[quote]csulli wrote:
My taxes have gone up[/quote]
When? And by how much?
Why did the payroll tax credit and social security tax cut not result in a tax decrease instead of increase?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
My taxes have gone up[/quote]
When? And by how much?
Why did the payroll tax credit and social security tax cut not result in a tax decrease instead of increase?[/quote]
Wish I knew. Personal finance isn’t really my forte. I just know how much money I’m losing lol.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]csulli wrote:
My taxes have gone up[/quote]
When? And by how much?
Why did the payroll tax credit and social security tax cut not result in a tax decrease instead of increase?[/quote]
Wish I knew. Personal finance isn’t really my forte. I just know how much money I’m losing lol.[/quote]
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary.
Congress sets up a problem…then avoids it after hemming and hawing…and we’re supposed to be happy with them?
“Hey, boss, I wrote some sloppy code but then I fixed it! Please like my performance!”
Fucking wankers.
Check out all the pork in the fiscal cliff bill, NASCAR, green energy, and Hollywood must be happy.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fiscal-cliff-bill-filled-with-pork-4163166.php
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary. [/quote]
Do you think he was worrying that I wouldn’t?
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary. [/quote]
Do you think he was worrying that I wouldn’t?[/quote]
Perhaps, you are like mold, you have a tendency to grow on people.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary. [/quote]
Do you think he was worrying that I wouldn’t?[/quote]
Perhaps, you are like mold, you have a tendency to grow on people. [/quote]
Why, do you use, so many commas, inappropriately,
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary. [/quote]
Do you think he was worrying that I wouldn’t?[/quote]
Perhaps, you are like mold, you have a tendency to grow on people. [/quote]
Why, do you use, so many commas, inappropriately,[/quote]
Maybe it’s to sound like Captain Kirk?
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Don’t worry, he will still make fun of you, as you pay his salary. [/quote]
Do you think he was worrying that I wouldn’t?[/quote]
Perhaps, you are like mold, you have a tendency to grow on people. [/quote]
Why, do you use, so many commas, inappropriately,[/quote]
Maybe it’s to sound like Captain Kirk?[/quote]
I prefer…ellipsis…to evoke that…paused tone.
Here’s what baffles me: I’m middle class. Maybe upper-middle on a good day. Certainly not wealthy, though. I don’t resent taxes and feel incredibly fortunate to live what I consider an almost privileged life in an amazing country. My needs are met. And most of my wants.
So I’m always curious when the upper crust is so bitter about taxes and social programs. It can’t possibly be that their standard of living is affected in any meaningful way. So is it just greed? Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
1.) The rich got the overwhelming majority of the tax cuts.[/quote]
Such as?
Please explain the progressive tax system in your answer.
Without google, can you even name 3 additional changes to the IRC other than qualified dividends and long term capital gains that came about in the Bush era?
I don’t believe anything is this simple, and for someone with your views you swallow up enough propoganda and bullshit “reporting” as anyone you call out for doing so.
The fact is, no one is getting to that level of office without selling out. Selling out to corporate interests and the interests of fellow life long “statesmen”. Just to get your name on the funding list you owe more favors than you can re-pay. By the time you collect enough money to spend on a primary commercial, enough party people have you in their pockets where your ideas aren’t your won anymore.
He is all about money and power, calling him a “corporate owned dummy” is a lazy thinking waste of bandwith. Obama is anything but a dummy, anything.
Such as? If your talking about them, how about some details?
While the rhetoric around this idea is often abused by both sides, it is true. No, every start up isn’t born in the mind of a rich person, but the funding comes from, get this, people with money…
We live in a complex society with many moving parts. Rich people play an important role in the life style you are accustomed to. Get over it.
Lazy rhetoric at its best. Ignoring basic economics at its worst.
[quote]The government can and does create jobs along with other things. The internet was conceived and incubated in the dynamic public sector. Not the private sector!
[/quote]
no, the government didn’t create a single job involving the internet in the private sector. It released a technology into the private sector and the private sector created jobs to use the technology.
Que “semantics” post from pitt.[/quote]
Actually, “government” didn’t create the technology either, it just displaced workers who would otherwise be working on the technology to fill the same demands only it hired them at a loss(without generating a profit).
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Here’s what baffles me: I’m middle class. Maybe upper-middle on a good day. Certainly not wealthy, though. I don’t resent taxes and feel incredibly fortunate to live what I consider an almost privileged life in an amazing country. My needs are met. And most of my wants. So I’m always curious when the upper crust is so bitter about taxes and social programs. It can’t possibly be that their standard of living is affected in any meaningful way. So is it just greed? Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]
I think part of this is a slippery slope. If the poor keep getting poorer then that $450,000 keeps getting smaller every year. Then assuming you maintain your current financial status, one day everything YOU have will be considered greed, that is unless you slip down into the lower class group.
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Here’s what baffles me: I’m middle class. Maybe upper-middle on a good day. Certainly not wealthy, though. I don’t resent taxes and feel incredibly fortunate to live what I consider an almost privileged life in an amazing country. My needs are met. And most of my wants. So I’m always curious when the upper crust is so bitter about taxes and social programs. It can’t possibly be that their standard of living is affected in any meaningful way. So is it just greed? Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]
Do me a favor. Swap out earnings with a Total, and apply this “baffling” situation to a powerlifter.
Are you baffled that people want to get stronger, even though they are already stronger than 98% of the planet? Or are their priorities just “way fucked up”?
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Here’s what baffles me: I’m middle class. Maybe upper-middle on a good day. Certainly not wealthy, though. I don’t resent taxes and feel incredibly fortunate to live what I consider an almost privileged life in an amazing country. My needs are met. And most of my wants.
So I’m always curious when the upper crust is so bitter about taxes and social programs. It can’t possibly be that their standard of living is affected in any meaningful way. So is it just greed? Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]
I know people who don’t own guns who are vehemently against more gun control.
[i]
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
[/i]
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
In regards to the development of the internet it never would have made it in the private sector. In addition why was it fair to release that technology to only a few people so that they can make gargantuan profits off a public sector technology?[/quote]
Nothing you said here is relevant to the original topic involving the internet. Even if it is valid, it has nothing to do with the conversation.
Care to address any of the other points and questions you ignored?
[quote]Also Nixon was to the left of Obama on healthcare. So for you to be consistent in your argument you have to call NIxon a socialist. Obviously you do not want to do that so you are stuck trying to find a way to wiggle out of this contradiction. This is what happens when you are married to a desecrated ideology.
[/quote]
Don’t believe I brought up Nixon or Obama, so not sure what you are getting at here…
[quote]kpsnap wrote:
Here’s what baffles me: I’m middle class. Maybe upper-middle on a good day. Certainly not wealthy, though. I don’t resent taxes and feel incredibly fortunate to live what I consider an almost privileged life in an amazing country. My needs are met. And most of my wants.
So I’m always curious when the upper crust is so bitter about taxes and social programs. It can’t possibly be that their standard of living is affected in any meaningful way. So is it just greed? Any person making $450,000+ a year can’t possibly be lacking anything unless their priorities are just way fucked up.[/quote]
It is because nobody really likes to see their paychecks go down, no matter what. I am certainly not happy with this, since my tax rate actually did go up, but I was not naive enough to think that any plan to reduce the deficit, regardless of who proposed it and was in power, was not going to involve people paying more in taxes. As long as there are some pretty substantial spending cuts, including defense and entitlement reform in the near future I will consider the extra taxes I have to pay worth it. If there aren’t I am going to be extremely pissed
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
We passed the “tax the wealthy” tax here, and the rich and businesses are they are leaving in droves. Did you know there is talk of a “departure tax” ? Yes, one last money grab, along with a vehicle miles traveled tax (where you are taxes for every single mile you drive).
I am telling you, give these Democrats an inch, they tax a mile.
[/quote]
fixed it for you.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
I should have used the word puppet which is much more accurate. [/quote]
Eh, I wouldn’t use puppet before “sell-out” but it isn’t really all that different I guess.
No not really. I can see more than a narrow view of a complex topic. You don’t seem to care to.
Purchasing power doesn’t automatically translate into demand first off. Secondly, you don’t automatically need a super elastic PP in order for demand to generate for a good or service. Third, investments that are purely following demand that is already created shouldn’t make up 100% of your portfolio. One should consider investing in emerging markets or infant stage ideas as well. Yes they have more risk, but the rewards of one hit can dwarf the losses of a half dozen misses or more.
Many things lead to the contraction of an economy. To single out demand like it is the sole factor, or even the most important factor is either you being lazy, or to borrow your favorite attempt at an insult: you being married to an ideology.
what happens when taxes are raised? contraction
What happens when people save more than spend? contraction
What happens when many large companies change operating activities to repair their balance sheets? contraction
What happens… You know what, forget it.
Serious? You blame Europe’s problems on austerity? Is that your contention?
I guess our ideas of what “very good” means are two different things.
Aside from the fact you are ignoring earlier comments and questions about taxes, we’ll assume for the sake of arguement you won’t ignore these as well.
An estate tax shouldn’t exist at all, as it is double taxation. So maybe not so good.
Much of the “bush-era” changes to the IRC greatly benefit non-rich people as well. Also you like to ignore the many not-so-good changes that were passed Tuesday/Wednesday.
With this little detail your post is false, because it is only partially true.
Your rate is 100% incorrect here. You’re forgetting the rest of the Obama-era tax increases.
…But you’re okay with “rich” people paying more in taxes? So you’re cool with discrimination then, or is the tax code not progressive enough for you?
So people with LTCG and people make more than 200/250k in a year don’t generate demand? Heirs of estates over 5mil don’t generate demand?
What does this relate to?
[quote]paulwhite959 wrote:
Congress sets up a problem…then avoids it after hemming and hawing…and we’re supposed to be happy with them?
“Hey, boss, I wrote some sloppy code but then I fixed it! Please like my performance!”
Fucking wankers.[/quote]
Bad analogy, their job is to represent the interests of who voted for them. If those interests are the exact opposite of their co-workers then the only way some could do a perfect job is by others failing completely.