Republican Judgement

[retro]

Jesus Christ dude... why don't you go back a few posts and see where I PROVED that 47% of taxpayers do not pay taxes. Until you address that point, continuing to rally against those evil rich people is pointless. Because I can't take you seriously while you deny documented fact.

The whole "voting against your own interest" argument is such bullshit. I vote for the candidates that I believe are going to do the best job for the country based on my own personal opinions and convictions. Whether they be republican, democrat, or (most likely) Libertarian. There's more to this country's issues than taxes... and the out of control spending is first and foremost amongst our problems. One side of the aisle wants to grow government even further, and the other side doesn't want to grow it as much. Then there are the sane ones that want a full scale back of the federal government and a return to the concepts of a limited Federal Government and states to take the forefront of issues that relate to them directly. Simple Constitutional basics... that's what I'm looking for.

For the FairTax... you do realize that if we moved to a system like that... the "rich" wouldn't have their tax loopholes and everything else that you have such a problem with. They'd have to pay the same percentage as everyone else... again, no loopholes. So it would stand to reason that tax revenues could be even higher in the end.

All I'm really hearing from you is the same mantra that I hear chanted by the left. "The rich are evil, we're all jealous of how much money they make, we need to tax them into oblivion." and "we need to raise taxes so we can continue to fun completely insolvent entitlement programs that are patently unconstitutional". I've obviously paraphrased, but that's the basic gist of what you (and your ilk) have to say.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Jesus Christ dude... why don't you go back a few posts and see where I PROVED that 47% of taxpayers do not pay taxes. Until you address that point, continuing to rally against those evil rich people is pointless. Because I can't take you seriously while you deny documented fact.

You "proved" nothing by posting some links with pie charts that said what you wanted them to say by telling only part of the story. My data told the entire story, and the fact is the bottom 47% of taxpayers do indeed pay taxes. You and the rest of the Boortz-bots and talk radio listeners always leave out FICA, Medicare, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, FCC tax, ad vlaorem taxes, et al.

I'll remind you once again that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only earn 12% of all income. And I'll ask you again, how much more of that 12% do you want the lowest income earners to pay?

Have you ever stopped and contemplated that FACT? And it is a 100% verifiable FACT. And I sure as hell can't take you seriously when you attempt to deny documented fact.

The whole "voting against your own interest" argument is such bullshit. I vote for the candidates that I believe are going to do the best job for the country based on my own personal opinions and convictions.

Do you honestly believe it is right and moral for a single mother earning $40,000 per year to pay a higher overall percentage of her income than a person earning over $379,150????

How do you reconcile that in your own mind?

Whether they be republican, democrat, or (most likely) Libertarian. There's more to this country's issues than taxes... and the out of control spending is first and foremost amongst our problems.

How about the out of control military spending? Are you for cutting that?

What about all our foriegn military bases? Are you for closing them?

What about corporate welfare? Are you for ending that?

One side of the aisle wants to grow government even further, and the other side doesn't want to grow it as much. Then there are the sane ones that want a full scale back of the federal government and a return to the concepts of a limited Federal Government and states to take the forefront of issues that relate to them directly. Simple Constitutional basics... that's what I'm looking for.

Simple constitutional basics? You mean like the Republicans lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans while engaging the nation in two ongoing wars? You mean like Republicans borrowing money and running up interest debt to pay for those wars?

No doubt the Democrats tax and spend. But you tell me, which is worse? Tax and pay as you go? Or borrow and spend ourselves into oblivion?

For the FairTax... you do realize that if we moved to a system like that... the "rich" wouldn't have their tax loopholes and everything else that you have such a problem with. They'd have to pay the same percentage as everyone else... again, no loopholes. So it would stand to reason that tax revenues could be even higher in the end.

You really have never looked seriously at this "fair tax" have you? You are only repeating Boortz. If you cannot see that the wealthiest will pay even less tax under the "fair tax" than they do under the current system, you are blind. Even the GOP can't get behind the "fair tax" because it is so blatantly biased against the middle class that they fear revolt if it were implimented.

All I'm really hearing from you is the same mantra that I hear chanted by the left. "The rich are evil, we're all jealous of how much money they make, we need to tax them into oblivion." and "we need to raise taxes so we can continue to fun completely insolvent entitlement programs that are patently unconstitutional". I've obviously paraphrased, but that's the basic gist of what you (and your ilk) have to say.

All I'm hearing from you is Re-Boortz. You have no clue what I think about rich people. As a matter of fact, I love rich people. I'd love to be rich to the point I could live off earned interest and capital gains. And you know what else? I wouldn't whine and cry if I paid higher marginal rates than that single mother earning $40,000 per year and struggling to make ends meet.

I'm going to ask you twice in the same post:

Do you think it is morally right for a single mother earning $40,000 per year to pay a higher overall percentage of her income than a person earning over $379,150????

 

[retro]

You "proved" nothing by posting some links with pie charts that said what you wanted them to say by telling only part of the story. My data told the entire story, and the fact is the bottom 47% of taxpayers do indeed pay taxes. You and the rest of the Boortz-bots and talk radio listeners always leave out FICA, Medicare, state taxes, local taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, FCC tax, ad vlaorem taxes, et al.

and I'm talking about overall tax rate. FICA, medicare, FCC taxes, etc., are all unconstitutional. I'm going by raw federal tax data, which is all we're talking about here. Apparently that fact escaped you.

I'll remind you once again that the bottom 50% of taxpayers only earn 12% of all income. And I'll ask you again, how much more of that 12% do you want the lowest income earners to pay?

Have you ever stopped and contemplated that FACT? And it is a 100% verifiable FACT. And I sure as hell can't take you seriously when you attempt to deny documented fact.

I haven't said at all that the poor should be paying more money, I'm saying that it's unfair to expect that the top 10% shoulder the vast majority of the tax burden in the United States. Stop putting words into my mouth that I haven't said. I've talked about LOWERING taxes across the board, in combination with vastly reduced governmental spending. In case I haven't made it clear, I've restated it for you.

Do you honestly believe it is right and moral for a single mother earning $40,000 per year to pay a higher overall percentage of her income than a person earning over $379,150????

How do you reconcile that in your own mind?

Do you believe that it is right and moral for a top wage earner to have to shoulder the largest tax burden in the country? I'm a divorced father that pays child support and has the federal and state governments take close to 25% of my gross income in taxation. Again, lowering taxes ACROSS THE BOARD.

Question... is it right and moral for there to be an inheritance tax? Again, a double taxation. How is it fair that people who have saved money and would like to pass it along to their children and grandchildren to have that money further taxed beyond what it was taxed when they earned it? How is it fair for the small business owner to have to pay taxes on the sale of his business that he already paid taxes on during the time he ran his business? On top of the fact that if they are a sole proprietorship they were taxed an unfair amount on their income for having to run their business as their own income?

How about the out of control military spending? Are you for cutting that?

What about all our foriegn military bases? Are you for closing them?

What about corporate welfare? Are you for ending that?

Yes, mostly yes, and yes in most cases. Military spending needs to be reigned in substantially... we need to stop fighting illegal wars, and pull troops back. I think at the very least, a good 50-75% of our overseas bases should be shut down and our forces brought home. Corporate welfare for large corporations is generally completely unfair, especially to the small business owner. I was also against the corporate bailouts of GM and Chrysler.

Simple constitutional basics? You mean like the Republicans lowering the taxes of the wealthiest Americans while engaging the nation in two ongoing wars? You mean like Republicans borrowing money and running up interest debt to pay for those wars?

Yes, simple constitutional basics. Lowering of taxes, ending unconstitutional and insolvent entitlement programs, and ending wars (including Obama's newest one in Libya). I've said all of that before, and yet you still ask the questions as though you're trying to lump me in with all of the neocons.

No doubt the Democrats tax and spend. But you tell me, which is worse? Tax and pay as you go? Or borrow and spend ourselves into oblivion?

The Democrats are the ones trying to borrow and spend us into oblivion. Obamacare is going to destroy the health care industry (which I've discussed a sickening amount of times here already). I can say that with absolute certainty based on my experience in health care as well as my friendships and relationships with health care professionals, including my dad who has a medical practice partnership. Fortunately for him, he's going to be moving into a full-time administrative role running a residency program, otherwise he was looking to become a full-time consultant and not practicing medicine at all once the provisions of Obamacare went into effect... because he couldn't have afforded to stay in practice.

You really have never looked seriously at this "fair tax" have you? You are only repeating Boortz. If you cannot see that the wealthiest will pay even less tax under the "fair tax" than they do under the current system, you are blind. Even the GOP can't get behind the "fair tax" because it is so blatantly biased against the middle class that they fear revolt if it were implimented.

Yes, I really have looked seriously at the FairTax... and I've barely paid attention to Boortz... as FairTax has gone way beyond what he originally laid out. I'll just say that based on my own research, I would end up with more money as a result of such a system being implemented rather than it being unfair against someone like me, firmly in the middle class.

All I'm hearing from you is Re-Boortz. You have no clue what I think about rich people. As a matter of fact, I love rich people. I'd love to be rich to the point I could live off earned interest and capital gains. And you know what else? I wouldn't whine and cry if I paid higher marginal rates than that single mother earning $40,000 per year and struggling to make ends meet.

Again, I don't bother with Boortz because the principles of the FairTax system have gone beyond what he originally laid out. I probably pay more in marginal tax rates than the single mother earning $40,000 a year, and have less disposable income to do the fact that I'm divorced and already pay 1/3 of my net income in child support as it is... to support my bitch of an ex-wife that refuses to work. So excuse me for being a little bitter over the fact that I lose 25% of my gross to taxes while there are plenty of people that don't pay taxes. Again, a provable and documentable fact.

I'm going to ask you twice in the same post:

Do you think it is morally right for a single mother earning $40,000 per year to pay a higher overall percentage of her income than a person earning over $379,150????

I've already answered... and you're becoming hysterical over the issue, hardly befitting someone trying to take a moral high ground.

 

[Tim]

A fair tax will make EVERYBODY contribute which as of now only half do. :thumbdown

And to those that love to penalize business with taxes just remember that they never pay taxes on their work product. It gets passed on to the consumer which is YOU and Me.

I'll address you point about half the people not paying taxes in a moment...

As far as corporations not paying taxes because they just pass them onto the consumer has several problems...
First, you assume that every tax payer is a consumer of the products and services of these corporations. Why would I have to pay for the "commons" that these corporations consume in the pursuit of profits? In your twisted world, I would be responsible to contribute my tax dollars directly into the corporate coffers whether I am a customer or not.
Second, taxes are paid on the profits of corporations. These taxes are only being applied to money that's being taken out of the corporation. Meaning, you are not paying taxes on payroll, machinery, improvements, inventory, etc. So the government ISN'T preventing growth with corporate taxes nor are they adding cost to the products or services.
A good example is my company. How does the tax rate effect the price of a cabinet we make and sell? If the tax rate goes up, the price of my cabinet will not go up because my material and labor costs have not changed.

Jesus Christ dude... why don't you go back a few posts and see where I PROVED that 47% of taxpayers do not pay taxes. Until you address that point, continuing to rally against those evil rich people is pointless. Because I can't take you seriously while you deny documented fact.

Everyone with a paycheck pays federal taxes, everyone. What you are talking about is people with no effective tax rate after deductions and tax credits.
So your beef is with the standard deductions, tax credits and rebates... But you get the same ones, right? Are you willing to give up your deductions and just pay the flat rate?
What about the one third of all corporations that have an effective tax rate of 0% because of deductions? Do you want all of those removed and have them pay a flat rate as well.
So your beef isn't with people not paying taxes, because they do. They have taxes taken out of every check, just like your check. Your beef is that there are too many deductions.

 

[Johnfromokc]

and I'm talking about overall tax rate. FICA, medicare, FCC taxes, etc., are all unconstitutional. I'm going by raw federal tax data, which is all we're talking about here. Apparently that fact escaped you.

I went by raw federal data as well. Tim already took your argument apart again, so I won't continue to beat that dead horse. But you are going to have to explain how certain taxes and programs are "unconstitutional". Cite the section(s) of the constitution you allege have been violated and explain to the board how this is so.

I haven't said at all that the poor should be paying more money,

You didn't? Really now. This is what you said:

Jesus Christ dude... why don't you go back a few posts and see where I PROVED that 47% of taxpayers do not pay taxes.

Talk about hysterical.

I'm saying that it's unfair to expect that the top 10% shoulder the vast majority of the tax burden in the United States.

And I'm saying it is unfair for the top 1% to pay less as a percentage of their income than their secretaries.

Stop putting words into my mouth that I haven't said.

You say it, I quote it. It came straight out of your own mouth. Don't want it brought back up, don't say it in the first place.

I've talked about LOWERING taxes across the board, in combination with vastly reduced governmental spending. In case I haven't made it clear, I've restated it for you.

Why do you want to lower taxes across the board when there is already a disparity between rich, middle class and poor that is immoral? This "across the board" tax cut will only dig us deeper into the hole we are already in. The gap between rich and poor is widening every day, and we have the lowest tax rates in our lifetimes. The middle class is shrinking because of the low marginal rates. Our infrastructure is crumbling because of these low marginal rates, and you want to make it worse by lowering taxes on those who can most afford it, and who benefit most while the lowest income earners suffer?

Do you believe that it is right and moral for a top wage earner to have to shoulder the largest tax burden in the country?

Yes! Yes! Yes! Got it? Where else are we going to get the funds? From the poorest 50% who earn only 12% of the total income? Or from the top 1% who earn 24%?

I especially know it is immoral for millionaires and billionaires who have redirected their incomes through capital gains as opposed to salary to evade taxes. These people who benefit most from our infrastructure of roads, bridges, utilities, military, police, fire, and legal system that is paid for by taxes are evading their social responsibility. Yes, I said social responsibility. We would not be the richest nation on the planet without our societal structure.

I'm a divorced father that pays child support and has the federal and state governments take close to 25% of my gross income in taxation. Again, lowering taxes ACROSS THE BOARD.

You want lower tax rates for the top 1% because of your personal life decisions?

Question... is it right and moral for there to be an inheritance tax? Again, a double taxation. How is it fair that people who have saved money and would like to pass it along to their children and grandchildren to have that money further taxed beyond what it was taxed when they earned it?

Yes, it is moral because no one should become rich by virtue of birth. If I gave you $1,000,000 should you get it tax free? If not, why should your children who have done nothing to earn it but be born? Do you think the Kennedy's and the Soro's should be able to make their future generations rich by birth? How about the Hiltons? Everybody loves Paris, right? How about the Kardashians?

Enlightened billionaire Warren Buffet holds the position that no one should be a millionaire or billionaire by birth. The taxes are indeed moral and help prevent political aristocracy that controls out federal legislature and the presidency.

 

[Johnfromokc]

How is it fair for the small business owner to have to pay taxes on the sale of his business that he already paid taxes on during the time he ran his business? On top of the fact that if they are a sole proprietorship they were taxed an unfair amount on their income for having to run their business as their own income?

I've actually done this twice with businesses I built from the ground up, and once sold out of a corporate partnership I had a 50% stake in. There is nothing unfair about paying taxes on equity. It is similar to selling stocks or a house you own outside of a retirement sheltered plan. The value of a business above the hard assets like equipment is "goodwill" value. I had already either depreciated the hard assets or taken the section 179 deduction for them. So, a tax break has already been realized on the assets, and "goodwill" is profit to the former owner above and beyond that. Why should it not be taxed?

Yes, mostly yes, and yes in most cases. Military spending needs to be reigned in substantially... we need to stop fighting illegal wars, and pull troops back. I think at the very least, a good 50-75% of our overseas bases should be shut down and our forces brought home. Corporate welfare for large corporations is generally completely unfair, especially to the small business owner. I was also against the corporate bailouts of GM and Chrysler.

Near complete agreement here.

Yes, simple constitutional basics. Lowering of taxes, ending unconstitutional and insolvent entitlement programs,

Again, how is lowering taxes on the wealthy and creating aristocracy, and cutting off welfare to the needy, cutting off social security and Medicare to the elderly "constitutional"? You'll have to explain that, citing the relevant sections and clauses of the constitution.

and ending wars (including Obama's newest one in Libya). I've said all of that before, and yet you still ask the questions as though you're trying to lump me in with all of the neocons.

Well, you finally answered with enough clarity to make some sense. The problem is that you only cite Obama, as if the problems began with him. The fact is, part of our current economic problems started with Kennedy's lowering of the marginal tax rates, and were exacerbated by Reganomics and continued by Bush 2. Bush 1 and Clinton are not guiltless either with their parts on NAFTA and other similar issues.

The Democrats are the ones trying to borrow and spend us into oblivion.

Say what? The Democrats want to raise taxes on the wealthy. Democrats have been railing against the borrow and spend policies of Bush 2 since day one.

Obamacare is going to destroy the health care industry (which I've discussed a sickening amount of times here already).

Surely you jest? "Obamacare" as the neocons call it, is a boon for the health insurance industry. The loss of the Public Option essentially killed any good for the average citizen that could have come from it. This program was written by the Republicans and the Heritage Foundation on 1989!!! Obamacare is a Republican wet dream! Don't believe it:

http://healthcarereform.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004182

I can say that with absolute certainty based on my experience in health care as well as my friendships and relationships with health care professionals, including my dad who has a medical practice partnership. Fortunately for him, he's going to be moving into a full-time administrative role running a residency program, otherwise he was looking to become a full-time consultant and not practicing medicine at all once the provisions of Obamacare went into effect... because he couldn't have afforded to stay in practice.

You are going to have to explain this. What do you mean "can't afford to stay in practice"? Put some numbers to this. I'm married to an RN, 20 years now, and there are two other RN's in my family, so I can understand 100% of medical speak. Show me the money. I sincerely want to learn how this Republican bill from 1989 is going to destroy healthcare. I am completely ready to believe this.

Yes, I really have looked seriously at the FairTax... and I've barely paid attention to Boortz... as FairTax has gone way beyond what he originally laid out. I'll just say that based on my own research, I would end up with more money as a result of such a system being implemented rather than it being unfair against someone like me, firmly in the middle class.

Show me the money then. The rich will pay less than they do now, this we apparently agree on. But it will be the middle class and small business who will feel this shift of the tax burden.

Again, I don't bother with Boortz because the principles of the FairTax system have gone beyond what he originally laid out.

My friend, Boortz wrote the book. You repeat his talking points over and over but have yet to show me the money. Sorry, not buying it.

I probably pay more in marginal tax rates than the single mother earning $40,000 a year, and have less disposable income to do the fact that I'm divorced and already pay 1/3 of my net income in child support as it is... to support my bitch of an ex-wife that refuses to work.

I know for a fact that I pay more as a percentage right now as a salaried worker than the $40K single mom does, and I have no problem with that. It is as it should be. What I have a problem with is people with many times my income paying less as a percentage in taxes than the single mom.

And I'm very sorry your life choices have consumed 1/3 of your income to meet your parental responsibilities. What I want to know is why you want to punish your friends, family and neighbors in the same economic class because of it?

So excuse me for being a little bitter over the fact that I lose 25% of my gross to taxes while there are plenty of people that don't pay taxes. Again, a provable and documentable fact.

Again, you have not proven nor documented anything with numbers. I put up a whole page of facts and figures. You have not. Simply repeating that statement will never make it true.

I've already answered... and you're becoming hysterical over the issue, hardly befitting someone trying to take a moral high ground.

No, actually you danced around it. How do you reconcile that a single mom with a $40K income pays a greater percentage of her income in taxes than do millionaires and billionaires?

 

[retro]

blah blah blah blah fucking blah blah blah

You being married to an RN doesn't equate knowledge of the medical industry and the business side of practicing medicine. I've been involved with health care IT, health care administration, human resources, etc. Now, the Obamacare plan (and that's what plenty of people outside of neocons call it) calls for massive changes across the health care insdustry. Mandated Medicare and Medicaid benefits for people, lowering of medicare reimbursements to physicians. There's a whole helluva lot more to it than that, but at it's base it comes down to increased costs, less reimbursements, and less control over their practices. But hey, I'm certain that your wife knows more about how to run a medical practice than my dad does. Oh, and before you start in on the typical liberal talking points that doctors make so much more money than everyone else, blah blah blah... my dad is a family care physician and lives a pretty modest life. Just in case you're not aware, the only physicians that make less than GPs are pediatricians (and tell me where the justice is in that...).

I also got a kick out of your assumptions about my own personal life. You automatically made assumptions about me and used that in a pathetic attempt to vilify me. I would say that I would've expected better... but over the course of this conversation, I really can't say that and be truthful.

Again, 47% of the population doesn't pay any taxes. You tell me to provide proof for that... why don't you provide proof for your claims that the top 1% don't pay any more in taxes than your single mother making $40,000. A single mother of 2 kids that pays for child care has a total federal tax burden of just under 9%. A couple with two kids where one partner earns $500,000 and the other doesn't work have a federal tax burden of 34%. If you extrapolate that out to $5,000,000 a year and you have a tax burden of 39%. Now, that doesn't count as your "super rich" but anyone making over $250,000 is classified as "rich" by the liberals that have been in charge in the White House, Senate, and until recently, the House as well. My tax burden by comparison, despite making not significantly more than the single mother making $40,000, yet my federal tax burden is 24%. So I pay 2.5x more in tax percentage than the single mother does.

My whole point here is that as a nation, we're overtaxed and the system needs a massive overhaul. The best option out there, in my opinion, is the FairTax system. You apparently have something against it, and that's fine... so what's your solution? Increasing taxes more on those that you deem to be "rich"?

As far as our unconstitutional entitlement programs... look no further than Medicare and Social Security. They're completely insolvent at this point in time, and their existence violates the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The last time I checked, programs like Medicare and Social Security weren't delegated to the United States by the Constitution. State run Medicaid programs are perfectly acceptable and legal, federally run ones are not. Similarly, Obamacare's health care mandate is unconstitutional as well.

You ask where else are we going to get the funds for bullshit stimulus programs, corporate bailouts, wars, and the like? Here's a novel concept. Why don't we stop spending so fucking much money? I know, that's a hard thing for people such as yourself to grasp, but it's a very simple economic concept. If you can't afford your lifestyle, then stop spending so much money.

Your mantra appears to be nothing more than tax, tax, tax, tax, tax. Mine is stop spending so much money, and let people eventually send less to the government as a result.

I'm a huge proponent of states rights. If a state wanted to introduce a single payer health care plan, or one with a public mandate, then they have the power to do so. Similarly, if they wanted to enact a Social Security plan, they could as well. But those powers are not enumerated to the Federal Government and as such are unconstitutional. I don't have a political party... I have extreme libertarian views. I'm a believer in people having the freedom to do anything they want, as long as they don't infringe upon the personal liberties of others. In addition to states rights, I believe in small government, non-interventionism, lower taxes, and the list goes on and on.

You like to try and put me into the neocon box, but I'm about the exact opposite both from them, and tax and spend liberals such as yourself.

Could you please explain something to me? How does reducing taxes across the board unfair to the single mother making $40,000/yr? Would reducing taxes on the single mother and raising them even further on the "rich" be fair? What if we increased taxes on those same "rich" to 90%? Would that be fair?

 

[Johnfromokc]

blah blah blah blah fucking blah blah blah

Pretty hard to refute fact and logic isn't it? I understand your frustration. Like I said, I used to think like you. You'll either embrace the truth eventually, or remain an angry libertarian lusting to enter the 1% club. You'll never enter that club my friend, but keep on being the front man for them. I have it on good authority that they do indeed appreciate it. You'll never be rewarded for your loyalty, but you'll be appreciated all the same.

You being married to an RN doesn't equate knowledge of the medical industry and the business side of practicing medicine.

If you had actually read my post, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement. You might actually learn something if you would actually read and attempt to understand opposing positions instead of replying in such a knee-jerk fashion.

I've been involved with health care IT, health care administration, human resources, etc. Now, the Obamacare plan (and that's what plenty of people outside of neocons call it) calls for massive changes across the health care insdustry. Mandated Medicare and Medicaid benefits for people, lowering of medicare reimbursements to physicians. There's a whole helluva lot more to it than that, but at it's base it comes down to increased costs, less reimbursements, and less control over their practices.

And Obamacare is a neocon bill. It's not liberal or socialist or anything of the sort. Know what kind of health care plan I want? I want Universal Health Care for 100% of Americans like Australia has. I want the burden of health insurance removed from employers so that people can change to a better paying job and not fear losing health care coverage. This is the richest nation on the planet and we could easily do this and all health care professionals will be fairly compensated. It works in Australia. You should research it for yourself.

But hey, I'm certain that your wife knows more about how to run a medical practice than my dad does.

Once more: If you had actually read my post, you wouldn't have made such an asinine statement.

Oh, and before you start in on the typical liberal talking points that doctors make so much more money than everyone else, blah blah blah... my dad is a family care physician and lives a pretty modest life. Just in case you're not aware, the only physicians that make less than GPs are pediatricians (and tell me where the justice is in that...).

Look, as I said, had you actually read my post instead of skimming over it and putting your mouth in motion before you put your brain in gear, you would have noticed that I was willing to listen, and that I understand "medical speak". I was simply stating that I was open to your explanation, but you decided to have a temper tantrum.

Would you believe I already know the income ranges of various physicians? This could be an area of some limited agreement between us, but you insist on blasting forward without full comprehension of what was previously posted. Slow down, read and understand the words.

I also got a kick out of your assumptions about my own personal life. You automatically made assumptions about me and used that in a pathetic attempt to vilify me. I would say that I would've expected better... but over the course of this conversation, I really can't say that and be truthful.

Dude, I told you before, if you don't want it repeated, don't post it. YOU posted :

I probably pay more in marginal tax rates than the single mother earning $40,000 a year, and have less disposable income to do the fact that I'm divorced and already pay 1/3 of my net income in child support as it is... to support my bitch of an ex-wife that refuses to work. So excuse me for being a little bitter over the fact that I lose 25% of my gross to taxes while there are plenty of people that don't pay taxes.

One more time. I'll type it slow for you - if you don't want it repeated, don't post it.

Again, 47% of the population doesn't pay any taxes.

Repeating a lie over and over will never make it true.

You tell me to provide proof for that...

And you failed to do so repeatedly.

why don't you provide proof for your claims that the top 1% don't pay any more in taxes than your single mother making $40,000.

Here ya go...again. IRS data et al:

http://www.tax.com/taxcom/features.nsf/Articles/0DEC0EAA7E4D7A2B852576CD00714692?OpenDocument

I know you won't read it, but there are others reading this little debate that will.

A single mother of 2 kids that pays for child care has a total federal tax burden of just under 9%. A couple with two kids where one partner earns $500,000 and the other doesn't work have a federal tax burden of 34%. If you extrapolate that out to $5,000,000 a year and you have a tax burden of 39%. Now, that doesn't count as your "super rich" but anyone making over $250,000 is classified as "rich" by the liberals that have been in charge in the White House, Senate, and until recently, the House as well.

You need to check your figures and actually consult the IRS tax tables. Marginal rates are not effective rates, and there is currently no 39% marginal rate. Do a little research, you might learn something.

My tax burden by comparison, despite making not significantly more than the single mother making $40,000, yet my federal tax burden is 24%. So I pay 2.5x more in tax percentage than the single mother does.

This has already been covered that the middle class shoulders a disproportionate percentage of tax as compared to the wealthy. We actually agree that you pay more than the single mom...you are not currently, and likely never will enter the top 1%. I do sincerely hope you make it there one day with a little more compassion for your fellow Americans that were once middle class.

My whole point here is that as a nation, we're overtaxed and the system needs a massive overhaul. The best option out there, in my opinion, is the FairTax system. You apparently have something against it, and that's fine... so what's your solution? Increasing taxes more on those that you deem to be "rich"?

I've already stated my solution had you taken the time to read it. Go back and look.

As far as our unconstitutional entitlement programs... look no further than Medicare and Social Security. They're completely insolvent at this point in time, and their existence violates the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The last time I checked, programs like Medicare and Social Security weren't delegated to the United States by the Constitution. State run Medicaid programs are perfectly acceptable and legal, federally run ones are not. Similarly, Obamacare's health care mandate is unconstitutional as well.

You need to "check" your information somewhere other than libertarian web sites that say what you want to hear. The constitutionality of the Social Security Act was settled in a set of Supreme Court decisions issued in May 1937. Done deal my friend:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/court.html

The Supreme Court decision on SS also applies to other social programs. You need to move on with that tired old "States Rights" argument. If States Rights were the true law of the land, the south would be it's own country and slavery would still be legal. Let that tired old bigoted argument go.

Tell me...would you prefer to see millions of elderly Americans starve to death and live in complete poverty withous SS? Would you like to see Medicaide taken away from our elderly? Sure sounds like it to me.

Have you no compassion? Are you truly that selfish?

 

[CityGirl]

 

[griz bear]

:24::24::24::24: very good

 

[Kyle B]

Where's the Democrat Judgment thread?

 

[Alien Allen]

Where's the Democrat Judgment thread?

It is right next to the Obamination thread

 

[Accountable]

[...] billionaire Warren Buffet holds the position that no one should be a millionaire or billionaire by birth. The taxes are indeed moral and help prevent political aristocracy that controls out federal legislature and the presidency.

That's the beauty of America. Billionaire Warren Buffet is free to make sure that none of his children are millionaires or billionaires by birth. At the same time, other millionaires and billionaires have the freedom (currently) to choose for themselves whether they will follow suit. The problem between Buffet and the American Way is that Buffet wants the federal government to force everyone to live by his own code of morality. He can leave as much or as little to his children as he chooses, and give as much or as little to the government as he chooses, without requiring any law to force him. He is also free to pay whatever tax rate in excess of his secretary that he chooses. He's a powerful man. He can make decisions.

 

[Johnfromokc]

That's the beauty of America. Billionaire Warren Buffet is free to make sure that none of his children are millionaires or billionaires by birth. At the same time, other millionaires and billionaires have the freedom (currently) to choose for themselves whether they will follow suit. The problem between Buffet and the American Way is that Buffet wants the federal government to force everyone to live by his own code of morality. He can leave as much or as little to his children as he chooses, and give as much or as little to the government as he chooses, without requiring any law to force him. He is also free to pay whatever tax rate in excess of his secretary that he chooses. He's a powerful man. He can make decisions.

Answer a question Accountable. Do you believe you will ever enter the millionaire/billionaire or 1% income earner club?

Tax free mega-inheritances = aristocracies. Is that the way you want to see the United States controlled? These inheritance tax laws were created for a sound governing reason.

Here's another question for you Accountable. If I decide to give you $1,000,000, should you get it tax free, or should you be required to pay tax on it?

 

[Tim]

If I decide to give you $1,000,000, should you get it tax free, or should you be required to pay tax on it?

This is the part of the argument I can never understand.

The money is changing hands, it's changing ownership. That classifies it as income and it should be taxed as such.

It's like saying that I had taxes taken out of my paycheck on Friday, so when I pay the babysitter, she shouldn't have to pay tax on that money because it was already taxed.... :dunno

 

[Minor Axis]

Pretty hard to refute fact and logic isn't it?

I like having you around.

 

[Alien Allen]

Here's another question for you Accountable. If I decide to give you $1,000,000, should you get it tax free, or should you be required to pay tax on it?

there are tax repercussions for any gift over $10k to even a close relative when one is still alive if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps you meant to refer as to passing the money on to a son or daughter at ones death??

As to inheritance do you favor a family having to give up a business due to taxes on the inheritance? It can and does happen. Do you have any empathy for employees of a family business that lose their job as a result.

There are a lot of variables.

Regardless why does the govt deserve the hard earned money of those who are wealthy when they die? That is a form of double taxation in many instances.

 

[Johnfromokc]

there are tax repercussions for any gift over $10k to even a close relative when one is still alive if I am not mistaken.

Mommy and daddy and grandma and grandpa can gift you $13,000 annually, tax free, under current federal law.

Perhaps you meant to refer as to passing the money on to a son or daughter at ones death??

A distinction without difference.

As to inheritance do you favor a family having to give up a business due to taxes on the inheritance? It can and does happen.

If that business can be liquidated by the heirs in excess of $5,000,000, and the heirs intend to take the cash and run, then no, I don't have any sympathy for them. If, however, the business is incorporated and the heirs are shareholders, the corporation, by law, has perpetual existence. If the heirs intend to cash in their shares, and take the money and run, then they should be taxed. If they intend to perpetuate the family business, they will only be taxed on the shares they gain from the deceased. This is a non issue for the vast majority of American small businesses.

Do you have any empathy for employees of a family business that lose their job as a result.

Certainly. That is in the hands of the heirs, not the employees or the government. Some heirs have no intention of perpetuating the family business and only want the cash.

There are a lot of variables.

And the owners or shareholders are responsible for planning for those variables.

Regardless why does the govt deserve the hard earned money of those who are wealthy when they die? That is a form of double taxation in many instances.

Double taxation? If I give you $1,000,000 it is new income to you. If I give my kids $1,000,000, it is new income to them. Once the money changes hands, it is new income under the tax code and rightfully so. There is no difference.

Why is it some working class people who post on internet forums even worry about the estate tax and gift tax issue? Currently, estates valued up to $5,000,000 are not even required to file an estate tax return, and they can be gifted $13,000 per year tax free.

Anybody here got relatives that are going to leave them estates in excess of $5,000,000? Anybody here getting more than $13,000 per year from gifts?

How come you guys seem so concerned about people like Gates and Buffets billions? You'd be far better off concerning yourselves with your own estates and planning accordingly. You guys sure spend a lot of time and energy defending the 1% club that would be better spent looking after your families best interests.

 

[Accountable]

Answer a question Accountable. Do you believe you will ever enter the millionaire/billionaire or 1% income earner club?

No. You neglected to ask the question needed to base this question upon: Am I willing to do the work and make the sacrifices necessary to become a millionaire/billionaire or 1% income earner? That answer is also No.

Tax free mega-inheritances = aristocracies. Is that the way you want to see the United States controlled? These inheritance tax laws were created for a sound governing reason.

I was commenting on Mr Buffet's desire to force all of society to live by his code of morality and ethics. Should society force you to act on my code of morality and ethics? I don't think so. There are other ways to keep your "aristocracy" boogeymen from controlling the country than by taking their property unjustly.

Here's another question for you Accountable. If I decide to give you $1,000,000, should you get it tax free, or should you be required to pay tax on it?

A gift? It should be tax-free.

 

[Accountable]

This is the part of the argument I can never understand.

The money is changing hands, it's changing ownership. That classifies it as income and it should be taxed as such.

It's like saying that I had taxes taken out of my paycheck on Friday, so when I pay the babysitter, she shouldn't have to pay tax on that money because it was already taxed.... :dunno

So should everyone claim that $5 they get from Grandma on their birthday?