Cleveland Buck
Posts: 5,126
Jan 20, 2015 11:07pm
[video=youtube_share;czsKW6EqypY][/video]
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Jan 20, 2015 11:10pm
You're taxed on income, not wealth. You have to compare apples to apples if you want a valid comparison.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1697828 wrote:According to Forbes, the top 1% owns 43% of the wealth in the nation, so that number you cite is actually very favorable to them.
Belly35
Posts: 9,716
Jan 21, 2015 6:07am
This is what the America working, serving and providers of our society want.Cleveland Buck;1698302 wrote:[video=youtube_share;czsKW6EqypY][/video]
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 21, 2015 8:19am
I am aware of how income taxes work. My point is that the purpose of a progressive tax is to make the amount paid somewhat proportional to the economic clout of a particular group. The very term "progressive" means that the higher an income, the higher the percentage. And this results in all groups paying taxes that are close to representative of what they control.FatHobbit;1698304 wrote:You're taxed on income, not wealth. You have to compare apples to apples if you want a valid comparison.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 21, 2015 9:37am
The purpose of a progressive tax code is to have higher tax rates applied to the higher income levels. Period.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Jan 21, 2015 1:07pm
does it? If you want to tax people on how much they have (wealth) and you tax them on income then you fail at your goal.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1698346 wrote:I am aware of how income taxes work. My point is that the purpose of a progressive tax is to make the amount paid somewhat proportional to the economic clout of a particular group. The very term "progressive" means that the higher an income, the higher the percentage. And this results in all groups paying taxes that are close to representative of what they control.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 21, 2015 1:50pm
It isn't my tax system. I was initially responding to someone saying that the wealthy are the only ones paying "their fair share" - whatever that means. If you are measuring things that way, then contrary to the original point, the top 1% of wage earners control ~ 35% of the total wealth in the country and pay ~35% of the receivables by the IRS. That was my point.FatHobbit;1698456 wrote:does it? If you want to tax people on how much they have (wealth) and you tax them on income then you fail at your goal.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 21, 2015 1:51pm
QuakerOats;1698376 wrote:The purpose of a progressive tax code is to have higher tax rates applied to the higher income levels. Period.
Yes, that's why it's called "progressive".
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Jan 21, 2015 2:12pm
I thought your point was they had 43% of the wealth and paid 35% of the taxes, so that was good for them.Dr Winston O'Boogie;1698472 wrote:It isn't my tax system. I was initially responding to someone saying that the wealthy are the only ones paying "their fair share" - whatever that means. If you are measuring things that way, then contrary to the original point, the top 1% of wage earners control ~ 35% of the total wealth in the country and pay ~35% of the receivables by the IRS. That was my point.
My point was if we're talking about an income tax, then we need to look at their income to make a valid comparison. You might as well say they have 100% of the purple pillows. Taxes aren't currently based on wealth. They're based on income.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 21, 2015 4:32pm
FatHobbit;1698484 wrote:Taxes aren't currently based on wealth. They're based on income.
Which leads us to the ultimate goal of the radical progressives, aka marxists. They would love nothing more than the power to start taking what you have, i.e. wealth, on top of what you earn, i.e. income, in order to give it to those who would then keep in them power.
It is unbelievable that we have nearly arrived at that juncture ......but when the prez sets out to "fundamentally transform" America, with a complicit media and most of the sheeple asleep, well what do you expect.
Change we can believe in ...
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 21, 2015 5:04pm
I don't know if you're a history buff - I'm guessing you are. When you read about the history of this country during its different eras, your fears will sound very similar to those expressed by various groups at different times. For example, many believed Alexander Hamilton meant to virtually destroy the premise of America; Abraham Lincoln sought to impose federal will over that of states; Teddy Roosevelt lost his capitalistic sympathies when he smashed the big trusts.QuakerOats;1698509 wrote:Which leads us to the ultimate goal of the radical progressives, aka marxists. They would love nothing more than the power to start taking what you have, i.e. wealth, on top of what you earn, i.e. income, in order to give it to those who would then keep in them power.
It is unbelievable that we have nearly arrived at that juncture ......but when the prez sets out to "fundamentally transform" America, with a complicit media and most of the sheeple asleep, well what do you expect.
Change we can believe in ...
My point is this - just because you don't care for Obama doesn't mean the default is to assume the republic is circling the drain. I give you a hard way to go sometimes because you sound word-for-word exactly like the conservative talk radio guys. I'd calm down were I you. Have a beer.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 21, 2015 5:16pm
I am quite calm, and most assuredly enjoy beer. I merely call it like it is.
Here's a good piece for you to absorb over a beer tonight:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaslight-presidency-1421802607
Here's a good piece for you to absorb over a beer tonight:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-gaslight-presidency-1421802607
like_that
Posts: 26,625
Jan 21, 2015 6:08pm
Spock
Posts: 2,853
Jan 21, 2015 8:13pm
Obama is clueless. How do you stand there and lecture us about terrorism and the need for a military to fight them off. A year ago ISIS took thousands of miles of land in a country under his nose and he didn't even know it. Yeah lets give him the keys to the car now.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 21, 2015 10:18pm
This is the biggest thing I can't stand about the STOTU the human political props. Its disgusting legit or not. I need a barf bag just thinking about it. I would never allow myself to be used like that. I would most certainly tell them to go fuck themselves. These people reduce themselves to nothing more than political bitches.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 22, 2015 3:49pm
Oh my God. Fox is scraping the bottom here. First of all, this woman was identified as a former "Democratic staffer" last summer when Obama met her in Minnesota. So obviously it was no secret that she'd been involved in a dem's campaign as some low level person. She got invited to the SOTU anyhow, so they obviously knew her background and made no effort to hide it. More importantly, the fact that she was some low level staffer on some past sentator's campaign is irrelevant. There must be thousands of people who work on senate campaigns every election cycle. Hell, she could have been passing out fliers from the sound of it. I think that hardly qualifies as being a "plant".
sleeper
Posts: 27,879
Jan 22, 2015 3:54pm
The story itself is stupid too. An uneducated couple gets married and has babies it can't afford; husband loses his cyclical job; wife goes to a shitty community college and gets a job as a receptionist making slightly above minimum wage; they both end up working full time thanks to government support taking care of their children and they both voted for Obama.majorspark;1698591 wrote:This is the biggest thing I can't stand about the STOTU the human political props. Its disgusting legit or not. I need a barf bag just thinking about it. I would never allow myself to be used like that. I would most certainly tell them to go fuck themselves. These people reduce themselves to nothing more than political bitches.
Yeah, the American dream folks.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 23, 2015 1:16pm
sleeper;1698824 wrote:The story itself is stupid too. An uneducated couple gets married and has babies it can't afford; husband loses his cyclical job; wife goes to a shitty community college and gets a job as a receptionist making slightly above minimum wage; they both end up working full time thanks to government support taking care of their children and they both voted for Obama.
Yeah, the American dream folks.
Bingo................... "fundamental transformation" at its best.
Change we can believe in ...
Spock
Posts: 2,853
Jan 23, 2015 8:17pm
sleeper is on point with this onesleeper;1698824 wrote:The story itself is stupid too. An uneducated couple gets married and has babies it can't afford; husband loses his cyclical job; wife goes to a shitty community college and gets a job as a receptionist making slightly above minimum wage; they both end up working full time thanks to government support taking care of their children and they both voted for Obama.
Yeah, the American dream folks.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jan 24, 2015 1:37am
Agree. Even with a legit issue to be used as a human political prop is quite frankly just shameless and demeans the STOTU.sleeper;1698824 wrote:The story itself is stupid too. An uneducated couple gets married and has babies it can't afford; husband loses his cyclical job; wife goes to a shitty community college and gets a job as a receptionist making slightly above minimum wage; they both end up working full time thanks to government support taking care of their children and they both voted for Obama.
Yeah, the American dream folks.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jan 26, 2015 11:11am
G
gut
Posts: 15,058
Jan 26, 2015 11:15am
Although I won't knock her for what was probably a free trip for her and her family to DC. Not that I would subject myself to it, but I can see why someone would.majorspark;1699216 wrote:Agree. Even with a legit issue to be used as a human political prop is quite frankly just shameless and demeans the STOTU.
Dr Winston O'Boogie
Posts: 1,799
Jan 27, 2015 7:41am
At a time when there is more oil available in the US than ever before, protecting public lands for future generations is reasonable. We don't need the oil here and we wouldn't drill for oil in a place like the Grand Canyon even if we did. A great Republican hero - Teddy Roosevelt - would be happy with this. By the way, your article fails to mention that on this same day, Obama cleared offshore drilling permits for multiple states along the Atlantic coast.QuakerOats;1699881 wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/26/obama-films-anti-oil-drilling-video-from-a-jet/
The beat goes on ...
Oil is $50 a barrel.
HitsRus
Posts: 9,206
Jan 27, 2015 8:21am
^^^LOL.....only because the Saudis are keeping the spigots open
TedSheckler
Posts: 3,974
Jan 29, 2015 7:46am
BREAKING: The Taliban aren't terrorists.