What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Priceless
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

WeWantMore said:
Well, that's good. Because if the 2008 campaign taught us anything, we are all John McCain's friends.
Click to expand...

If 2008 taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't pick a Vice President based solely on tits.
palinbikini.jpg
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Kepler said:
(Paraphrasing again): extremely moody, from avuncular to petulant in seconds. Intense and often bullying to people around him, especially those in secondary positions. Extremely loyal to his friends, who are on both sides of the aisle. More knowledgeable than he lets on. Very short.
Click to expand...

I've met him. briefly. he was charming. and shorter than I thought. :)

I imagine some of the mood swings, intensity, etc might come from his time in the Hanoi Hilton.
 
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Kepler said:
If 2008 taught us anything, it's that you shouldn't pick a Vice President based solely on tits.
palinbikini.jpg
Click to expand...

And here I thought we learned that lesson with the nomination of
Geraldine "I'm an ordinary backbencher with no significant legislative initiatives or accomplishments and I'm a regular person because I push my own cart in the grocery store, even though I'm a millionaire married to a seriously mobbed up dude" Ferraro.
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

pirate said:
I hear you...and should have put a wink after my question...I have a pretty good idea where you stand but do think some of the language you've used is stronger than 'pretty close to appropriate' when it comes to the rich and taxes.

We all 'save' on taxes by taking deductions etc...it isn't just the rich. When 40+% pay no net taxes, some are saving a much higher percentage than others. Should Bill Gates pay another $10million in taxes or could 1 million people paying no net taxes each pay $10. I personally don't think it makes sense that 40% contribute no net taxes. I don't think 40% of the population is in such a state that they can't afford to pay net taxes.

I don't disagree with your last paragraph and realize that we ALL fall into that mode(s) periodically.
Click to expand...
Here's an article from Smart Money on who's paying or not paying income taxes:

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/more-people-opt-out-of-federal-taxes/
 
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Bill said:
Here's an article from Smart Money on who's paying or not paying income taxes:

http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/more-people-opt-out-of-federal-taxes/
Click to expand...

I always like pointing out deception in partisan articles like this. The funny thing is, it was done needlessly. Check it out:

In example 1, the author words it like this for the two 'low income people aren't paying enough taxes' scenarios -

Example 1: "Say you’re married with wage income of $50,250"

Okay, then:

Example 2: "Say you’re married with salary income of $120,000"

So far so good, right? But then to make the case of the rich paying a large portion, he switches to....

Example 3: "Say you’re married with two kids and $250,000 of taxable income (after subtracting deductible retirement contributions, itemized deductions, and personal exemption deductions)."

Aha! While putting in the disclaimer, he's changing the parameters of his argument. How much of deductible retirement contributions, itemized deductions, and personal exemption deductions are being taken? He doesn't say. So, its not an apples to apples comparison between the 3 examples.

This is my public service for the day. Remember to thank me on your way out. :D
 
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Rover said:
I always like pointing out deception in partisan articles like this. The funny thing is, it was done needlessly. Check it out:

In example 1, the author words it like this for the two 'low income people aren't paying enough taxes' scenarios -

Example 1: "Say you’re married with wage income of $50,250"

Okay, then:

Example 2: "Say you’re married with salary income of $120,000"

So far so good, right? But then to make the case of the rich paying a large portion, he switches to....

Example 3: "Say you’re married with two kids and $250,000 of taxable income (after subtracting deductible retirement contributions, itemized deductions, and personal exemption deductions)."

Aha! While putting in the disclaimer, he's changing the parameters of his argument. How much of deductible retirement contributions, itemized deductions, and personal exemption deductions are being taken? He doesn't say. So, its not an apples to apples comparison between the 3 examples.

This is my public service for the day. Remember to thank me on your way out. :D
Click to expand...

He also restricts it to Federal Income tax. Payroll taxes are also Federal and that guy making 250,000 stopped paying payroll taxes at 100,000.
 
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

ScoobyDoo said:
He also restricts it to Federal Income tax. Payroll taxes are also Federal and that guy making 250,000 stopped paying payroll taxes at 100,000.
Click to expand...
Honestly, are you trying to be stupid here, or are you just being nit-picky for the sake of being an ***?

The article is obviously focusing on the income tax because it is the primary source of funding for the federal government, and the central point of the article is that nearly half of all households pay no income tax despite enjoying the many benefits provided by the government (defense, interstate highway system, etc). The payroll tax has nothing to do with those things since it funds the social security system, a wealth transfer program to current retirees.

If you want to start the argument of who benefits most disproportionately from that system, by all means go ahead - but don't drag the writer of the article into it as if he's not doing his job by not mentioning the *'ing payroll tax. :rolleyes:

As far as the specific comparisons go in the article, my guess is that they were caused by lazy writing rather than some hidden agenda. The numbers are quite clear, and no need for specific examples exists with regard to higher income people paying more taxes: http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_percentage_of_the_us_population_makes.html

Note that 1/50 of households in this country are paying nearly half of the income taxes... which is still pretty far out of wack even when you account for the portion of the country's income they are earning (1/4).
 
Last edited:
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Since the Federal Government uses the Social Security funds to fund the federal government the payroll tax is no different than the income tax. Also, since the main argument for the Feds going bankrupt is entitlements which are mostly funded through the payroll tax how is that not a valid argument?

Seriously. The folks who don't get over the 100,000 mark pay the full 12%. Yes, the employer pays 6 but he pays that six by paying lower wages to those making less.

Citing just income tax without accounting for the payroll tax is misleading and a specious argument.
 
Re: Obama XIII: It's all Bush's fault.

Bakunin said:
I figured it was bad, but good lord, that's just ****ing awful. If you're making a salary that puts you above the poverty line, you should be a net payer. Making $50k+ and having zero federal tax liability is a *'ing joke.
Click to expand...

Ditto. deductions and write offs. making $35billion and having zero US federal tax liability.or making $2.5trillion and 60% corporations paying zero tax.

Exxon made a profit of $35 billion, and if the income tax paid is $15 billion at a tax rate of 47%, how much did it pay to the IRS? The answer is, according to a report published recently in Forbes magazine, zero.
Click to expand...

two out of three US companies paid no federal income taxes from 1998 through 2005. The report had covered 1.3 million corporations in the US with collective sales of $2.5 trillion.
Click to expand...

# Most of the profit earned by the company was from operations abroad
# The company hasn't done anything illegal. Ultimately, it is for the US government to plug all loopholes in the tax extraction process.
Click to expand...
http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/How-Exxon-paid-zero-tazes-in-2009.php

So they paid ZERO US federal tax on whatever profits they made here because they can get tax credits from taxes paid abroad.

I smell a compromise. close the deductions for both individuals and corporations. seems unfair that people with kids or medical/education expenses or corporations with high overseas taxes gets a free ride on the rest of us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top