Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Georgia in 2010?

[skip the BS]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
LMAO, you sure have something against people that make a lot of money, don't you? How many people make $300M or even $20M a year? If you take ALL of their income (100% income tax), it doesn't put much of a dent in the deficit this country has.
You are correct on one thing though, their income is not taxed under the FairTax, only their spending.
Let me give another example of why it's a better idea (there are MANY more, read the book): someone is fairly wealthy, retired and most or all of their investments are in tax free muni bonds or similar, so they have NO taxable income and NO federal income tax. Yet, they still spend a good bit of money. Under the current system, they pay no federal income tax. Under the FairTax, they'd pay a good bit because they continue to spend.
A friend of mine on Topix knows someone in that situation...

Standard response, we all hate high end wage earners, bullshit. I read fairytales as a child, didn't make them true. All anyone wants is for the tax rate on the rich and corporations be the same as a percentage of income as middle class America. And if you really beleive a FairTax will ever actually happen you don't understand the system. Special interest groups with money form all legislation and goverment rules. The FairTax if ever passed would have NO relationship with the fairytale you have read. Stop pushing fairtales and push for common sense reform, that just might work.

As for the comment that fair taxs on high end earners would make little difference, we are at a point when ANY increase in revenue could make a huge difference. Whats your problem with the rich paying a percentage of income equal to the common wage earners anyway, skip the bullshit please.

[Synergy]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>sorry,but no!

Waaaaaaaaaaa

[Synergy]

jeb stuart wrote:

<quoted text>i nominate this to be the best post of the week,what do you think,syn?

Yes considering he was having lunch with rich people just 22 hours ago! lol

[Bill in Dville]

skip the BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Standard response, we all hate high end wage earners, bullshit. I read fairytales as a child, didn't make them true. All anyone wants is for the tax rate on the rich and corporations be the same as a percentage of income as middle class America. And if you really beleive a FairTax will ever actually happen you don't understand the system. Special interest groups with money form all legislation and goverment rules. The FairTax if ever passed would have NO relationship with the fairytale you have read. Stop pushing fairtales and push for common sense reform, that just might work.
As for the comment that fair taxs on high end earners would make little difference, we are at a point when ANY increase in revenue could make a huge difference. Whats your problem with the rich paying a percentage of income equal to the common wage earners anyway, skip the bullshit please.

If you can't follow or understand, perhaps you should "skip the being clueless and uneducated please", and know what the heck you're talking about, please...

"All anyone wants is for the tax rate on the rich and corporations be the same as a percentage of income as middle class America."

Gee, the last time I checked, the tax rates for all individuals (not corporations, we'll get to that in a second) were the same. We all use the same tax forms and tax tables, don't we? OK, it's been a little while since I checked, are there different tax rates for different people? Wow...

Also, you might want to check what the tax rates are for a standard (C corp) corporation, you'd be surprised (and educated).

"And if you really beleive a FairTax will ever actually happen you don't understand the system."

Never said I BELIEVE (note the proper spelling) that the FairTax will be implemented, but it would be a vast improvement over the current system.

"As for the comment that fair taxs on high end earners would make little difference, we are at a point when ANY increase in revenue could make a huge difference."

2 points:(1) Then why not look at the approx. 50% of households that don't pay ANY federal income tax?(2) If you think we have a revenue problem and NOT a spending problem, nothing I (or anyone else here) say(s) will be adequate for you. You need to learn some things to participate.

BTW, what's a "fairtale"?

[Synergy]

Image wrote:

<quoted text>
From ONE well-known photograph and you surmised all that, all by your little old self? Bull shit! The internet, Fox News and you have one thing in common - y'all can't always be believed.
https://www.google.com/search...

Ahhhh.....your blind faith strikes again. Why worry? Your hero got reelected regardless. Let the fun begin. Oh! It already has. What's with all the grumbling about lower paychecks for the middle class? Guess the "worshippers" didn't look deep enough.

BTW, get your nose out of MSNBC. It's ratings aren't very good.

[Synergy]

Image wrote:

<quoted text>
.. and if "facts" are omitted, can't be confirmed through a reliable source or taken out of context, discard the rest of it. When it comes to news (and weather), the idiot tube is just that, for brain-dead idiots!

Same can be said for the Internet.

[Called Out]

skip the BS wrote:

<quoted text>
Standard response, we all hate high end wage earners, bullshit. I read fairytales as a child, didn't make them true. All anyone wants is for the tax rate on the rich and corporations be the same as a percentage of income as middle class America. And if you really beleive a FairTax will ever actually happen you don't understand the system. Special interest groups with money form all legislation and goverment rules. The FairTax if ever passed would have NO relationship with the fairytale you have read. Stop pushing fairtales and push for common sense reform, that just might work.
As for the comment that fair taxs on high end earners would make little difference, we are at a point when ANY increase in revenue could make a huge difference. Whats your problem with the rich paying a percentage of income equal to the common wage earners anyway, skip the bullshit please.

As a percentage of income, the rich do pay a higher tax rate.

[ME II]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Agreed, the VAT, because it is a sales or consumption tax, is regressive and works against the middle class and poor.
I am using 15% as the accumulated tax paid by the final consumer, but pick any number you like - as the principle remains unchanged.
Consider, you make $40K a year and because you have a wife and kid(s), you spend $40K a year, and absorb the full impact of the VAT.
If the VAT is an effect tax rate of 15%, you are paying all 15% on your income.
But, if you're a hedge fund investor who makes $300 Million a year, or executive who makes $20 Million a year, you make only spend a paltry $3 Million a year maintaining your lifestyle.
The $297 Million or the $17 Million won't be taxed, it will be maintained or "invested", resulting in the accumulations of wealth even more vast than exist today.
The hedge fund investor would pay 15% on 1% of his income or 0.15% effective tax rate on income; and the executive would pay 15% on 15% or 2.2% effective tax rate on income.
Maybe I misunderstand though, and stand ready to be corrected.

Interesting comments...

So it seems to me that what we're struggling with here in the good old U.S.A. is whether we need to tax people on what they spend, or on what they're worth.

The Fair Tax, or VAT, or whatever you choose to term it is intriguing, yet no doubt would be incredibly difficult to accomplish and have adverse effects upon low income earners.

On the other hand, why should we penalized those who are rich and make them pay higher tax rates? Do rich people utilize the public roadways more than poor people? Do they go to the library more often than the poor? Should we be envious of what other have?

Interesting questions, indeed.

[Informed Opinion]

Called Out wrote:

<quoted text>As a percentage of income, the rich do pay a higher tax rate.

Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney, who went 10 years paying 0%, then when in the midst of a presidential campaign found he had to elect not to use all his deductions in order get up to paying 13%, which is less than 1/2 what my family and my neighbors pay.

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney, who went 10 years paying 0%, then when in the midst of a presidential campaign found he had to elect not to use all his deductions in order get up to paying 13%, which is less than 1/2 what my family and my neighbors pay.

What about those Falcons.

[Called Out]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney, who went 10 years paying 0%, then when in the midst of a presidential campaign found he had to elect not to use all his deductions in order get up to paying 13%, which is less than 1/2 what my family and my neighbors pay.

Income tax right, not capital gains tax?????

[Support]

ME II wrote:

<quoted text>
... the other hand, why should we penalized those who are rich and make them pay higher tax rates? Do rich people utilize the public roadways more than poor people? Do they go to the library more often than the poor? Should we be envious of what other have?
Interesting questions, indeed.

Not many want that! All they're asking for is for everyone to pay the same PERCENTAGE on their TOTAL gross income.

The wealthy DON"T pay withholding on anything above $117,000. They pay 15% max on unearned income. They have tax shelters that do what the name implies. They have special tax deductions most people can't afford to get in to, like Limited Partnerships. They have "investments" that are set up to generate huge losses that more than off-set profits. And then off-shore....

[Bill in Dville]

Informed Opinion wrote:

<quoted text>
Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney, who went 10 years paying 0%, then when in the midst of a presidential campaign found he had to elect not to use all his deductions in order get up to paying 13%, which is less than 1/2 what my family and my neighbors pay.

Someone needs to learn quite a bit more about taxes before they post...

I was going to elaborate a bit more, but your disingenuous makes it a waste of time...although it is likely you don't know how to properly make the calculation, anyway.

Just Saying...

[Bill in Dville]

Support wrote:

<quoted text>
Not many want that! All they're asking for is for everyone to pay the same PERCENTAGE on their TOTAL gross income.
The wealthy DON"T pay withholding on anything above $117,000. They pay 15% max on unearned income. They have tax shelters that do what the name implies. They have special tax deductions most people can't afford to get in to, like Limited Partnerships. They have "investments" that are set up to generate huge losses that more than off-set profits. And then off-shore....

Certain people don't know what they're asking for, much less know what they're posting about...Income taxes are based upon taxable income, not gross income.

"The wealthy DON"T pay withholding on anything above $117,000."

ARE YOU SERIOUS? The guy making $150K a year doesn't have withholding tax (is is different from FICA, a fact that seems to be lost on you) on his last earned $33K? REALLY?

The $117K is (again) the wrong number and you're referring to FICA, not federal income tax withholding.

"They pay 15% max on unearned income."

Only if it's long term, not short term.

"They have special tax deductions most people can't afford to get in to, like Limited Partnerships."

Wealth envy rearing it's ugly head again? Also, you might want to educate yourself about LPs...

[Bill in Dville]

ME II wrote:

<quoted text>
...
The Fair Tax, or VAT, or whatever you choose to term it is intriguing, yet no doubt would be incredibly difficult to accomplish and have adverse effects upon low income earners.
...

The FairTax is not a VAT, the amount is approximately the same as embedded sales taxes that are already paid and ALL people, up to the poverty level, would pay no FairTax, so it would have no adverse effect on low income earners...

[bored monitor]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
The FairTax is not a VAT, the amount is approximately the same as embedded sales taxes that are already paid and ALL people, up to the poverty level, would pay no FairTax, so it would have no adverse effect on low income earners...

Ur wasting ur time and u have been for some time. The numbnuts don't know $hit 'bout taxes and don't care as long as they get some of our $$$.

[Bill in Dville]

bored monitor wrote:

<quoted text>
Ur wasting ur time and u have been for some time. The numbnuts don't know $hit 'bout taxes and don't care as long as they get some of our $$$.

Perhaps. However, some people want to learn. Some people want to bitch about things, but want to learn.

You're right about at least one thing. Some people don't care and don't want to learn...

[Informed Opinion]

Informed Opinion wrote:

What about those Falcons.

Never mind. I am in mourning.

[stop the bull]

Bill in Dville wrote:

<quoted text>
If you can't follow or understand, perhaps you should "skip the being clueless and uneducated please", and know what the heck you're talking about, please...
"All anyone wants is for the tax rate on the rich and corporations be the same as a percentage of income as middle class America."
Gee, the last time I checked, the tax rates for all individuals (not corporations, we'll get to that in a second) were the same. We all use the same tax forms and tax tables, don't we? OK, it's been a little while since I checked, are there different tax rates for different people? Wow...
Also, you might want to check what the tax rates are for a standard (C corp) corporation, you'd be surprised (and educated).
"And if you really beleive a FairTax will ever actually happen you don't understand the system."
Never said I BELIEVE (note the proper spelling) that the FairTax will be implemented, but it would be a vast improvement over the current system.
"As for the comment that fair taxs on high end earners would make little difference, we are at a point when ANY increase in revenue could make a huge difference."
2 points:(1) Then why not look at the approx. 50% of households that don't pay ANY federal income tax?(2) If you think we have a revenue problem and NOT a spending problem, nothing I (or anyone else here) say(s) will be adequate for you. You need to learn some things to participate.
BTW, what's a "fairtale"?

I ask you nicely to skip the bullshit, and your answer is ALL bullshit. Always the same bullshit, the tax table is the same for all, bullshit. The real tax rate is determined by loopholes and deductions and rich folks normally pay most tax as capital gains taxes. We are ALL talking about the effective tax rate actully payed, well everyone but you. And the rich and corporations pay LESS.
Sure we need to reduce spending to some degree, and its NOT the result of the people who don't make enough to pay income tax, they pay a hell of a lot of other taxes. You are ALSO including retired people and disabled people in your numbers. Now in your mind people who put in time at the job and retired are the problem!!! But the real problem is spending problems generated by two wars started by you know who. The revenue probles caused by the economic meltdown will go away just as soon as the nation recovers from 8 years of Repubs rule. Bush got a surplus and left a with a huge deficit and unfunded wars. The United States still has the largest economic engine in the world. Gloom and doom is all the Repubs have to sell today, damn shame. We will all be much better off as soon as all the bullshit stops.
Fairtale is code word in the real world for FairTax, I left the y out by mistake, sorry.

[Informed Opinion]

Called Out wrote:

<quoted text>Income tax right, not capital gains tax?????

Capital gains is just another name for income. Some income results from our labor, and some results from our investments,(if we have investments).

A false and arbitrary distinction.

Kind of like saying I drive a motor vehicle and he drives a truck. A truck is just one form of motor vehicle. Capital gains is just one form of income. Payment in Kind is another form. Salary is another.

It's all income, but the folks who obtain their income via capital gains on investments or hedge funds would love to convince those of us who labor that their income is somehow "special" and should be taxed at a lower rate than laborer's wages.

To me, and Warren Buffett, a pretty impressive source, it should've the opposite.

It is impossible not to invest your money unless you out it in your mattress, or PVC pipes buried in the ground. Even if you just leave it in the bank, your investing with the bank and the bank is investing with your money, so "investors" actually need no incentive at all to "invest" - they cannnot "not invest".