to understand ?
The term “progressive” describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highes
sounds opposite of
Mitt;s dollar $.86
Pitt’s dollar $.72
[/quote]
What does he pay for his government service, and what do you pay? He is paying for your service and you are whining like a little cry baby because even though he pays your way, it’s a lower % of his income (even though it actually isn’t).
The problem with people like you is that it isnâ??t about doing whatâ??s best or whatâ??s fair, itâ??s about holding people down to your level. He pays for welfare, you donâ??t. He pays for food stamps, you donâ??t. He provides jobs and grows the economy, you donâ??t. He provides the money that runs the government and you donâ??t. He is the one getting the job done. But again, to you it doesnâ??t matter if he gets the job done, he has more and achieves more than you, and you want to knock him down in the mud with you.
Itâ??s like being against the Bush tax cuts that INCREASED government revenue. Itâ??s like when Obama said he was in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy even if it decreased revenue. Taxation, to a liberal, isnâ??t about funding; itâ??s about punishment and jealousy.
If you put a bunch of crabs in a bucket, some will try to climb out, some will just sit there, and some will actually pull down the ones trying to climb out. You are the 3rd kind.
It’s like… Math doesn’t exist in Pitt land, and he can’t read charts, lol.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
STFU please. [/quote]
You know he cannot understand what you posted…so there will be no STFU, unfortunately.[/quote]
Lamb chop , what do you think is so difficult to understand ?
The term “progressive” describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highes
sounds opposite of
Mitt;s dollar $.86
Pitt’s dollar $.72
[/quote]
What does he pay for his government service, and what do you pay? He is paying for your service and you are whining like a little cry baby because even though he pays your way, it’s a lower % of his income (even though it actually isn’t).
The problem with people like you is that it isnâ??t about doing whatâ??s best or whatâ??s fair, itâ??s about holding people down to your level. He pays for welfare, you donâ??t. He pays for food stamps, you donâ??t. He provides jobs and grows the economy, you donâ??t. He provides the money that runs the government and you donâ??t. He is the one getting the job done. But again, to you it doesnâ??t matter if he gets the job done, he has more and achieves more than you, and you want to knock him down in the mud with you.
Itâ??s like being against the Bush tax cuts that INCREASED government revenue. Itâ??s like when Obama said he was in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy even if it decreased revenue. Taxation, to a liberal, isnâ??t about funding; itâ??s about punishment and jealousy.
If you put a bunch of crabs in a bucket, some will try to climb out, some will just sit there, and some will actually pull down the ones trying to climb out. You are the 3rd kind.
[/quote]
Where the fuck did you cut and paste this from ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
working just the opposite of intent [/quote]
STFU please. [/quote]
You know he cannot understand what you posted…so there will be no STFU, unfortunately.[/quote]
Lamb chop , what do you think is so difficult to understand ?
The term “progressive” describes a distribution effect on income or expenditure, referring to the way the tax rate progresses from low to high, with the result that the average tax rate is less than the highes
sounds opposite of
Mitt;s dollar $.86
Pitt’s dollar $.72
[/quote]
What does he pay for his government service, and what do you pay? He is paying for your service and you are whining like a little cry baby because even though he pays your way, it’s a lower % of his income (even though it actually isn’t).
The problem with people like you is that it isn�¢??t about doing what�¢??s best or what�¢??s fair, it�¢??s about holding people down to your level. He pays for welfare, you don�¢??t. He pays for food stamps, you don�¢??t. He provides jobs and grows the economy, you don�¢??t. He provides the money that runs the government and you don�¢??t. He is the one getting the job done. But again, to you it doesn�¢??t matter if he gets the job done, he has more and achieves more than you, and you want to knock him down in the mud with you.
It�¢??s like being against the Bush tax cuts that INCREASED government revenue. It�¢??s like when Obama said he was in favor of increasing taxes on the wealthy even if it decreased revenue. Taxation, to a liberal, isn�¢??t about funding; it�¢??s about punishment and jealousy.
If you put a bunch of crabs in a bucket, some will try to climb out, some will just sit there, and some will actually pull down the ones trying to climb out. You are the 3rd kind.
[/quote]
Where the fuck did you cut and paste this from ?
[/quote]
word, where I typically type things first.