[quote]NickViar wrote:
TV, computers and cell phones are not luxuries? You classify those items as necessities?
[/quote]
No they are novelties
Phil Mickelson got demonized for considering leaving California for being taxed to death.
Between state and Fed taxes, he stands to lose 62% of his income.
Who the fuck would give that kind of money to these government pigs ?
[quote]pat wrote:
What is actually happening is [/quote]
Not to be a dick, but I do this for a living. I’m well aware what changes have occurred.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Then you should be really happy that we did not raise taxes on the poor little rich people. [/quote]
This statement is the least true thing I’ve read all day.
This isn’t even close to accurate.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They made out best on Bush’s tax cuts[/quote]
Leftist demagoguery spouted by those that either don’t understand how the Internal Revenue Code works, or don’t care and are looking to spark a little class warfare to call the right “evil”.
[quote] pittbulll wrote:
and they made out best on Obama’s tax hike .[/quote]
Complete and utter garbage. You either don’t know what you are talking about or are lying. Which is it?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I wonder if that qualifies for a pattern[/quote]
The only pattern here is your lack of understanding of the situation, and demagoguery of the right.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have held a child in India that had not eaten in 2 weeks. He should have been brown but his color was gray. That is poverty. This country does not understand what the word poor means.[/quote]
Right you are! Our “poor people” watch cable TV, carry cell phones and are fatter than a prime Hog before Easter.
There are no starving people in the US, but plenty of people sitting on their front porches waiting for a free check.
[/quote]
And I apologize for sounding like a tape stuck on repeat, but it is ENTIRELY possible for people to live off of minimum wage jobs if they would stop spending money on junk they DON’T NEED! [/quote]
I agree you can live off minimum wage in Warren Ohio but not NYC or LA etc. 
[/quote]
I’d agree with that too, but who’s fault is that? Who drove the cost of living up with all the regulations, extra taxes, taxes on cars, taxes on everything? Who built the gigantic bureaucracy that sucks at the money people make?
You know that you’d have to make 100,000 a year in NYC just to have a middle class income? That’s nobody’s fault but the government bureaucracy looking for more restrictions and taxes to implement to suck more money in from people.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Bunch of racist bastards up in here.
The president is black, get over it.
He can tell no lie.
He can coral pink unicorns and make them poop bundles of money.
He can calm the seas.[/quote]Liar. He’s half black and everybody’s only half a racist. Let’s get it straight huh?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
What is actually happening is [/quote]
Not to be a dick, but I do this for a living. I’m well aware what changes have occurred.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Then you should be really happy that we did not raise taxes on the poor little rich people. [/quote]
This statement is the least true thing I’ve read all day.
This isn’t even close to accurate.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They made out best on Bush’s tax cuts[/quote]
Leftist demagoguery spouted by those that either don’t understand how the Internal Revenue Code works, or don’t care and are looking to spark a little class warfare to call the right “evil”.
[quote] pittbulll wrote:
and they made out best on Obama’s tax hike .[/quote]
Complete and utter garbage. You either don’t know what you are talking about or are lying. Which is it?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I wonder if that qualifies for a pattern[/quote]
The only pattern here is your lack of understanding of the situation, and demagoguery of the right.
[/quote]
Wow I am so surprised we disagree NOT
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Phil Mickelson got demonized for considering leaving California for being taxed to death.
Between state and Fed taxes, he stands to lose 62% of his income.
Who the fuck would give that kind of money to these government pigs ?[/quote]
I thought Phil lived over here ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Wow I am so surprised we disagree NOT
[/quote]
This isn’t a matter of agree or disagree. This is a matter of you not having a single clue what tax changes took effect 1/1/13, and talking about them like you do.
Not one thing I quoted you as saying has any basis in fact, you cannot back up a single of those claims, particularly the ones concerning the Obama Tax Increases.
So you can sit there with your fingers in your ears and say “i disagree” all day, but understand you look like a toddler denying that 2+2=4.
Toddlers do not deny that 2+2=4 and would be preferable to these spendaholics who do.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Republicans … negotiated that the increase was spread across the middle class and only increase the top 1%
thanks :)[/quote]
Not only does this statement make no sense what so ever, even if I am correct in my assumption of your meaning, it has zero factual or historical actions to back it up.
This statement is a fabrication, and based on nothing more than demagoguery.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Republicans wanted to protect the poor little wealthy class[/quote]
In another thread, you fabricate this false situation where “conservatives refuse to listen to other points of view” and then come in here and say this utter nonsense, because you yourself have, again, refused to actually understand the position of the people that disasgree with you.
Amazing work.[/quote]
What is actually happening is that the payroll tax cuts were removed, that’s where the middle class is getting hosed. You know the payroll tax, and why shouldn’t big companies pay more? Well that shit comes out of our pocket not theirs and that was obama’s baby, not the republicans. That was part of the ‘hose the rich’ tax plan. Except is us who pays that, not the company. That’s why our taxes went up.[/quote]
We agree the middle class got hosed :)the wealthy skated just like the Republicans wanted
[/quote]
What you fail to understand, what democrats in general fail to understand, is that punishing the ‘so called rich’ always punishes the middle class instead. You raise corporate taxes, they raise prices, or cut payroll, or cut employees.
You raise their taxes, they just leave, they are rich after all they don’t have to put up with that shit and don’t.
Who always pays when your trying to ‘punish the rich’ is the middle class. Either the costs are passed along in goods and services, or employees pay with their salaries or jobs.
If people weren’t so fucking thick about they way things work, everybody would be better off. The only way you are going to get more money out of the rich is to throw their ass in jail and cease their accounts and take it. If you give them options they will never pay a cent more.[/quote]
Then you should be really happy that we did not raise taxes on the poor little rich people.
They made out best on Bush’s tax cuts and they made out best on Obama’s tax hike . I wonder if that qualifies for a pattern
As far getting more out of the rich . I say it is a lot easier than you say . I say take away their lobbies in Congress , raise their taxes . We may lose some but I would bet most that would go are already gone
I think all this anti poor propaganda is the Rich’s propaganda machine saying look at those lazy pot smoking poor people and all the while the rich are robbing the coffers [/quote]
Does having a lot of money make you a bad person?
I take it, if someone to offer you a large sum of money, you would indeed refuse it because of the said moral implications, correct?[/quote]
Having a lot of money does not make you bad or good ,it makes your wealthy . Just like having little money does not make you bad or good it makes you poor. I am a confirmed altruist so I think we should take care of the poor. I will say I think we are subsidizing corporations employees like Walmart , Target , HD and the like . America could change some policies and do the poor a favor.[/quote]
Well there is lots of opportunities to help the poor, so what are you doing to help them? Certainly it’s a noble cause. I mean, your not so concerned about the poor that you really, really want other people to take care of them?
Besides the government is by far the worst and most inefficient charity.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I have held a child in India that had not eaten in 2 weeks. He should have been brown but his color was gray. That is poverty. This country does not understand what the word poor means.[/quote]
Right you are! Our “poor people” watch cable TV, carry cell phones and are fatter than a prime Hog before Easter.
There are no starving people in the US, but plenty of people sitting on their front porches waiting for a free check.
[/quote]
All raising minimum wage does is make poverty more expensive. It’s a catalyst for inflation and devalues the currency.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Wow I am so surprised we disagree NOT
[/quote]
This isn’t a matter of agree or disagree. This is a matter of you not having a single clue what tax changes took effect 1/1/13, and talking about them like you do.
Not one thing I quoted you as saying has any basis in fact, you cannot back up a single of those claims, particularly the ones concerning the Obama Tax Increases.
So you can sit there with your fingers in your ears and say “i disagree” all day, but understand you look like a toddler denying that 2+2=4. [/quote]
I am not sure what you want me to say , I am sorry I live in reality I know what happened to my pay check , I followed the news I know what was voted on . I probably do not have a fucking clue about tax code . So fucking what ? You should be thankful taxes were not easier to understand I know I would not use an accountant if I did understand
@Beans I do not remember a challenge from you that did not deal with Tax Code , ever.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
@Beans I do not remember a challenge from you that did not deal with Tax Code , ever.[/quote]
My issues with your posts are clearly outlined where I quoted you the last page. You are making up things taht never happened.
As for a challenge about the tax code: we have gotten into it about other things, but whatever.
Look I don’t sit here and make up things about building a house, wiring a house, or working on a car, because if I was to, I wouldn’t know what I’m talking about. So I don’t post things like that. When someone talks about taxes and says factually inaccurate things like “we didn’t raise taxes on the ‘rich’”, I’m going to correct them. When they continue to make up ‘facts’ over and over, corrections become ‘challenges’.
So in short, don’t make stuff up and I won’t call you on lying.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Wow I am so surprised we disagree NOT
[/quote]
This isn’t a matter of agree or disagree. This is a matter of you not having a single clue what tax changes took effect 1/1/13, and talking about them like you do.
Not one thing I quoted you as saying has any basis in fact, you cannot back up a single of those claims, particularly the ones concerning the Obama Tax Increases.
So you can sit there with your fingers in your ears and say “i disagree” all day, but understand you look like a toddler denying that 2+2=4. [/quote]
I probably do not have a fucking clue about tax code . So fucking what ?
[/quote]
Then why in the name of ZEUS’S BEARD did you start telling people who know the tax code…WHO MADE OUT BEST WITH THE TAX INCREASES???
Holy shit Pitt…it would be like you walking onto the court at an NBA game and telling Phil Jackson how to coach.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Holy shit Pitt…it would be like you walking onto the court at an NBA game and telling Phil Jackson how to coach.[/quote]
Careful, don’t give him any ideas…
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
Holy shit Pitt…it would be like you walking onto the court at an NBA game and telling Phil Jackson how to coach.[/quote]
Careful, don’t give him any ideas…[/quote]
Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon: you may play chess masterfully, but all the pigeon will do is knock over the piece, shit on the board, and strut around like they are the victor.
Liberalism, socialism, fascism, or any of the “progressive” political systems relies on stupidity, hatred, and envy cloaked in the skin of a sheep.
It’s the same thing TC has unkowingly talked about when evaluating his Biotest customers — 20% create 80% of the business and the bottom part of the 80% create 99% of the problems.
The same is true in the workforce and in nations. Hence why democracies (as opposed to Republics) eventually collapse.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Republicans … negotiated that the increase was spread across the middle class and only increase the top 1%
thanks :)[/quote]
Not only does this statement make no sense what so ever, even if I am correct in my assumption of your meaning, it has zero factual or historical actions to back it up.
This statement is a fabrication, and based on nothing more than demagoguery.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
The Republicans wanted to protect the poor little wealthy class[/quote]
In another thread, you fabricate this false situation where “conservatives refuse to listen to other points of view” and then come in here and say this utter nonsense, because you yourself have, again, refused to actually understand the position of the people that disasgree with you.
Amazing work.[/quote]
What is actually happening is that the payroll tax cuts were removed, that’s where the middle class is getting hosed. You know the payroll tax, and why shouldn’t big companies pay more? Well that shit comes out of our pocket not theirs and that was obama’s baby, not the republicans. That was part of the ‘hose the rich’ tax plan. Except is us who pays that, not the company. That’s why our taxes went up.[/quote]
My employees are also pissed that their take-home pay is down because insurance premiums went through the roof because of all the mandated coverage coming under ObamaCare.
It sucks, but I told them millions of Democrats depend on them to work so they can stay home and play Xbox.[/quote]
I can understand IMO one of the biggest problems with affordable health care act was it did not address the run away costs . IMO Health care could be best run by nonprofit like a public utility [/quote]
My friends in Australia fly here for specialist treatment…because they would have to wait MONTHS there to see a doctor.
Same with Canada and England.
It sounds good in theory, but the practical application of socialized medicine is just not possible.[/quote]
The hilarious part is that you CAPITALIZED “months”.
Having grown up in such a system it actually too me a few seconds to understand why.
I have to point out the name of the thread "Taxes Went Up and Who’s Fault Is It? "
Obama’s plan would have raised taxes on the top 2% .
After the Republicans finish their negotiation taxes go up on the middle class.
How is tax code going to have anything to do with this scenario.
You people act as though because Beans has special expertise in tax code that he understands all . I beg to differ beans Knows tax code at least more than I do, I will not argue
The discussion changed from taxes and who’s fault it is to tax code and they are not synonymous .
And then the course of the CJS bringing nothing to the table but white noise