Ole' Blue Refuses to Answer Questions

Ole' Blue Refuses to Answer Questions

Posted in the London Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#1 Jun 16, 2012
That's right folks. I've posed a simple question to him 3 times already on another thread and he keeps going right past it.

Now here's my question to him. We all know that taxation on Social Security originated under Ronald Reagan. Reagan, dependent upon filing status and income level, set a base for taxation on Social Security. If you're income went over that base, they could tax up to as much as 50% of the S.S. Clinton later increased that taxation potential up to 85%.

Ole' Blue said it was set for "higher wage earners". I have ask him 3 times to tell me what he means by "higher wage earners" and what exactly is that high wage. He refuses to respond now. Why is that?

Well, folks, let me tell you why that is. He knows I'm ready to bury him alive. It was NOT set for "higher wage earners".

In the meantime, clue...simply go to the taxable social security worksheet and you will find the base is NOT high wage at all...not remotely close.

Ole' Blue is a liar and can't back up his mouth.
bite me again

Fulton, KY

#2 Jun 16, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
That's right folks. I've posed a simple question to him 3 times already on another thread and he keeps going right past it.
Now here's my question to him. We all know that taxation on Social Security originated under Ronald Reagan. Reagan, dependent upon filing status and income level, set a base for taxation on Social Security. If you're income went over that base, they could tax up to as much as 50% of the S.S. Clinton later increased that taxation potential up to 85%.
Ole' Blue said it was set for "higher wage earners". I have ask him 3 times to tell me what he means by "higher wage earners" and what exactly is that high wage. He refuses to respond now. Why is that?
Well, folks, let me tell you why that is. He knows I'm ready to bury him alive. It was NOT set for "higher wage earners".
In the meantime, clue...simply go to the taxable social security worksheet and you will find the base is NOT high wage at all...not remotely close.
Ole' Blue is a liar and can't back up his mouth.
shut up speakshit, you are liar, accusing everyone on thier comments, you harrassed them out...Blue didnt do it but you did attacked him! You need to recheck your grammar like this *....read my middle finger again like this ,,I,,
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#3 Jun 16, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
That's right folks. I've posed a simple question to him 3 times already on another thread and he keeps going right past it.
Now here's my question to him. We all know that taxation on Social Security originated under Ronald Reagan. Reagan, dependent upon filing status and income level, set a base for taxation on Social Security. If you're income went over that base, they could tax up to as much as 50% of the S.S. Clinton later increased that taxation potential up to 85%.
Ole' Blue said it was set for "higher wage earners". I have ask him 3 times to tell me what he means by "higher wage earners" and what exactly is that high wage. He refuses to respond now. Why is that?
Well, folks, let me tell you why that is. He knows I'm ready to bury him alive. It was NOT set for "higher wage earners".
In the meantime, clue...simply go to the taxable social security worksheet and you will find the base is NOT high wage at all...not remotely close.
Ole' Blue is a liar and can't back up his mouth.
Cool Reagan taxed some citizens on SS that wasn't OMS. Clinton the dimocrit decided Reagan should have screwed the American elderly even more. 35% more according to the dim cheerleader.

Are you proud Clinton screwed them worse? Is that what you are bragging about?
Barrack Hussein Obama

London, KY

#4 Jun 16, 2012
Ms. SpeakUp please be a Romney fan. I can't take many more suporters like you. Why did you argue the Democrats tax the elderly 35% higher than Republicans? You think that helps? If I had a daughter that was white, retarded and clueless, it would be just like Ms. SpeakUp.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#5 Jun 16, 2012
HelpMe Gov wrote:
<quoted text>
Cool Reagan taxed some citizens on SS that wasn't OMS. Clinton the dimocrit decided Reagan should have screwed the American elderly even more. 35% more according to the dim cheerleader.
Are you proud Clinton screwed them worse? Is that what you are bragging about?
Reagan originated it. Had he not gotten himself in such a jam after giving the kitchen sink to the rich, which is typical of a Republican, Greenspan would never have had to advise him to open up that bag of worms.

Yes, Clinton increased it. You see, truth is truth. However, simultaneously, unlike Reagan, Clinton initiated one of the biggest tax overhauls in history. It was called the Clinton Tax Relief Act 1998. He revamped alot of things....which, huh, worked. Clinton gave a world of tax breaks to the middle class while Reagan stripped the middle class. Please review the following Reagan strippings for your reading pleasure:

Raised the medical floor from 3.5 to 7.5%;

Eliminated the Sales Tax deduction;

Eliminated personal credit card interest deduction;

Eliminated personal loan interest deduction;

Just a reminder. Clinton initiated the principal residence rules on the sale of a home.......NO tax on gain if one qualified! Thank you President Clinton.

Now, if ole' blue would simply answer that one little question I've ask, we'll be done here.
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#6 Jun 16, 2012
ROFLMAO
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#7 Jun 16, 2012
Personal attack begins......... lol
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#8 Jun 16, 2012
HelpMe Gov wrote:
Personal attack begins......... lol
Does that bother you? You must be totally bored.

I'm simply awaiting an answer, that's all. No attack...just a simple question needing a simple answer.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#9 Jun 16, 2012
HelpMe Gov wrote:
Personal attack begins......... lol
Since you're so concerned, I was just thinking, can't you answer that question either?
Blue

Corydon, IN

#10 Jun 16, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
That's right folks. I've posed a simple question to him 3 times already on another thread and he keeps going right past it.
Now here's my question to him. We all know that taxation on Social Security originated under Ronald Reagan. Reagan, dependent upon filing status and income level, set a base for taxation on Social Security. If you're income went over that base, they could tax up to as much as 50% of the S.S. Clinton later increased that taxation potential up to 85%.
Ole' Blue said it was set for "higher wage earners". I have ask him 3 times to tell me what he means by "higher wage earners" and what exactly is that high wage. He refuses to respond now. Why is that?
Well, folks, let me tell you why that is. He knows I'm ready to bury him alive. It was NOT set for "higher wage earners".
In the meantime, clue...simply go to the taxable social security worksheet and you will find the base is NOT high wage at all...not remotely close.
Ole' Blue is a liar and can't back up his mouth.
I respond to exactly what I choose to respond to. You're ducking! Trying to avoid answering to all the lies you told?

Lets recap.

Fact #1 Romney paid a higher tax rate than 97% of all taxpayers... You lied about that.

Fact#2 Reagan taxed SS 50% for high wage earners to save it. Clinton raised that to 85%... You even lied about the % percentage Clinton raised it. And, then he promptly robbed the SS fund to balance his budgets... Gingrich admitted it in the primary debates.

Fact #3. You said the Bush tax cuts didn't produce any revenue. Revenue increased very year including 2 records of 2.5 and 2.6 trillion in 07 & 08.

Fact #4. You said the Bush tax cuts didn't produce any jobs. 52 straight months of job growth. Only to be wiped out by Clinton's policies. There was one biggie also. In 07 liberals took control of both houses of congress. Fwank and Dodd held ranking positions in the sectors where the economy crashed. That would be housing... Fwank. The banking sector (Wall St) that was Dodd's baby.

Fact #5 In 09 you believed Obama was a going to pay ya "Light Bill"... It's right there in black & white on the Thread titled "Obamacare DOA In The Senate". That revelation sent your ass packing last night.

You're just a little shuck & jive LIAR!
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#11 Jun 16, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you're so concerned, I was just thinking, can't you answer that question either?
Pose the question you want answered.
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#12 Jun 16, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
That's right folks. I've posed a simple question to him 3 times already on another thread and he keeps going right past it.
Now here's my question to him. We all know that taxation on Social Security originated under Ronald Reagan. Reagan, dependent upon filing status and income level, set a base for taxation on Social Security. If you're income went over that base, they could tax up to as much as 50% of the S.S. Clinton later increased that taxation potential up to 85%.
Ole' Blue said it was set for "higher wage earners". I have ask him 3 times to tell me what he means by "higher wage earners" and what exactly is that high wage. He refuses to respond now. Why is that?
Well, folks, let me tell you why that is. He knows I'm ready to bury him alive. It was NOT set for "higher wage earners".
In the meantime, clue...simply go to the taxable social security worksheet and you will find the base is NOT high wage at all...not remotely close.
Ole' Blue is a liar and can't back up his mouth.
help me, you'll find my question within the context of the aforementioned!
SpeakUp

Eustis, FL

#13 Jun 17, 2012
...still patiently waiting...............
Blue

Corydon, IN

#14 Jun 17, 2012
SpeakUp wrote:
...still patiently waiting..........
I'm waiting for you to respond to all the lies you told that I just posted. Still ducking, shucking & jiving.
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#15 Jun 17, 2012
"Pre-1993: For those with incomes exceeding the base amount thresholds, the basic rule prior to 1993 was that 50% of the Social Security benefit contributing to income above the base amount was subject to tax. The amount of Social Security benefit subject to tax was calculated by taking the lesser of 50% of Social Security benefits or 50% of the result of provisional income minus the base amount.

An example: A married couple has AGI without Social Security benefits of $30,000, and Social Security benefits of $8,000. Provisional income is $34,000 (AGI without Social Security benefits + 50% of Social Security benefits). That's more than the base amount of $32,000, so some Social Security will be subject to tax. The taxpayer must include the lesser of: 50% of the amount by which provisional income exceeds the base amount (in this example, 50% of ($34,000 minus $32,000), or $1,000) or 50% of Social Security Benefits (in this example, 50% of $8,000, or $4,000). Since $1,000 is less than $4,000,$1,000 of the benefits are subject to tax.

As income exceeds the base amount by a greater margin, more and more of Social Security is subject to tax--to a maximum of 50% of Social Security benefits. This is how the rules applied to most taxpayers before the 1993 reforms."
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#16 Jun 17, 2012
"Post-1993: For many taxpayers, the current rules are similar. Taxpayers with provisional income below the base amounts of $25,000 and $32,000 are not subject to federal personal income tax on their Social Security benefits, while taxpayers with income above these thresholds will find that the tax applies to some percentage of their benefits. For joint filers with incomes under an "adjusted base amount" of $44,000 and other filers with incomes under $34,000, the rules are essentially the same as before 1993: up to 50% of Social Security benefits may be subject to tax. For taxpayers with provisional income above this "adjusted base amount," on the other hand, up to 85% of benefits can be taxed. The general rule is that benefits contributing to income between the old "base amounts" and the new "adjusted base amounts" are subject to the 50% rule, while benefits contributing to income above the new "adjusted base amounts" are 85% subject to tax.

This means that if your income is over the "adjusted base amount" ($34,000 or $44,000), you first calculate taxable social security exactly as you would under the old rules-- but only up to the "adjusted base amount." Provisional income above the "adjusted base amount" is now taxed at a higher rate: 85%. So people will provisional income above the adjusted base amount now have to calculate two tax amounts-- one for income up to the adjusted base amount and one for income above it, and then add the two tax amounts together. The total amount of Social Security benefits subject to tax is the lesser of this sum and 85% of Social Security benefits.

An example: A Married Filing Jointly couple has AGI without Social Security benefits of $43,000 and Social Security benefits of $18,000. Provisional income is $43,000 plus 50% of $18,000 =$52,000. The first $44,000 of provisional income will be taxed according to the old rules, and the final $8,000 of provisional income will be taxed under the new rules. Taxable Social Security on the first $44,000 of provisional income equals $6,000 (50% of ($44,000-$32,000)). Taxable Social Security on the final $8,000 of provisional income equals 85% of ($52,000 -$44,000), or $6,800. Finally, we add together the two components of tax ($6,000 and $6,800). The amount of Social Security benefits taxable is the lesser of this sum ($12,800) and 85% of net Social Security benefits ($15,300). Since $12,800 is less than $15,300, the sum of taxable Social Security benefits is $12,800."
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#17 Jun 17, 2012
Read the above material and try to comprehend, I refuse to instruct you for free.

Republican taxes people that don't need SS is bad.

Democrat that increases that same tax 35% is good.

This along with her cheering for the violation of the US Constitution makes me think SpeakUp is a bed bound 13 year old with a reasoning disability.
Blue

Corydon, IN

#18 Jun 17, 2012
HelpMe Gov wrote:
Read the above material and try to comprehend, I refuse to instruct you for free.
Republican taxes people that don't need SS is bad.
Democrat that increases that same tax 35% is good.
This along with her cheering for the violation of the US Constitution makes me think SpeakUp is a bed bound 13 year old with a reasoning disability.
She's just spoiling for the topic to be switched to tax preparation so she can avoid answering all the lies she's posted on this board. Me and her have had this argument a hundred times.

The last time was when I educated her ass to the fact that SS is a promise and nothing more. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice that if it goes bell up congress can simply walk away. Which is exactly why the trust fund has been robbed ever since Lyndon Johnson began the practice long ago.

If you watched the republican debates you know that Ron Paul called Gingrich out on the balanced budgets and Gingrich admitted that's exactly how they did it. Reagan raised taxes on the high end to preserve the trust fund. It was such a good idea that Clinton tacked on another 35% to bring it to 85%.
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#19 Jun 17, 2012
Damned dimocrits (Johnson) started including SS in the budget. That was the beginning of the end.
HelpMe Gov

London, KY

#20 Jun 17, 2012
Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
She's just spoiling for the topic to be switched to tax preparation so she can avoid answering all the lies she's posted on this board. Me and her have had this argument a hundred times.
The last time was when I educated her ass to the fact that SS is a promise and nothing more. The Supreme Court has already ruled twice that if it goes bell up congress can simply walk away. Which is exactly why the trust fund has been robbed ever since Lyndon Johnson began the practice long ago.
If you watched the republican debates you know that Ron Paul called Gingrich out on the balanced budgets and Gingrich admitted that's exactly how they did it. Reagan raised taxes on the high end to preserve the trust fund. It was such a good idea that Clinton tacked on another 35% to bring it to 85%.
If we tried a similar system? We would be charged with fraud using a pyramid scheme. That is the best we could hope for.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

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.

London Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
John whang 24 min Forsure 9
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 hr Pres Donald J Tru... 164,683
Black SUVs on E 80 11 hr Othervecstoo 2
Linda McQueen Herndon (May '09) 14 hr Hrghgu 27
Attorneys have been contacted 15 hr Well known 13
Shannon Mills ARNP 15 hr Karma 2
america needs more TRUTH AND JUSTICE 16 hr lmao 1

London Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

London Mortgages