Are You One of the 85?

[tvguy]

Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts. His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.

My point that you just acknowledged was that contrary to what a lot of people think the rich do indeed pay more taxes and do give back.

I didn't say they shouldn't pay more did I?

BTW every damn "are you a lib or not test" I've ever taken classified me as a liberal. So Sorry I don't fit what you think a liberal should be Nancy.

I guess in some peoples minds all libs are in locked step, think just alike. Are anti military, guns, police and love to hate on this awesome country.

[charger]

Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts. His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.

My point that you just acknowledged was that contrary to what a lot of people think the rich do indeed pay more taxes and do give back.

I didn't say they shouldn't pay more did I?

BTW every damn "are you a lib or not test" I've ever taken classified me as a liberal. So Sorry I don't fit what you think a liberal should be Nancy.

I guess in some peoples minds all libs are in locked step, think just alike. Are anti military, guns, police and love to hate on this awesome country.

Only the Indoctrinate lock step progressives think that.

[Wonky]

In my many years hanging around here I've seen very few posts get so far off the track as this.

Conservative/Liberal? Yes, a factor…a tiny factor. History shows clearly (remarked a couple of time above) that when extreme concentration of wealth is held by only a few, "the masses" will rise and attempt to effect equality.

You Conservatives: You might want to go back a read Edmund Burke (the father of modern conservatism) and read his Trieste of "the social contract" in which he addresses this very thing. And Liberals, you might want to read John Locke ( Liberal) and his strong feelings that while society should be blessed with what we now call "the social safety net", he (Locke) was adamant that personal responsible trumped all other personal qualities with regard to commerce.

Leonard, maybe you should restart this. Your original post was (IMHO) on the mark and points to a very real problem that needs critical reasoned thought.

Hopefully, even we local folks can find some way to start working to make changes to turn this around.

[cletus1]

Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts. His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.

My point that you just acknowledged was that contrary to what a lot of people think the rich do indeed pay more taxes and do give back.

I didn't say they shouldn't pay more did I?

BTW every damn "are you a lib or not test" I've ever taken classified me as a liberal. So Sorry I don't fit what you think a liberal should be Nancy.

I guess in some peoples minds all libs are in locked step, think just alike. Are anti military, guns, police and love to hate on this awesome country.

I hate when I forget to attach a laughing smiley to posts when I am half joking. Sorry for calling you Mitt.

I was not joking about income equality and I have more to say about the minimum wage and wages in general, which I'll do when the debate section is restored.

There is no good reason why a county like the America can't do better by all its citizens. Not every liberal that wants to make this country work for everyone hates this "awesome" country. They want to improve things for the low and moderate income folks and calling people America haters because they see problems with the disparity in opportunity between the haves and have nots in America is ridiculous.

[Wonky]

Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts. His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.

My point that you just acknowledged was that contrary to what a lot of people think the rich do indeed pay more taxes and do give back.

I didn't say they shouldn't pay more did I?

BTW every damn "are you a lib or not test" I've ever taken classified me as a liberal. So Sorry I don't fit what you think a liberal should be Nancy.

I guess in some peoples minds all libs are in locked step, think just alike. Are anti military, guns, police and love to hate on this awesome country.

I hate when I forget to attach a laughing smiley to posts when I am half joking. Sorry for calling you Mitt.

I was not joking about income equality and I have more to say about the minimum wage and wages in general, which I'll do when the debate section is restored.

There is no good reason why a county like the America can't do better by all its citizens. Not every liberal that wants to make this country work for everyone hates this "awesome" country. They want to improve things for the low and moderate income folks and calling people America haters because they see problems with the disparity in opportunity between the haves and have nots in America is ridiculous.

Clete, I know TVg means well.
But he turned this entire argument into a thing about taxes.
That's not even close to the point.
"Wealth" is a relative term.
When able bodied and willing workers are struggling to find food and shelter something is wrong with the basic workings of our economy.
Working people don't expect the kind of wealth "the rich" enjoy. It's the wealthy that provide capital to fund our economy and we desperately need them. We just don't need them to have the great majority of ALL wealth and not release it into the marketplace to simulate growth.

Yeah…I know it's not all that simple. But I am, and that's the best I can do. Leonard will come along later and explain it in full. Then Ponder will ditto it.

(I'm feeling a bit snarky this morning. Sorry Leonard and Ponder. I'll send flowers when the stores open)

[PonderThis]

It's like being a lawyer. I can handle it. Not everyone can.

[Wonky]

It's like being a lawyer. I can handle it. Not everyone can.

I may still send flowers.

Now, back to the chat about "one of the 85".

[tvguy]

Well, conservatives certainly don't think we should be equal at the starting line, as SFL claims, otherwise they'd support 100% inheritance tax, welfare for all children, no private schools, equal public education regardless of where you lived and what your parent's income was, and basically complete and total equality until you reached the age of reason and could make your own decisions. That includes keeping your parents from brainwashing you with liberal, conservative, religious, or even godless propeganda.


And liberals certainly don't think we should all be equal at the finish line, as SFL says. That's Christian Communism. We just want those who have gained the most from our society to give back and help support it.

You mean like maybe those who have gained the most from our society should pay like FOUR times as much taxes? They already do! That's compared to the billionaires secretary in the article.
Never mind the millions who work and get benefits like earned income tax credits who at the end of the year get checks for thousands of dollars , MORE than they paid in taxes.


The Facts On Tax Rates: Who Pays What

The current discussion led by President Obama that[b] top earners are not paying “their fair share” of taxes is not supported by the facts. His claim could result from an unfortunate reliance on anecdotal information or (as is more likely) a political strategy to gain support for tax increases from an unwitting public and media.
So what is rhetoric and what is fact? The most common way this issue is presented by the president and his supporters is that millionaires and billionaires don’t pay as much in taxes as their secretaries. To quote directly from the recent State of the Union address, “Now you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.” Most Americans should know (but unfortunately do not) that millionaires and billionaires pay a whopping amount in federal taxes and disproportionately much more than their secretaries.
Tax Rates, Tax Revenues And The GDP Harry Jacobson Harry Jacobson Contributor
The Obama Tax Plan: Who's In The Crosshairs? Roberton Williams Roberton Williams Contributor

Let’s look at the numbers. Using data from the Internal Revenue Service in 2009, the top 1% of earners, including individuals with incomes of $343,927 or greater, represented 16.9% of all income and paid 36.7% of all federal taxes. Their average tax rate was 24.01%. The top 0.1% who had incomes of $1,432,890 or greater represented 7.8% of all income and paid 17.11% of all taxes. Their average rate was 24.3%. If we assume that a secretary’s adjusted gross income falls between $32,396 and $66,193 in 2009, the average tax rate for that income group (which represents individuals in the top 25%-50% of all earners) was 5.56%. (The entire group of earners between the top 25%-top 50% earned 20.7% of all income and paid 11.0% of all Federal income taxes.)
If we take a closer look at the top 0.1% of earners, their average adjusted gross income in 2009 was $4.4 million and their average tax bill was $1.07 million. Included in this group were 137,982 tax returns. Their total tax bill was $147.6 billion. Several sources indicate that the average income range for Secretary III’s and Administrative Assistants is between $38,000 and $43,000, and that there are 4.3 million secretaries and administrative assistants in the U.S. (www.bis.gov). Using the average 5.6% tax rate for the tax payors in the top 25%-50% of earners, each secretary on the average pays between $2,128 and $2,408 in taxes.

So what do the facts tell us? First, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners (the group which includes the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires) pays a tax rate over four (4) times that of an average secretary. Second, the average tax payor in the top 0.1% of all earners pays as much in taxes as 444 secretaries (the income of these top 0.1% earners is about 102 times the income of the average secretary). Third, if one raised the tax rate paid by these 137,982 tax payors to 30% (as is being proposed in the so-called Buffet rule), it would take over 43 years of collecting this additional tax revenue to just equal the Federal budget deficit for one year, 2011. (We have a huge spending problem.)

[/b]







http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012...-pays-what

So what. They should pay even more. And don't you ever claim to be a liberal on this forum again Mitt.

My point that you just acknowledged was that contrary to what a lot of people think the rich do indeed pay more taxes and do give back.

I didn't say they shouldn't pay more did I?

BTW every damn "are you a lib or not test" I've ever taken classified me as a liberal. So Sorry I don't fit what you think a liberal should be Nancy.

I guess in some peoples minds all libs are in locked step, think just alike. Are anti military, guns, police and love to hate on this awesome country.

I hate when I forget to attach a laughing smiley to posts when I am half joking. Sorry for calling you Mitt.

I was not joking about income equality and I have more to say about the minimum wage and wages in general, which I'll do when the debate section is restored.

There is no good reason why a county like the America can't do better by all its citizens. Not every liberal that wants to make this country work for everyone hates this "awesome" country. They want to improve things for the low and moderate income folks and calling people America haters because they see problems with the disparity in opportunity between the haves and have nots in America is ridiculous.

Sometimes I like being ridiculous. It helps me fit in here. Besides people now have to figure out who I'm talking about with all the new rules

Cletus I see liberals focusing on anything and everything they can find negative about this country a hell of a lot more that I see conservatives do the same.

We have at least a couple of posters who are extremists and hate our government to the point where they would rather see it destroyed than fixed.

To me they are no different than the right wing idiots holed up in some compound in Idaho hoarding guns. The difference is that there are a lot MORE extremist libs.

[tvguy]

Wonky.....Clete, I know TVg means well.
But he turned this entire argument into a thing about taxes.

I did? Just by responding to something Rowan said? Who knew I had that kind of power

[csrowan]

Yup. You took one line in a longer post I wrote about something else entirely, bolded it, then posted a big long article about tax rates in response to that one line instead of responding to the topic of my WHOLE post, which was that SFL's claim about liberals and conservatives and what they want was completely bogus.

[tvguy]

Yup. You took one line in a longer post I wrote about something else entirely, bolded it, then posted a big long article about tax rates in response to that one line instead of responding to the topic of my WHOLE post, which was that SFL's claim about liberals and conservatives and what they want was completely bogus.

Yup I responded to a claim the rich don't give back and help support our society . They do, so sue me. It's a free country and a free forum so I'm make what ever remark about what ever you post WHENEVER I want
Sure is funny how many people love to say that who don't pay any taxes at all. And it's funny How I can make ONE post that gets so much response and that's all my fault for veering off topic?

[GPnative]

How dare you in a public forum make a remark about a remark in a list of remarks that were made regarding previous remarks.

[csrowan]

Yup. You took one line in a longer post I wrote about something else entirely, bolded it, then posted a big long article about tax rates in response to that one line instead of responding to the topic of my WHOLE post, which was that SFL's claim about liberals and conservatives and what they want was completely bogus.

Yup I responded to a claim the rich don't give back and help support our society . They do, so sue me. It's a free country and a free forum so I'm make what ever remark about what ever you post WHENEVER I want
Sure is funny how many people love to say that who don't pay any taxes at all. And it's funny How I can make ONE post that gets so much response and that's all my fault for veering off topic?

The way a GOOD discussion works is that you address (or at least touch on) the ENTIRE content of the previous post. You can certainly focus on parts, but you really ought to address at least the main gist if nothing else.

You see, someone may have several points to make, or maybe they have one overarching point supported by several subpoints. And, they probably wish to have people communicate with them on the full post, so that they may respond in kind and carry on a thoughtful conversation back and forth.

When one individual ignores 90% of what was said, focuses on something that was trivial to the main point, and makes it the topic of their post, and the next person then responds thoroughly and thoughtfully on topic to that post, that individual who ignored everything has just succeeded in hijacking the thread because they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

If you're going to focus on the trees, at least take the time to acknowledge the forest first, even if only in a sentence or two. Then tell people that you're sidestepping the forest for a moment so you can chop down a tree that's bothering you.

[tvguy]

Someone needs to get a friggin life, snore, I sure as hell didn't read that , I hope you enjoy yourself.

When one individual ignores 90% of what was said, focuses on something that was trivial to the main point, and makes it the topic of their post, and the next person then responds thoroughly and thoughtfully on topic to that post, that individual who ignored everything has just succeeded in hijacking the thread because they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

OK I read it damn what a waste. I think I told you earlier but I guess you didn't pay attention.
If I want to comment about one part of a statement then I will, end of story. Cry about it all you want. And I don't see how I'm responsible for the next person continuing discussing what I said. Good freaking grief I hijacked the thread???:rolleyes: OMG

Also who are you to tell me the way a good discussion works? Who elected you the freaking captain?

[cletus1]

How dare you in a public forum make a remark about a remark in a list of remarks that were made regarding previous remarks.

What a remarkable post.

[Wonky]

Someone needs to get a friggin life, snore, I sure as hell didn't read that , I hope you enjoy yourself.

When one individual ignores 90% of what was said, focuses on something that was trivial to the main point, and makes it the topic of their post, and the next person then responds thoroughly and thoughtfully on topic to that post, that individual who ignored everything has just succeeded in hijacking the thread because they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

OK I read it damn what a waste. I think I told you earlier but I guess you didn't pay attention.
If I want to comment about one part of a statement then I will, end of story. Cry about it all you want. And I don't see how I'm responsible for the next person continuing discussing what I said. Good freaking grief I hijacked the thread???:rolleyes: OMG

Also who are you to tell me the way a good discussion works? Who elected you the freaking captain?

[Wonky]

Someone needs to get a friggin life, snore, I sure as hell didn't read that , I hope you enjoy yourself.

When one individual ignores 90% of what was said, focuses on something that was trivial to the main point, and makes it the topic of their post, and the next person then responds thoroughly and thoughtfully on topic to that post, that individual who ignored everything has just succeeded in hijacking the thread because they couldn't see the forest for the trees.

OK I read it damn what a waste. I think I told you earlier but I guess you didn't pay attention.
If I want to comment about one part of a statement then I will, end of story. Cry about it all you want. And I don't see how I'm responsible for the next person continuing discussing what I said. Good freaking grief I hijacked the thread???:rolleyes: OMG

Also who are you to tell me the way a good discussion works? Who elected you the freaking captain?

TVg, it's not that you were wrong.
You just may have strayed from the beaten path a bit. A tiny bit.
The fact is that the really really rich people could pay 99% taxes and it wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is systematic, meaning the really rich control what we once called "the means of production" but now call it something like the control of most of the capital.
And it gets even more involved (as I'm sure you know).
The tax issue you raised is legit, for sure. It could stem the tide of some of the smaller problems we face..
the buckets of crap you got here because of it was because many of us see it as only that small solution. Legit, but not big enough to solve the thing.
The most immediate fix might be for those who have really large chucks of money to have some faith in the monetary system and invest in plant and development of new industry. This would create product, jobs, and promote growth.
Thing is, if they are sitting on billions of dollars why risk it when you can stay fat from only the interest is provides. It just don't kick start nothin'.

Or something like that.

But yeah, taxing the bastards is a least one part of the fix. And it would make me me feel damn good, if nothing else.

[Prospero]

TVg, it's not that you were wrong.
You just may have strayed from the beaten path a bit. A tiny bit.
The fact is that the really really rich people could pay 99% taxes and it wouldn't solve the problem. The problem is systematic, meaning the really rich control what we once called "the means of production" but now call it something like the control of most of the capital.
And it gets even more involved (as I'm sure you know).
The tax issue you raised is legit, for sure. It could stem the tide of some of the smaller problems we face..
the buckets of crap you got here because of it was because many of us see it as only that small solution. Legit, but not big enough to solve the thing.
The most immediate fix might be for those who have really large chucks of money to have some faith in the monetary system and invest in plant and development of new industry. This would create product, jobs, and promote growth.
Thing is, if they are sitting on billions of dollars why risk it when you can stay fat from only the interest is provides. It just don't kick start nothin'.

Or something like that.

But yeah, taxing the bastards is a least one part of the fix. And it would make me me feel damn good, if nothing else.

I don't think we're being creative enough with the taxation concept. Let's face it: no one is worth a multi-million dollar income. Some of the excess wealth should be put to use for what the Founders called "the general welfare" meaning projects that will benefit everyone (including the rich). The President (whoever he may be) could make a list of such projects and how much they will cost, and those enjoying an income more than 100 times that of the average family would be given two options: 1) to give a lot of it to the government as a tax; and 2) to take responsibility for one or more such projects and make a go of it, thereby earning a place in the Public Benefactor's Hall of Fame. The only drawback would be that those affected would probably renounce their US citizenship and move to Kuwait or Switzerland. It would need to have an international basis, which would lead to the dreaded World Government, under the yoke of which humanity would have to find solutions for global problems, such as war, disease, environmental issues, and bureaucratic prose styles.

[PonderThis]

It would need to have an international basis, which would lead to the dreaded World Government, under the yoke of which humanity would have to find solutions for global problems, such as war, disease, environmental issues, and bureaucratic prose styles.

Now you're talkin'.

[chuck white]

I am not one of those 85, but probably part of the 85, on the other end of the list.