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 01-03-2013, 02:35 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TriMT7 View Post
Impossible! We have been hearing that 47% do not pay taxes.
No, you've been hearing that 47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Not sure why you can't understand the distinction. Perhaps you can explain why you're so easily confused.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadking2003 View Post
here is a good summary from an anonymous link with no obvious expertise or authority;
fify
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,892 posts, read 16,077,572 times
Reputation: 3954
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
No, you've been hearing that 47% pay no federal income tax whatsoever. Not sure why you can't understand the distinction. Perhaps you can explain why you're so easily confused.
Wooooooooooooosh!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Stop counting them? Get rid of them? What is your solution?
Stop subsidizing them.

Quote:
Lowering taxes didn't either.
Doesn't mean the converse is necessarily true. If anything, higher taxes on investments will further DISincentivize investment in growing the U.S. economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:38 PM
 
17,291 posts, read 29,402,468 times
Reputation: 8691
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Wooooooooooooosh!!!!!!!!!
Pretty much, lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:40 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
Wooooooooooooosh!!!!!!!!!
At least you heard it going over your head. The others are still stumped and have no idea why. You know you're easily confused. It's a start...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan View Post
Government exists to protect our rights and defend our freedom.

All else is PORK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
The Founders and Framer's begged to differ with you, sport. According to them, our government exists to:
1) form a more perfect Union
2) establish Justice
3) insure domestic Tranquility
4) provide for the common defence
5) promote the general Welfare, and
6) secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
Not to mention that the government doesn't exist to protect rights but to refrain from infringing on rights while existing to serve those fundamental elements to the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,818,277 times
Reputation: 12341
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Stop subsidizing them.
Instead, subsidize investors. But, simply turning a blind eye towards the elderly, the disabled, the children, the veterans that didn't qualify as "welfare for military industrial complex workers" would somehow strengthen the society and help achieve the goals this nation was build upon. What exactly would be that? Worship those with means, shove off those who are "needy" per a right winger's definition?

Quote:
Doesn't mean the converse is necessarily true. If anything, higher taxes on investments will further DISincentivize investment in growing the U.S. economy.
Converse HAS BEEN true. That was the point, and using your point, actually.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:55 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,026 posts, read 44,824,472 times
Reputation: 13713
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Instead, subsidize investors. But, simply turning a blind eye towards the elderly, the disabled, the children, the veterans that didn't qualify as "welfare for military industrial complex workers" would somehow strengthen the society and help achieve the goals this nation was build upon.
That's not what I suggested. I specifically excluded the genuinely incapacitated.
Quote:
Converse HAS BEEN true.
Not always.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2013, 02:57 PM
 
14,292 posts, read 9,678,440 times
Reputation: 4254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Taxes on Capital Gains are also going up, from the old rate of 15% to a new rate of $23.8%, including a new Obamacare tax on such gains.

Nice job, Democrats and RINOs. You fooled them again. Most people thought their taxes wouldn't go up, that only "the rich" would get stuck.

Suckers.

Elections have consequences.

----------------------------------------

Senate-Passed Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households - Bloomberg

Fiscal Cliff Deal Means Higher Tax on 77% of Households

by Richard Rubin - Jan 1, 2013 10:54 AM PT.

The budget deal passed by the U.S. Senate today would raise taxes on 77.1 percent of U.S. households, mostly because of the expiration of a payroll tax cut, according to preliminary estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington.

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said. A 2 percent payroll tax cut, enacted during the economic slowdown, is being allowed to expire as of yesterday.

The bill, being discussed by House members today, would raise the top tax rate to 39.6 percent from 35 percent last year, starting with income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples.

The top tax rates on capital gains and dividends would go up to 23.8 percent, from 15 percent last year. The new rate includes a 3.8 percent tax from the 2010 health-care law that took effect today.


(Full text of the article can be reas at the URL above)
I'll bet they didn't even factor in the new taxes from legislation like Dodd-Frank and ObamaCare.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:29 PM.

© 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