[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Not sure how you’d tier a flat tax, [/quote]
You would do it however you could and we would end up right back at the progressive system we have. [/quote]
That’s basically what I was getting at :)[/quote]
I agree , but we could simplify the code , I do know it would not be good for business:)
I personally think a progressive flat tax would do society the most fairess. Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
Pitt, that’s basically how it is, unless you mean you pay that % without any deduction, is that it?
Look at page 4, the annual table. It goes 0%, 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, 35, and 39.5%. So for example, if you make $90,050 you pay 0% on the first $2,200, 10% on the next $8,925, 15% on the next $27,325, and 25% on the next $51,600.
Total earnings (2,200 + 8,925, 27,325, 51,600) = 90,050.
Tax liability (892.5 + 4098.75 + 12,900) = $17,891.25, which equals the base for the 28% bracket. That’s roughly 20% of your income.
That’s basically what you’re saying just with different steps.
[/quote]
I might even buy keeping our present system and doing away with ((((ALL DEDUCTIONS))))Our code should be able to be understood by anyone that has to pay them . We should not have to go to bean counters to cover our asses .
They would have to change the laws gradually . In the 80s you could buy an investment property , run it in the red and still make a profit because of the way the tax laws were worded.
When they changed that law it caught Bill Clinton and Fife Symington and I am sure many more . It probably percipitated the S and L collapse
[/quote]
You say the code should be, “understood by anyone that has to pay them . We should not have to go to bean counters to cover our asses,” but then bring up business tax code. They are two completely different things.
For most people, work/middle class, the tax code is not that complicated. The tables are easy enough to read and there aren’t even that many deductions we can take. Most people can fill out a couple of forms and they’re done. All of the instructions are online.
For example, I have to think about 6 things for 2012:
You might also have kids to worry about. Most people won’t have any more than this and probably will have less.
It might take a few hours, but it can be figured out.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[/quote]
USing Buffet as an example is like saying: “All Running Backs are too good and teams should be limited in how much they can use them. Look at Barry Sanders.”
I know you will not bother to try to understand all the angles in what I’m saying, let alone the major point, but someone else might, so…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[/quote]
Okay, assuming that is true, that’s one guy who at some point paid a hell of a lot more than his secretary.
Most people do not live off capital gains, not even the rich.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
History, why do people ignore it? [/quote]
Because you have to seek it out, distill or process it, and retain it. It’s easier not to.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Everybody’s first $30,000 isn tax free then from (30 to 50 k @ %10 )50 to 100 k %20 and so on
[/quote]
As was pointed out, that is how it works now.[/quote]
If that is the way it works now the wealthy would pay the highest tax Rate not the second lowest Rate
[/quote]
What?[/quote]
Warren Buffet pays a higher percentage than his secretary
[/quote]
Okay, assuming that is true, that’s one guy who at some point paid a hell of a lot more than his secretary.
Most people do not live off capital gains, not even the rich. [/quote]
First off that was a great video Pittbull.
Warren Buffett lives off of Dividends (15% tax rate) and Capital Gains (used to be 15% now it is 20%) only. He does not pay himself a salary from Berkshire Hathaway (0 tax rate). He pays himself stock so he only pays taxes when he sells those shares. He does pay taxes on dividends and capital gains though. The rich get richer because they own everything through a company (assets or investments), and the poor get poorer because they buy expenditures (Xbox).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole thing is a joke. [/quote]
Correct.
All the “sky is falling” nonsense from the left is the product of idiots.
I mean the same god damn thing happened in the 80’s, and it was so awful no one remembers it, and congress voted overwhelmingly to keep it after the SCOTUS overturned the orginal.
History, why do people ignore it? [/quote]
So when my facility gets closed along with about 200 other ATC towers are we not out of jobs? Are the federal pay furloughs not going to go into place as they are currently projected to be? Are federal prison worker’s pay not going to be furloughed as well? I understand that the government could pull the whole “we will postpone this for another 6 months” thing, but it still doesn’t look good for some of us Americans. But since it doesn’t directly affect you we all shouldn’t care.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole thing is a joke. [/quote]
Correct.
All the “sky is falling” nonsense from the left is the product of idiots.
I mean the same god damn thing happened in the 80’s, and it was so awful no one remembers it, and congress voted overwhelmingly to keep it after the SCOTUS overturned the orginal.
History, why do people ignore it? [/quote]
So when my facility gets closed along with about 200 other ATC towers are we not out of jobs? Are the federal pay furloughs not going to go into place as they are currently projected to be? Are federal prison worker’s pay not going to be furloughed as well? I understand that the government could pull the whole “we will postpone this for another 6 months” thing, but it still doesn’t look good for some of us Americans.[/quote]
Oh my how silly of me to think they can handle this without all the nonsense you talk abotu up here. You mean, the government can’t possibly survive with small increases than originally intended? You mean the government might have to operate like every private business and family in the nation and make hard choices, because instead of their budget increasing 100 billion it is only going to increase 98 Billion?
Booo Hooo…
I would bet cash money if the union wouldn’t fight me, I could handle the reduction of the increase in spending, which is all the sequester is, not actual cuts, a reduction of increases, not decrease, not elimination of increases, a reduction of increases, without any of the scare tactics you swallowed up and parroted from leftiests.
Don’t worry chap, the government will still spend more than it did last year, and hurt people to prove a political point, rather than you know, operate in an efficient manner and find cost savings in other places.
If you only knew the truth, how silly you’d feel.
My brother-in-law and about 4 other acquaintances/friends work for military contractors, making the bombs and missiles Clinton, Bush and Obama like to drop on people. I hope the three that supported Bam do get laid off, it is only fair that way.
My wife works for the state, in a federally funded program. So guess what, I go through what you are crying about every year and have, for every year, for almost a decade now, from both State and Federal government scare tactics. She writes reports that hit everyone’s desk from the governor on down, and you can feel free to come cry to me any time you want.
In short, yes it affects me directly, very directly, like be able to put food in my daughter’s mouth directly. But see the difference between you and I is I’m willing to have to change, to have to adapt to make a better world for my kids, and all the kids of America (who’s parents allow them to be born). I’ll sacrifice everything I have for them. If it means I have to get a second job, or my wife has to change careers, we will, because it is what needs to be done.
I’m willing to do my part, tighten my belt, eat a little humble pie to help my country. Shit it is the least I can do. To bad more people aren’t.
But back to the major point of the post you quoted. Yes things were so awful and drastic in the 80s when this happened, not a single person remembers it. It was so awful Obama keeps bringing it up to show the examples of all the millions of jobs lost, oh wait…
Pic related.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
Enjoy your delays if you ever fly moron.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
This whole thing is a joke. [/quote]
Correct.
All the “sky is falling” nonsense from the left is the product of idiots.
I mean the same god damn thing happened in the 80’s, and it was so awful no one remembers it, and congress voted overwhelmingly to keep it after the SCOTUS overturned the orginal.
History, why do people ignore it? [/quote]
They’re too busy watching Michelle at the Oscars???
The sky will not fall. Unless of course, you are Maxine Walters and “170 million jobs will be lost”. Hmm…
These are cuts from future spending, IE not cuts at all. Fucking morons.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
Enjoy your delays if you ever fly moron.[/quote]
Calling me a moron? Wow what a well thought out and adult rebuttal. You just changed my mind with that show of wit and understanding of the topic.
So I might have to hang out at the airport bar a little longer, or keep my nose in a book for a few more pages? OH MY GOD WHAT WILL I EVER DO??? LIFE IS OVER!!!
I thank god I don’t have to worry about real problems, like being drone striked by accident, or my child starving to death, or being so poor I’ll never see an automobile in my life let alone have my choice of which one to purchase and own… But yes, I’ll be sure to sit here and fret over longer lines for a total luxury that billions of people don’t even have access to at the level I do, because you know, I’m a moron.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. A 90 minute delay at every top airport during the summer travel season equals hundreds of millions of dollars lost by each airline. The airline industry has been hit incredibly hard over the last 4 years so this could cause many to go under. That would cause the air travel system to grind to a halt, which would tank the economy. We are a travel based country, so no flights=no money.
But I don’t really care what you think about all of this. You are just another idiot in this country that thinks that all of this is some stupid reality show bullshit. You watch your idiotic opinion channels and think that this is some fucking game, just like the politicians. Instead, you should be looking at the consequences of their actions. That is what will hurt you, not bipartisan bickering. Less police + less fireman + less prison guards + less ATC = a really shitty country with high unemployment. Add in the proposed decreases in unemployment benefits and that equals increased crime (remember that the police forces are about to be gutted?).
So keep thinking that this is all some game idiot.
[quote]brnforce wrote:
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. [/quote]
No, you called me a moron, and now an idiot because you can’t actually have an adult conversation. You can’t refute my points, so you insult me, in the hopes that it makes my points invalid.
This tactic fails among people that can think.
I can teach a parrot to say “2 + 2 = 4”. Just because that parrot doesn’t understand math, a moron in your opinion, doesn’t make 2 + 2 = 6.
Maybe, maybe not. Not sure why you automaticly assume that a) this delay will actually happen b) these companies are so government-esk they can’t adapt to a change such as this and find a way to cut costs because of it.
I would imagine this delay will cut down on lost baggage costs, and even some labor in the teams that turn flights around during transition. And extra 90 mins could mean 1 or 2 less people per shift, per hanger, per airport…
I would imagine booking smaller flights could cut down on these delays as well, smaller planes mean lower fuel costs, lower upfront investment.
Seems to me it is fuel prices that have been the biggest driver of margin decreases…
And it also seems to me the bottom of this peice makes your entire arguement null and void. But you can ignore that whole [i]Details on how the Federal Aviation Administration or Transportation Security Administration will handle furloughs haven’t been made clear yet. But the airlines said it doubted too many flights would be affected.
“We remain confident and we urge and expect that whatever happens will not significantly impact our air-travel system. It’s too important,” Elwell says.[/i] part if you want to. I mean a “sky is falling” arguement isn’t as concerned with facts and circumstances is it?
If this were true, you wouldn’t have responded in the first place, it isn’t like you post here a lot. Nor would you call me so many names.
I think you are full of the bullshit here.
Personal attacks and assumptive conjecture.
SOund arguement, sound indeed.
No, I don’t actually watch any news or opinion on TV. In the rare moments I do watch TV, it is typically History channel or movie stations.
Not sure you read any of my posts at this point. Because if you did you wouldn’t be projecting like this.
Hmmm, like the consequences of the last time the government did this in 1986? Should I look at those?
Fear monger much?
How is it that less of an increase in funding year over year, so the budget going from X to 8X, suddenly equates to less police and firemen? How does that happen? Why do you accept that sort of conversation from your government? How does that make any sense in your mind?
How old are you?
(auto play ad on right)
Seems NA airlines have adapted quite well to the obamaeconomy, don’t see how these delays will suddenly be too much to handle and all travel will come to a sudden hault, that is assuming the delays happen.
Seems this whole “hit hard over the last 4 years” idea of yours doesn’t really hold much water either. Yeah 2008 hurt, it hurt everyone, but they seem to have had a rebound and are coming back to the norm…
Should I go on?
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. A 90 minute delay at every top airport during the summer travel season equals hundreds of millions of dollars lost by each airline. The airline industry has been hit incredibly hard over the last 4 years so this could cause many to go under. That would cause the air travel system to grind to a halt, which would tank the economy. We are a travel based country, so no flights=no money.
But I don’t really care what you think about all of this. You are just another idiot in this country that thinks that all of this is some stupid reality show bullshit. You watch your idiotic opinion channels and think that this is some fucking game, just like the politicians. Instead, you should be looking at the consequences of their actions. That is what will hurt you, not bipartisan bickering. Less police + less fireman + less prison guards + less ATC = a really shitty country with high unemployment. Add in the proposed decreases in unemployment benefits and that equals increased crime (remember that the police forces are about to be gutted?).
So keep thinking that this is all some game idiot.[/quote]
First, police and firemen are funded through the states and localities, not the federal government. As for prison guards, my brother-in-law is employed in the federal correction system…they aren’t planning any cuts, as far as he’s aware.
But this is a game, and we are the pawns. Do think the effects you decry are necessary? Seriously? Just this week, the House passed a bill that would give the President the authority to choose where the 2.5% reduction comes from. The President said he’d veto it. Why? He’s been running around the country (at taxpayer expense) to say the sky is falling. He’s got his puppets going around saying the same thing. He even ORDERED the release of 60,000 illegal immigrants detained for deportation as a prelude to the sequestration. He WANTS this to hurt, he WANTS us to suffer. He’s posturing for the 2014 elections…he’s already admitted it. He can’t afford to alleviate our suffering when his political future is on the line.
Government waste is everywhere. There is no need for people to lose their jobs, carriers not to be refueled, or the planes from running [B]if the people in charge of allocating funds cared[/b]. Quite simple, the President is playing with people’s livelihoods and lives. That is what progressives do.
[quote]defenderofTruth wrote:
[quote]brnforce wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[/quote]
I called you a moron because you can’t understand actual consequences. A 90 minute delay at every top airport during the summer travel season equals hundreds of millions of dollars lost by each airline. The airline industry has been hit incredibly hard over the last 4 years so this could cause many to go under. That would cause the air travel system to grind to a halt, which would tank the economy. We are a travel based country, so no flights=no money.
But I don’t really care what you think about all of this. You are just another idiot in this country that thinks that all of this is some stupid reality show bullshit. You watch your idiotic opinion channels and think that this is some fucking game, just like the politicians. Instead, you should be looking at the consequences of their actions. That is what will hurt you, not bipartisan bickering. Less police + less fireman + less prison guards + less ATC = a really shitty country with high unemployment. Add in the proposed decreases in unemployment benefits and that equals increased crime (remember that the police forces are about to be gutted?).
So keep thinking that this is all some game idiot.[/quote]
First, police and firemen are funded through the states and localities, not the federal government. As for prison guards, my brother-in-law is employed in the federal correction system…they aren’t planning any cuts, as far as he’s aware.
But this is a game, and we are the pawns. Do think the effects you decry are necessary? Seriously? Just this week, the House passed a bill that would give the President the authority to choose where the 2.5% reduction comes from. The President said he’d veto it. Why? He’s been running around the country (at taxpayer expense) to say the sky is falling. He’s got his puppets going around saying the same thing. He even ORDERED the release of 60,000 illegal immigrants detained for deportation as a prelude to the sequestration. He WANTS this to hurt, he WANTS us to suffer. He’s posturing for the 2014 elections…he’s already admitted it. He can’t afford to alleviate our suffering when his political future is on the line.
Government waste is everywhere. There is no need for people to lose their jobs, carriers not to be refueled, or the planes from running [B]if the people in charge of allocating funds cared[/b]. Quite simple, the President is playing with people’s livelihoods and lives. That is what progressives do.
[/quote]
These aren’t the cuts that should be made. These are catastrophic. I am one of the first people that say that cuts need to be made, but they have to be intelligently decided instead of just cleaving off safety. It should have been illegal for the government to use threats against the people’s jobs/money to motivate themselves but the system is corrupt. If this goes through as it might, we will see a drastic spike in aircraft accidents over the next 5-10 years. We will also see an almost instant increase in crime.
I was at the Y soaking in the hot tub last night after squats with about 7 seniors in the tub. The conversation moved seamlessly straight from how the government spends too much and the deficits are killing us to their SS/medicare/medicaide benefits sucked and needed to be increased with better drug coverage. Its weird how everybody wants cuts as long as the cuts don’t effect them.