Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...
Hamhocks and hair cuts

Leominster, MA

#365 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement "the top 20% earners [sic] pay 94.1% of the federal taxes" is flat out wrong. First, you're confusing what "the federal taxes" consist of. There is a substantial difference between payroll taxes and income taxes. Of course high income earners pay more in income taxes because their incomes are, well, higher, but after $110,000, payroll tax liability stops. Your post implies that top 20% are carrying the load for the rest of the country, which is utter nonsense. The top 20% pay far less their share in taxes (payroll, income, state, sales, excise), as a percentage of their income than middle class people do.
Now I'm confused. But I'm sure you can explain it to me. As a hyothetical, if one person buys a new $60,000 Mercedes and another person buys a used $550 dollar Hyundai how is the person with the more expensive car paying less in excise and sales tax?

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#366 Aug 5, 2012
You're missing the point. Excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, are regressive taxes, and hurt the middle class far more than the top earners.

What is it with this the rich are great and the middle class are a bunch of suckers argument?
Finally

United States

#367 Aug 5, 2012
Its the liberal math. They can't even explain it. They want everyone to own yugos. More fair

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#368 Aug 5, 2012
Finally wrote:
Its the liberal math. They can't even explain it. They want everyone to own yugos. More fair
What are you talking about? I want everyone to be able to earn enough money to buy whatever car they want to buy.

You can't even add fractions.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#369 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
You're missing the point. Excise taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, are regressive taxes, and hurt the middle class far more than the top earners.
What is it with this the rich are great and the middle class are a bunch of suckers argument?
Tell that to Governor Devalue....

3 Big screen TV’s $2800.00
1 Riding Lawnmower $1200.00
1 Chain Saw $275.00
1 Refrigerator $2000.00
2 Bud light 30 packs $36.00
SALES TAX $0

Thank you New Hampshire!
God, I love my truck
Hamhocks and hair cuts

Leominster, MA

#370 Aug 5, 2012
How does this work? Another hypothetical. Two people walk into a store, one very wealthy and the other in the middle. They both buy the same item. Does the clerk say 'hey you're rich you get to pay less sales tax'?
To painfulLy praxis

Medford, MA

#371 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement "the top 20% earners [sic] pay 94.1% of the federal taxes" is flat out wrong. First, you're confusing what "the federal taxes" consist of. There is a substantial difference between payroll taxes and income taxes. Of course high income earners pay more in income taxes because their incomes are, well, higher, but after $110,000, payroll tax liability stops. Your post implies that top 20% are carrying the load for the rest of the country, which is utter nonsense. The top 20% pay far less their share in taxes (payroll, income, state, sales, excise), as a percentage of their income than middle class people do.
For crying out loud praxis. Look it up. This is from the bipartisan congressional budget office. I'd link it myself but don't know how on the iPad. Why "sic" after earners? After 110k social sec, there is no extra taken out for that but their income is certainly taxed over 110k. Stop trying to weasel word your arguments. We're not all as stupid as you and obama think.
Hamhocks and hair cuts

Leominster, MA

#372 Aug 5, 2012
I still don't figure your logic. If one person pays $190,000 for a property and another person pays $700,000 whois paying more on property taxes?

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#373 Aug 5, 2012
To painfulLy praxis wrote:
<quoted text>
For crying out loud praxis. Look it up. This is from the bipartisan congressional budget office. I'd link it myself but don't know how on the iPad. Why "sic" after earners? After 110k social sec, there is no extra taken out for that but their income is certainly taxed over 110k. Stop trying to weasel word your arguments. We're not all as stupid as you and obama think.
The [sic] is because you forgot "of." You're entire argument, like that of John Kyl, is misleading. The top 20% do not pay for the government. Cherry picking income taxes, and pretending all other taxes (payroll, sales, property, excise) don't exist, is woefully illogical and misleading.
To painfulLy praxis

Medford, MA

#374 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
The [sic] is because you forgot "of." You're entire argument, like that of John Kyl, is misleading. The top 20% do not pay for the government. Cherry picking income taxes, and pretending all other taxes (payroll, sales, property, excise) don't exist, is woefully illogical and misleading.
Those taxes are a wash because we all pay the same rate. Even by that logic, the other poster is correct. 5% of 10k is a lot more than 5% of 500 dollars in sales or excise taxes. I guess you just didn't feel like looking up the CBO report regarding income taxes though.
To painfulLy praxis

Medford, MA

#375 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
The [sic] is because you forgot "of." You're entire argument, like that of John Kyl, is misleading. The top 20% do not pay for the government. Cherry picking income taxes, and pretending all other taxes (payroll, sales, property, excise) don't exist, is woefully illogical and misleading.
PS There was no need for "sic". It works either way.

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#376 Aug 5, 2012
To painfulLy praxis wrote:
<quoted text>
Those taxes are a wash because we all pay the same rate. Even by that logic, the other poster is correct. 5% of 10k is a lot more than 5% of 500 dollars in sales or excise taxes. I guess you just didn't feel like looking up the CBO report regarding income taxes though.
I did look it up, thank you. Isn't it obvious that those who earn the most income pay the most income taxes. That's rather self evident.

The overarching point is that the tax burden on the middle class has a much more negative affect on the purchasing power of the middle class than it does on the top earners.

And, you did need the "of" in there.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#377 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did look it up, thank you. Isn't it obvious that those who earn the most income pay the most income taxes. That's rather self evident.
The overarching point is that the tax burden on the middle class has a much more negative affect on the purchasing power of the middle class than it does on the top earners.
And, you did need the "of" in there.
Doesn't having a job give you purchasing power? And who is creating those jobs? Middle to high income individuals are making those jobs and paying the majority of taxes while creating purchasing power for their employees.

When you tax these people or leave them hanging with another "unfunded" entitlement program (AKA Obamacare)you are scaring the living shit out of “JOB CREATORS” and removing “JOB OPPURTUNIES”, including Doctors. Insurance companies, etc. When you give thousands of illegal aliens work visa's along with amnesty through executive order (illegally) while millions of Americans are out of work is that creating jobs and purchasing power?

When you attack energy producers (AKA Keystone Pipeline, the Coal industry and on and on and on) and throw billions of our taxes down the drain to your donors (AKA Solyndra etc.ect. ect.) who go bankrupt is that creating jobs and purchasing power.

And the list of attacks on our "JOB PRODUCERS" goes on and on and on while this spread the welfare POTUS can't even produce a budget among his own party, which is his job! Do you get my DRIFT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Now why is it you would want to raise taxes on our "JOB" producers who create that purchasing power?

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#378 Aug 5, 2012
Excuse me! I meant "etc", as in et cetera. But I think you got the drift.....

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

#379 Aug 5, 2012
Stamos wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't having a job give you purchasing power? And who is creating those jobs? Middle to high income individuals are making those jobs and paying the majority of taxes while creating purchasing power for their employees.
When you tax these people or leave them hanging with another "unfunded" entitlement program (AKA Obamacare)you are scaring the living shit out of “JOB CREATORS” and removing “JOB OPPURTUNIES”, including Doctors. Insurance companies, etc. When you give thousands of illegal aliens work visa's along with amnesty through executive order (illegally) while millions of Americans are out of work is that creating jobs and purchasing power?
When you attack energy producers (AKA Keystone Pipeline, the Coal industry and on and on and on) and throw billions of our taxes down the drain to your donors (AKA Solyndra etc.ect. ect.) who go bankrupt is that creating jobs and purchasing power.
And the list of attacks on our "JOB PRODUCERS" goes on and on and on while this spread the welfare POTUS can't even produce a budget among his own party, which is his job! Do you get my DRIFT?
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Now why is it you would want to raise taxes on our "JOB" producers who create that purchasing power?
And the Supreme Court just confirmed that Obama did raise taxes with Obamacare on all those Job Producers who are responsible for creating our purchasing power. Is it any wonder why jobs are so scarce. Just wait until our soldiers come home and all those military cuts take effect?
To painfulLy praxis

Medford, MA

#380 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
I did look it up, thank you. Isn't it obvious that those who earn the most income pay the most income taxes. That's rather self evident.
The overarching point is that the tax burden on the middle class has a much more negative affect on the purchasing power of the middle class than it does on the top earners.
And, you did need the "of" in there.
IF you looked it up, you also must have noticed that a huge percentage of people actually have aNEGATIVE tax base. Overtaxing has an effect on higher earners as well. It keeps small business's from hiring, decreases the amount they can give to charity, keeps them from making large purchases. You seem to think the government will spend the money more effectively than the person with the money. How pray tell is giving more to the government to waste going to help the economy? The government needs to get the hell out of the way.

By the way I thank you for participating in this debate in a civil way. There isn't enough of that these days. You ARE, however, wrong about the "sic". ;-)

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#381 Aug 5, 2012
To painfulLy praxis wrote:
<quoted text>
IF you looked it up, you also must have noticed that a huge percentage of people actually have aNEGATIVE tax base. Overtaxing has an effect on higher earners as well. It keeps small business's from hiring, decreases the amount they can give to charity, keeps them from making large purchases. You seem to think the government will spend the money more effectively than the person with the money. How pray tell is giving more to the government to waste going to help the economy? The government needs to get the hell out of the way.
By the way I thank you for participating in this debate in a civil way. There isn't enough of that these days. You ARE, however, wrong about the "sic". ;-)
Well, consider how well the economy was doing under Clinton, when marginal tax rates were higher. The top earners won't really feel a return to Clinton era tax rates. I think the government often does a terrible job with discretionary spending, but you cannot cut your way to growth. The austerity measures have failed spectacularly in Europe.
Finally

United States

#382 Aug 5, 2012
So now you are not even staying at the embassy hotel
You are not going

Praxis is a compulsive liar

Praxis33

Since: Jan 12

Location hidden

#383 Aug 5, 2012
Finally wrote:
So now you are not even staying at the embassy hotel
You are not going
Praxis is a compulsive liar
Can you not read, moron? All I ever said about the hotel was that I'd meet Heller there. Of course, you're dumb enough to think that I'd reveal where I'm staying to a whack job like Heller.

You're a dolt.
To pp

Medford, MA

#384 Aug 5, 2012
Praxis33 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, consider how well the economy was doing under Clinton, when marginal tax rates were higher. The top earners won't really feel a return to Clinton era tax rates. I think the government often does a terrible job with discretionary spending, but you cannot cut your way to growth. The austerity measures have failed spectacularly in Europe.
You can't TAX your way to growth and prosperity. The tax dollars are wasted and then they always come back for more. Clinton did what Obama should do now. Clinton was smart enough to move to the middle. He worked well with the republican majority. Obama is way out in left field and that is not where most people want to go. Guess we'll see in November.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Attleboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: iLoveKickboxing - East Providence/Seekonk (Apr '15) Jul 18 mjrizzo710 67
Attleboro Residential Noise Ordinance proposal (Sep '08) Jun '17 Donna smith 7
Bob deforest Apr '17 Qwitjabitchen 1
Aaron Hernandez (Jun '13) Apr '17 Buh bye punk 4
Election Who do you support for Sheriff in Massachusetts... (Oct '10) Apr '17 Butch Cassidy 13
Blizzard Warning for Bristol County starting F... Feb '17 travler 1
Strange Helicopters in south attleboro (May '15) Oct '16 littlenat 2

Attleboro Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Attleboro Mortgages