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.
Great point. As has been discussed here before, the wealthy are actually paying slightly more in taxes now than before the two Bush tax cuts. Same thing during the Reagan era... the wealthy were paying more in taxes in 1989 than in 1981, contradicting what some claim ("the rich were getting richer": could be but they were also paying more in taxes.
No, it's a lame and useless point. Over Bushie's first term, the AGI of the top 1% increased by $519.4 billion according to the IRS. On that new income, they paid a total of $67.2 billion in new taxes. Sounds like a lot of money, but it's an effective marginal tax rate of 12.9%. How many of you can claim to be in the 12.9% marginal tax bracket? If your own marginal tax bracket is higher than that, Bush has been taking from you and giving to these top 1% guys. That's how upward income redistribution is done. Or perhaps more accurately under this administration, that's one of the ways...
[quote=Frank_Carbonni;4912150]
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy Oh, I know, there are those who think God may have used evolution in the creation process.
But, this is a totally unbiblical notion in that according to scripture, God spoke and created the heavens and the earth and all of creation. In otherwords, instantaneous, by His powerful word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
So you are a Biblical literalist? Does that mean you believe in a literal Adam and Eve? That all black people are descended from the children of Ham? And so on?
LOL!! OMG! Where did you hear that one?
The Bible uses literary divices and figures of speach such as metaphor. When one reads it, one should understand when something is metaphor, and when it should be taken literally. The Bible should be read like any other book.
Interpretation (exigesis) must take these devices into account. Most non-believers eroneously take things out of context, and ignore what is obviously not supposed to be taken literally, and are therefor confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
Yes we are apes. We have so many traits that ONLY found in higher primates. There are certain metabolic features that are only found in chimpanzees and humans. Why? Because we share a common ancestor.
Give me a break!
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy
If evolution were true, should we not see it occuring today? We don't, do we. Why not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank_Carbonni
We do see it going on today. We see it quite often. We see new viruses and bacteria appearing all the time. We see mutations that take place in EVERY SINGLE birth in every species.
That's not evolution. Evolution is one species becoming a totally new species. That does not happen, never did, can't, won't.
No matter how many different kinds of tomato we produce through genetic engineering, etc., a tomato is still a tomato.
No matter how many differen breeds of dog, a dog is still a dog.
Ther rich deserve to keep much, but not all, of what they earn. They do not deserve to any of what they steal through tax exemptions and monopoly profits.
Nononsenseguy - Read some geology texts. You have far to short a time scale in your mind. New species have appeared, become diversified, gotten old and died out through out the Earth's last 3.5 billion years. What has happend, is happening and will continue to happen until the sun goes nova.
Nononsenseguy - Read some geology texts. You have far to short a time scale in your mind. New species have appeared, become diversified, gotten old and died out through out the Earth's last 3.5 billion years. What has happend, is happening and will continue to happen until the sun goes nova.
The Earth is only 6,000 years old.
How could all this "Evolution" stuff be happen if the Earth is only 60 centuries old? I mean and that "Geology" nonsense says that Noah's flood never even happened and disputes that all plant and animal species (including over 1,000,000 distinct species of beetle) didn't live within walking distance of Noah's house some 5,500 years ago.
Originally Posted by nononsenseguy Not the same thing, as I have explained in previous posts. The death penalty is punishment for the crime of murder (the shedding of innocent blood). It is not itself murder. It was prescribed by God Himself as punishment for murder. Since Man was made in God's image, murder is a crime against God.
Abortion is the taking of innocent life (murder).
There is no contradiction here at all.
The confusion comes from this misunderstanding.
Huh???? Criminals, and in this case we are refering specifically to those who have committed murder, are not innocent. Babies are.
What part of that did you not understand? I thought it was pretty clear.
Obviously, financial planning is another topic on which you are seriously misinformed. Tax-exempt instruments offer a lower yield. They make sense only when tax savings offset that lower yield. Tax rates meanwhile affect only earned income. A significantly lower portion of the incomes of the rich is derived from earned income. It makes no sense to shelter income that isn't subject to taxation to start out with. Or do you have all your IRA balances tied up in tax-exempt muni's? Tax-exempts can be a valuable tool, but mostly for the well-to-do and near-rich. Once wealth reaches the level of $5 million or so, their value fades rapidly. As the result, most wealthy people are actually less likely to invest in tax-exempts than most downscale taxpayers.
As for employment effects, aside from maids, gardeners, butlers, and better tax advisors than you, the rich don't hire very many people. Companies and businesses that they may own or run do. But those decisions are made based on the books and prospects of the company, not on the basis of what some CEO or investor's 1040 might look like.
Are corporations not consider individuals which owe taxes?
It's been proven that at least a small majority of job in America are from small business owners with less than 100 employees......Now i know there are co's with less than 100 employees that make millions but the chances of that are rather slim.
What happens when those profit margins drop even less than they are now?
(which if you listen to people on here the banking industry is bankrupt and sinking fast....at least till the day a democrat get's back in office)
So you punish the "rich" they withdrawl and tighten up and then economy UE rates start to increase.
Ther rich deserve to keep much, but not all, of what they earn. They do not deserve to any of what they steal through tax exemptions and monopoly profits.
The "rich" are the people that employee most of America.....talk about shooting yourself in the foot.....
So I guess in you guys eyes it's the quality of the taxes not the quantity?
Anyone that hires anyone is not being charitable. The employers expects to make a profit off the employee or they wouldn't hire any one. The fact that the employer makes more off the employee than the employee takes home as pay is part of the inequality built into the system. The landlord always takes a fixed amount even if what is left cannot fed the farmer's family. The Irish "potato" famine is one of the grosser examples.
So you don't believe in free market....you'd prefer a socialist environment?
Why the heck would anyone start a business if they are going to make the same amount of money as the employees?
The hiring and paying of those employees is what keeps food on their table....unless you would rather have them just stay home and have tax payers pay for their life style.
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.