Tax cuts explained in simple language.

Jeslek, you have no idea the angst I've gone through to stop all this. I agree that you haven't been pushing buttons...but you also didn't give me a chance to work on it either today.

One can be charged here if the police get nittygritty, Fuck Off is absolutely included in "Uttering Threats". Fortunately I don't know US law to know if it's different there.
 
Leslie said:
you also didn't give me a chance to work on it either today.
Click to expand...
I've been ignoring it and letting it go for a long time, and this morning I just so happens to be in not that great a mood. How much time then?

One can be charged here if the police get nittygritty, Fuck Off is absolutely included in "Uttering Threats". Fortunately I don't know US law to know if it's different there.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you're from, but "fuck off" is not considered a threat in Ontario. If it is, then so is "get lost" and "get out of my house."
 
Ok, Fuck off, although maybe not considered a threat in all areas, is considered a personal attack in most of the world. Are you going to dispute that too?
 
Nah, not at all. And Leslie, it ain't your fault. You've done more than anyone else so far trying to fix things up. :)
 
ok final note. jes Q was a question. sarcastic but still a question. telling her to fuck off and calling her a bitch is a personal attack. that is a no no. now drop it.
 
Back to topic

chcr said:
it's the difference between the real world, and the intended one.
Click to expand...

So, what you're saying is, you have a problem with rich &/or upper middle class? The guy who earns $500k should keep what he earns. I have no problem with him having $300k in the bank. Hell. I want to be him :D

Let me give an example of unfair tax systems. My wife & I got married. We went from getting small refunds individually when we lived together to paying every year. We were in the 50k range, between us, in the mid 80's. Her sister on the other hand, got a royal screwing by her husband when he left. She went from part time work & full time mothering to full time work & part time mothering. She had crap jobs. She made somewhere in the 12-14k range, with a dependent. She never went to the government for a handout of any kind. She & her son lived very modestly. However, at tax time she got 100% of her taxes back (no problem with that) and added about 200% more. Her refund was almost a third of a years wage-tax free. Why? Because of government hand outs. I had no problem with her taking what was on the books but I had a huge problem with those laws existing in the first place. Why was she getting 3-4 thousand dollars a year in tax giveaways when she paid $1200 in payroll deductions? She should have been removed from the payroll deduction system & asked to pay no taxes, not given what wasn't hers.
 
Attacking the Person
(argumentum ad hominem)

Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

1.ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
2.ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
3.ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he
preaches.

Guilty of personal attacks here: Squiggy, Q, Jeslek, Leslie. All need to back off. Regardless of what our personal feelings are to Jeslek, they have no bearing upon the baseline position being presented. Sarcastic digs directed at him are immaterial attacks. He was drawn out. He took the bait. Everyone attacks everyone.
 
I bet it sure is going to put a crimp in things when we all have to have our attorny present to post at OTC....:tardbang:
 
nah... It won't come to that. There will just be varied mass exits until only the bulletproof and protected few remain. Negative growth seems to be the mantra of the day.
 
Gonz, I agree with everything you say. I want to be that guy too. In the real world, however, he probably doesn't pay 10% in taxes, while I pay 30. I don't have a thing against rich people and in his place I would do the same thing. The problem is, tax laws are written by those same guys, so of course they're going to favor them. Some of the incentives are a good idea, some are not. Oh, and re all the "government charity" business, the reason the government is involved is because if they weren't, no one would be. Could your sister survive without that extra money? I know you think it's "communist" but that doesn't make it unnecessary.
 
unclehobart said:
nah... It won't come to that. There will just be varied mass exits until only the bulletproof and protected few remain. Negative growth seems to be the mantra of the day.
Click to expand...

Thanks for saying what I was thinking.
 
The top one percent of U.S. taxpayers (annual income over $313,469) made 20.8 percent of the income earned in 2000 and paid 37.4 percent of the total federal individual income taxes collected that year.
Click to expand...

Nobody else sees anything wrong with that? If the top 21% of earnings tote 37% of the taxes, they must be using their loopholes wrong.

Any way you cut it, this NOT biased toward a high income earner. Quite the reverse.

Source

edited to add the source.
 
unclehobart said:
nah... It won't come to that. There will just be varied mass exits until only the bulletproof and protected few remain. Negative growth seems to be the mantra of the day.
Click to expand...

I know exactly how that works. I joined a certain bulletin board in its infancy, grew up with the board, worked my way up to a fairly high position in the administrative heirarchy... then watched infighting destroy the board and reduce it to a vast wasteland of meaningless posts that take no thought to read and even less to write. Now, the board is simply a database error page and nothing's been done for a couple of days.
 
chcr said:
Could your sister(in law) survive without that extra money?
Click to expand...

She survived teh other 364 days without it. Yes, it made her life easier but it wasn't needed.

Look at the IRS figures, requires Excel

if you'd prefer html. look at Rush's site.
 
gonz could she have gotten it back because she has a son she has to support and couldnt afford to?
 
Back to the main topic...

The problem with your scenario is this...there's always more than one restaurant. If you don't like one, you go to another. The tax laws in the US are convoluted, and, at last count, over 3000 pages long. If they were only 1 page long, then you'd have a very valid point. As written, there are too many problems with it, and, if you file the short form (like most of us), you don't get to take advantage of the various tax breaks et al that those who file the long form do.
 
once you fill out the long form dont you get all the breaks you filled out on it even if you go to the short form? and my parents have said that they use the short form but still get breaks(unless im misunderstaning them) so can you explain how that works gato?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top