Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-05-2012, 02:35 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,756,553 times
Reputation: 14345

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
No, Romney paid 13% because his income was primarily capital gains taxes.

Sorry, you are incorrect.
I'm incorrect??

He made more money, he paid a lower percentage on his income.

I don't care if he's structured his income so that the bulk of it is capital gains.

I can't structure my income that way, because I'm not rich.

I pay a higher percentage of my income to taxes because I'm not rich. That doesn't strike me, or anyone else as particularly fair.

And I notice that you didn't answer the question about who could afford to pay the higher percentage. It's uncomfortable, isn't it? Promoting an unfair tax code. You'll do it, because it's the opposite stance that liberals take, and you think that that is what you have to do. Oppose liberals and their positions on every front.

I don't think like that, though. I don't oppose conservatives on their positions, just because it's a conservative position. I like things to be fair and equal, though. And there's nothing fair about millionaires paying a lower percentage of taxes. It's not fair. And it doesn't benefit the economy. Because millionaires simply aren't the ones creating jobs. It's the guys like workingclass, people who are solidly middle class, that create jobs in this country. There's a reason why small businesses, all combined, are the largest employer in our country. And women, by the way, are taking the lead in starting small businesses.

So the OP's contention that women should be motivated by the economy when choosing who to vote for is true. Women are motivated by the economy. And they are concerned about unemployment. But they might just be smart enough to realized that a President, any President, isn't going to be able to single-handedly fix an economy. Like it or not, the US economy is linked to the global economy, which is in abyssmal shape, and like it or not, the President will need to work with the legislature to address problems. That means the Republicans will have to work with the President so that they, together, can deal with the economy. And I believe that if the Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences and started working together, that public approval of our government would be much improved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,392 posts, read 5,152,013 times
Reputation: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
Ummm, maybe I was misinformed. Wasn't our country and government formed under a constitution "Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
Unfortunately, it's turned into Of the government, By the government and For the government.
Quote:
Under the "other party," this has devolved into "For the Wealthy, By the Wealthy, and Of the Wealthy, By the Wealthy.
This is really funny.. You realize that Democrats are far richer than Republicans.
Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats

The PJ Tatler » Seven of the Top Ten Wealthiest Members of Congress Are Democrats
Quote:
If anyone reading these posts doubts the "other party" has declared a war on women, just look at the responses to my polite post expressing my point of view.
And I responded politely. You however keep responding with information more and more inaccurate that it is hard to believe we are trying to have an intelligent debate.
Quote:
Among other comments, I've been called stupid, a communist, poor at math--and no better than Hitler. That's how another citizen is being treated--one who respects others' points of view--and who has--and will not sink to name-calling.
I inferred your math skills may be lacking. Your comment about the amount of taxes paid showed either a lack of understanding of our tax system, a lack of mathematical skills, or you are simply just believing everything someone told you, instead of researching for yourself. I may have erred in believing that you researched the data and actually believed that people making more were going to get bigger tax breaks, than people making less money.
Quote:
Now can you see why the "other party" frightens me? How would you like being called no better than Hitler for having a divergent point of view?
I think it is more than a divergent point of view, It's the fact that you indicated that OTHER points of view was less accurate than yours, and people responded to that. BTW, I am a constitutionalist. I really don't see myself as republican or democrat since neither party accurately represents me, and both parties are about as hosed up as a soup sandwich.
Quote:
Civility is a fine thing. I suggest ALL of us practice it. Name-calling is very third-grade.
Civility is great, may I remind you that you started out saying,
Quote:
As a thinking and working woman, I see absolutely nothing--nothing--that the Republicans propose that is favorable to working women..instead I see their misplaced desire to control my body and my destiny in regard to birth control.
I don't see this as the truth, as a thinking woman, you should understand, no matter WHAT someone thinks, abortion is already approved of as law by the supreme court, and no matter what Romney believes, it won't change anything.

Additionally what are Republicans proposing that is unfavorable to working women? HOW do they propose to control your body? I ask, because I haven't read or heard of anything being proposed that is to the detriment of women, or can in any way interfere with someone getting an abortion, or purchasing birth control. Either you are misinformed, have misunderstood what was said, or don't comprehend what is happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:06 PM
 
Location: Va. Beach
6,392 posts, read 5,152,013 times
Reputation: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm incorrect??

He made more money, he paid a lower percentage on his income.

I don't care if he's structured his income so that the bulk of it is capital gains.

I can't structure my income that way, because I'm not rich.

I pay a higher percentage of my income to taxes because I'm not rich. That doesn't strike me, or anyone else as particularly fair.

And I notice that you didn't answer the question about who could afford to pay the higher percentage. It's uncomfortable, isn't it? Promoting an unfair tax code. You'll do it, because it's the opposite stance that liberals take, and you think that that is what you have to do. Oppose liberals and their positions on every front.

I don't think like that, though. I don't oppose conservatives on their positions, just because it's a conservative position. I like things to be fair and equal, though. And there's nothing fair about millionaires paying a lower percentage of taxes. It's not fair. And it doesn't benefit the economy. Because millionaires simply aren't the ones creating jobs. It's the guys like workingclass, people who are solidly middle class, that create jobs in this country. There's a reason why small businesses, all combined, are the largest employer in our country. And women, by the way, are taking the lead in starting small businesses.

So the OP's contention that women should be motivated by the economy when choosing who to vote for is true. Women are motivated by the economy. And they are concerned about unemployment. But they might just be smart enough to realized that a President, any President, isn't going to be able to single-handedly fix an economy. Like it or not, the US economy is linked to the global economy, which is in abyssmal shape, and like it or not, the President will need to work with the legislature to address problems. That means the Republicans will have to work with the President so that they, together, can deal with the economy. And I believe that if the Republicans and Democrats set aside their differences and started working together, that public approval of our government would be much improved.
I read your rant. Quite frankly, any tax code that isn't equal for all citizens, is unequal. Just because someone makes more they should pay more. Sorry, I make less, and even with ME that dog won't hunt.

We need to toss out the tax code, and institute a fair tax, that taxes you on money spent on goods and services. You spend more, you pay more. end of story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:09 PM
 
3,484 posts, read 2,863,073 times
Reputation: 2354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Joshua View Post
That's because you don't know anything about them nor do you seem to care to find out.

To use one of your own examples:

How on Earth would a law like Lily Ledbetter be enforced without destroying business with billions of dollars worth of law suits? Every woman in the working world who thinks that they are not making what they think they should make will come out of the woodwork and sue their companies.

This is what's wrong with America. People hear ideas like "equal pay for equal work" but they do not have the intellectual curiosity to truly think about what this would mean in practice
If a company can't operate without paying female employees less than men, the company should not be in business. Employers always argue that pretty muc ANY laws that benefit employees will destroy them. It's the same old false nonsense they've been peddling for a thousand years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:10 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,756,553 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Nobody is "avoiding" paying taxes. That would be illegal. They are paying a different type of tax. One that you are free to set up with our money.

Liberals and their implied accusations of criminal activity.
Bullsh---.

"Avoiding" paying taxes is not illegal.

There are entire professions devoted to helping people avoid paying taxes, legally.

But the fact that it takes money to structure your income to avoid paying taxes is a fact of life. The average joe doesn't have the money to hire professionals to help them structure their income, and the average joe doesn't have the flexibility to structure their income.

And your snide remark about liberals and implications was completely unwarranted. But interesting. It says a lot about you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:12 PM
 
10,545 posts, read 13,547,835 times
Reputation: 2823
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
As as a working woman, I'm wondering what policies the Republicans have proposed that would improve my life?

--Bills such as the Lily Ledbetter Bill that brings Equal Pay for Equal Work that have been signed into action by the current administration?

--Affordable healthcare for myself, spouse and children as proposed by the current adminsitration?

--Affordable education to improve my educational level and qualify me for better jobs?

As a thinking and working woman, I see absolutely nothing--nothing--that the Republicans propose that is favorable to working women..instead I see their misplaced desire to control my body and my destiny in regard to birth control.

I don't see how any working, thinking woman could vote for Romney/Ryan. They frighten me. And surely, they don't have my best interests at heart.
If, instead of a working woman, you were an out-of-work woman you might think differently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:14 PM
 
29,981 posts, read 42,812,931 times
Reputation: 12828
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleDolphin View Post
As as a working woman, I'm wondering what policies the Republicans have proposed that would improve my life?

--Bills such as the Lily Ledbetter Bill that brings Equal Pay for Equal Work that have been signed into action by the current administration?

--Affordable healthcare for myself, spouse and children as proposed by the current adminsitration?

--Affordable education to improve my educational level and qualify me for better jobs?

As a thinking and working woman, I see absolutely nothing--nothing--that the Republicans propose that is favorable to working women..instead I see their misplaced desire to control my body and my destiny in regard to birth control.

I don't see how any working, thinking woman could vote for Romney/Ryan. They frighten me. And surely, they don't have my best interests at heart.
Women in the Obama administration earn less than do men. Don't you think that is hypocrisy from the left in action? Couldn't the Obama administration choose to pay equal regardless of gender without a law being put into place?

Healthcare would be much more affordable if the government didn't interfere to begin with. Clue see Medicare price schedules and insurance claims/non-allowable charges, etc... .

Education was much more affordable before government got into guaranteeing student loans and made the price of education necessarily skyrocket (see healthcare).

I don't see how anyone with a brain, regardless of their status of working or gender, cannot see that when government begins setting prices in segments of the market that the prices go up.

Newsflash: no politician has "your best interests" at heart. They only lie to you to make you believe that they do so they can get or keep power. If the Democrats had "your best interests" at heart they would want you to be more free of the chains of government in your daily life, not less free.

Clue: You have no more right to murder the innocent life in the womb because it is an inconvenient life than the government has to murder you because you are an inconvenient dependant upon the government. Think about it.

The right to life is an unalienable one granted by our Creator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:16 PM
 
17,389 posts, read 11,910,205 times
Reputation: 16135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
Bullsh---.

"Avoiding" paying taxes is not illegal.

There are entire professions devoted to helping people avoid paying taxes, legally.

But the fact that it takes money to structure your income to avoid paying taxes is a fact of life. The average joe doesn't have the money to hire professionals to help them structure their income, and the average joe doesn't have the flexibility to structure their income.

And your snide remark about liberals and implications was completely unwarranted. But interesting. It says a lot about you.
Right. Because liberals NEVER imply that Romney avoided paying taxes. Oh no, that would be wrong. The fact that you still "pretend" ignorance says a lot about you.

As for the average joe, if they want to structure their income, there are ways other than to hire professionals. But I get it - a convenient excuse to fan the flames of class warfare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 03:16 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,756,553 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkatt View Post
I read your rant. Quite frankly, any tax code that isn't equal for all citizens, is unequal. Just because someone makes more they should pay more. Sorry, I make less, and even with ME that dog won't hunt.

We need to toss out the tax code, and institute a fair tax, that taxes you on money spent on goods and services. You spend more, you pay more. end of story.
From now on, on every post you make, I'm going to use that first sentence.

Darkatt, I read your rant.

Quite frankly, your ability to determine what's fair and what's not fair is quite questionable.

And the you spend more, you pay more tax plan is stupid. It places the burden of taxes on poor people. While that may be an incentive for people to seek better jobs, the simple fact of the matter is that incentives or not, the workplace will always have low-paying jobs, and the poor will always be with us. When people are spending all their money to meet the basics, food, clothing and shelter, adding to their costs in the form of taxes only ensures that the poor will stay poor. The only people that benefit from a sales tax system are the rich. Not the middle-class. Not the poor. Only the rich.

This country needs to strengthen the middle class. The upper class are well able to take care of themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-05-2012, 04:12 PM
 
42,732 posts, read 29,756,553 times
Reputation: 14345
Quote:
Originally Posted by ringwise View Post
Right. Because liberals NEVER imply that Romney avoided paying taxes. Oh no, that would be wrong. The fact that you still "pretend" ignorance says a lot about you.

As for the average joe, if they want to structure their income, there are ways other than to hire professionals. But I get it - a convenient excuse to fan the flames of class warfare.
I've NEVER implied that Romney avoided paying taxes. I've even stated that if he didn't use the resources available to him to reduce his tax liability, he would have been criticized for being stupid. We all try to limit our tax liability. And WTH, I "pretend" ignorance. Not.

Oooh, and you should be proud that you've picked up the lingo, "class warfare". I've never said that there is any such thing going on. I don't believe that there is any "class warfare" going on. I believe that we, as a country, are struggling to rebuild our financial sector, and that there are several perspectives that are at odds with how to go about that rebuilding.

And there are some people who believe that rich people create jobs, so giving them tax breaks will give them capital to create those jobs. Funny, but they've had the tax breaks for over a decade now, and the jobs haven't been created. Why not? Because it's not the upper class that creates jobs. It's the middle-class that creates jobs. It's the middle class that starts businesses, that grows businesses. And if we return to the tax structure of the Clinton administration, or of the Nixon administration, or of the Eisenhower administration, all with rich people paying a higher percentage of income taxes, they are still going to invest in the American economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top