Gawain 0 #151 March 3, 2008 QuoteSS or Medicare? Both running profits. That's some funny sh*t right there. HHS has the largest share of the federal budget.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #152 March 3, 2008 >how would it be fair to do? Multiply current tax rates by X percent, X representing the amount required to close the hole in the budget. Basically a balanced budget amendment strategy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #153 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Everyone wants to cut spending - as long as it's someone else's favorite program. The only obvious federal spending to cut is the foreign aid and 'peace'keeping expenses. Nowhere else can we get 100s of billions cut. SS or Medicare? Both running profits. Education? Largely a state expense. There is lots of pork, but it's all small scale in comparison, and as as corrolary to what you wrote, one man's pork is another man's pie. If we were to implement a war tax - how would it be fair to do? Should it be $1000/person, or tiered on the reasoning that the wealthy can better afford it, and benefit more from the war? But doing that gives the majority little reason to vote against the war. We could defend this country very well after cutting $300Billion from the Pentagon's spending. We would still outspend the next 7 nations combined.. It might hinder our OFFENSIVE capability, but after the quagmire of the last 5 years, that might not be a bad thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #154 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteSS or Medicare? Both running profits. That's some funny sh*t right there. HHS has the largest share of the federal budget. Share shmare. Is SS running a profit or isn't it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #155 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteSS or Medicare? Both running profits. That's some funny sh*t right there. HHS has the largest share of the federal budget. SS is essentially paying the bills in Iraq right now. 20 years from now, it may be a drain, however it must be recalled that it's paying benefits that people paid for (and not at a great return of investment). It's really no different from the drain our debt incurs - if we want to spend that money now, we have to be responsible enough to pay it later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #156 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWe hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet. Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money? "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". PS I have provided links now on several occasions to the US Dept. of Justice reports (plural) that give the number of gun thefts annually. Most recent was just last week, when Marc Rush's memory failed. Is your memory really that bad? What a shame in such a young guy. I know you throwing that number out there, professor...but oddly enough, the SUPPORTING information we keep asking for keeps coming up AWOL....shall I refresh your memory again, or will you be able to remember *THIS* time?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #157 March 3, 2008 QuoteBillvon, I appreciate your points. I'll just have to disagree with you. Consumer spending impacts the economy now, but investment spending has long term effects. Trickle-down economics have only helped out the rich folks in the past. The middle classes and the poor only got poorer. How do you suppose it would be different now? linz I've already shown that the tax breaks (the so-called 'trickle down' economy) actually REMOVES people from the tax rolls (since they no longer are liable for taxes)....care to explain how "that only helps out rich folks"?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #158 March 3, 2008 Quote Quotewere they urban blacks??? I just dont picture a good ole Texas boy hangin out in da hood -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who's bringing race into this arguement? QuoteThey turn around and buy MD20/20, some crack and some fast food. Maybe, if they can convince you that they are poor enough, they might be able to get some spinners to finish pimping out their ride Seems you did.. and it does not surprise me at all. And Mikes reference to those who refuse to work... more code for the same thing.. See it IS alive and well in the members of your party....sadly Do NOT put YOUR biases on me, Ms. Cameron. If I had wished to make a comment about a particular race, you can be assured that the reference to their race would be in my comment.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #159 March 3, 2008 Quote Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes. Forgot the OTHER part of the data, didn't you Professor?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #160 March 3, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote You posted it. And you can post the data you wish to post. That's how forums work. Try this on for size. It is from your very own suggestion, The Tax Foundation. Seems your little graph is, shall we say, "misleading". http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/wp1.pdf Figure 8, page 31 says it all. edit to add: Figure 9, page 33 too... This one says it all, in regards to "everyone else supporting the rich" as the good Professor likes to infer.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #161 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteBillvon, I appreciate your points. I'll just have to disagree with you. Consumer spending impacts the economy now, but investment spending has long term effects. Trickle-down economics have only helped out the rich folks in the past. The middle classes and the poor only got poorer. How do you suppose it would be different now? linz I've already shown that the tax breaks (the so-called 'trickle down' economy) actually REMOVES people from the tax rolls (since they no longer are liable for taxes)....care to explain how "that only helps out rich folks"? Mike, you can make just about anything work in theory if you try hard enough. This is one, though, that just hasn't panned out in real life. Do you have any historical (not theoretical) examples in which it HAS worked to put more money in the hands of the middle class or poor? If the goal is to make the wealthy wealthier, then I'd rather it just be sold that way. If you don't have any real examples, then why do you think it'd work now when it hasn't worked before? linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #162 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuote Here are some interesting data on where federal tax money goes. The richest households are actually taking more than the middle classes. Forgot the OTHER part of the data, didn't you Professor? Late to the party, Mike. The rest of us moved on to another pub.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #163 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet. Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money? "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". PS I have provided links now on several occasions to the US Dept. of Justice reports (plural) that give the number of gun thefts annually. Most recent was just last week, when Marc Rush's memory failed. Is your memory really that bad? What a shame in such a young guy. I know you throwing that number out there, professor...but oddly enough, the SUPPORTING information we keep asking for keeps coming up AWOL....shall I refresh your memory again, or will you be able to remember *THIS* time? You could try paying attention for a change. The most recent (of several) was just last month.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #164 March 3, 2008 Quote Apparently, that is your view of blacks. I never mentioned any specific race. I could have been talking about any particular flavor of Latino, for that matter. Now THAT is an interesting attempt at a backpeddleWhich group is next???? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #165 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet. Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money? "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". PS I have provided links now on several occasions to the US Dept. of Justice reports (plural) that give the number of gun thefts annually. Most recent was just last week, when Marc Rush's memory failed. Is your memory really that bad? What a shame in such a young guy. I know you throwing that number out there, professor...but oddly enough, the SUPPORTING information we keep asking for keeps coming up AWOL....shall I refresh your memory again, or will you be able to remember *THIS* time? You could try paying attention for a change. The most recent (of several) was just last month. I've been to the sites and found the number you discuss - however, a breakdown of HOW they came to that number is unavailable, hence the requests for supporting information.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #166 March 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWe hear over and over from our friends on the right about how much taxpayers spend to provide welfare to people who REFUSE to work, and who spend it on drugs, etc. I've noticed that whenever they are asked for actual data to support their position, they go very quiet. Sort of like our requests for any data past the bald number for your "300k /year stolen guns" claim. As I said before, I've seen with my own eyes people that REFUSE to go work - after all, why should they, when Uncle Sugar keeps handing over that free money? "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote". PS I have provided links now on several occasions to the US Dept. of Justice reports (plural) that give the number of gun thefts annually. Most recent was just last week, when Marc Rush's memory failed. Is your memory really that bad? What a shame in such a young guy. I know you throwing that number out there, professor...but oddly enough, the SUPPORTING information we keep asking for keeps coming up AWOL....shall I refresh your memory again, or will you be able to remember *THIS* time? You could try paying attention for a change. The most recent (of several) was just last month. I've been to the sites and found the number you discuss - however, a breakdown of HOW they came to that number is unavailable, hence the requests for supporting information. It says so right in the article. I guess you REALLY didn't bother to read them. Are you adopting the rushmc model of debate. Now, would you like to provide a DETAILED breakdown of how the data you posted on taxes paid by various income groups was obtained. PS I'm sorry the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, reported a methodology that you don't approve of.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #167 March 3, 2008 Kallend ol buddy, Okay your in the top 3% which I believe put you south of 100K. You have a job that short of going to a day care and dropping your pants YOU aren't going to lose. You have run a successful small business in the past. So I challange you fill in the blanks: (I'll even help you with the first bracket) If I was KING the following progressive tax rate would be in place 0-30,000 would pay zero % 30,000 to 60,000 would pay _____ % 60,000 - 99,000 would pay _____ % 100,000 - 200,000 would pay _____ % 200,000 - 500,000 would pay _____ % 500,000 - up would pay _____ % I would really like to understand just WHAT would be fair in yours or Bills or others of your mind set. I believe in a progressive tax rate. But the lumping of the top 3% but trying to act like we are all Warren B. is just nuts. It DOES make a difference to me as I try and expand my business. Kallend I know this isn't the way it will be but to be able to put a number on where you think it should be would be interesting and perhaps others (BILL VONN) will take a shot at it.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #168 March 3, 2008 Quote Kallend ol buddy, Okay your in the top 3% which I believe put you south of 100K. . I didn't say how far into the top 3% I am, so you can draw no conclusion about north or south.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #169 March 3, 2008 Quote I didn't say how far into the top 3% I am, so you can draw no conclusion about north or south. Ahhhhhhhh but the top 3% is over 100K, so answer the damn question!Just fill in the numbers of what KING KALLEND would say was fair. We can dismantle the military in another thread!Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #170 March 3, 2008 Quote Quote I didn't say how far into the top 3% I am, so you can draw no conclusion about north or south. Ahhhhhhhh but the top 3% is over 100K, so answer the damn question!Just fill in the numbers of what KING KALLEND would say was fair. We can dismantle the military in another thread! Whatever it was last time we had a current account surplus seemed to work OK. And close all those loopholes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #171 March 3, 2008 Quote Whatever it was last time we had a current account surplus seemed to work OK. And close all those loopholes. Speaking of 'loopholes,' the first wave of roth ira conversions spread out over 4 years was done during this last semi surplus. In 2010/2011 (and perhaps beyond), the income limit for conversions will be gone and there will be another surge of one time revenues. I have no idea how big a chunk of money this is, just that it's a one time collection unless the Feds try to reneg on the tax free promise for Roths. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #172 March 4, 2008 The one tax issue I'd like to here ANYBODY comment on is WHY are unemployment benefits taxed ? I've had a couple bouts of unemployment in my life, as I'm sure a lot of people here have. Unemployment benefits are rather decent, not as good as working wages (nor should they be, lest people sit on their elegant posteriors and enjoy themselves too much). But why, oh why, do the Feds tax them ? First of all, the states don't tax them, not even Kalifornia. Secondly, being unemployed and in need of basic necessities, the recipients not only need the money, but are likely to SPEND it, thus injecting their benefits back into the economy, even if it is just for cornflakes & beer (a scrumptious breakfast, by the way). Thirdly, and this is getting admittedly partisan, why should unemployment be taxed when everyone else, the top 5% and the corporations are receiving what amounts to tax WELFARE, if not a fiscal blowjob ? And how come NOBODY ever talks about this, not even the so-called "liberal" media ? I mean WTF ?? Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #173 March 4, 2008 QuoteThe one tax issue I'd like to here ANYBODY comment on is WHY are unemployment benefits taxed ? I've had a couple bouts of unemployment in my life, as I'm sure a lot of people here have. Unemployment benefits are rather decent, not as good as working wages (nor should they be, lest people sit on their elegant posteriors and enjoy themselves too much). But why, oh why, do the Feds tax them ? Basically any benefit you don't pay for in withholding gets taxed by the Feds. Cal disability - not taxed, since you pay a small fortune for it (0.8% this year). Third party disability provided by your company? Taxed. The tax on the unemployed that galls me the most is COBRA payments. When you have a job, you can pay say $100 pretax. When you lose your job, you now get to pay $300 (or much more) with post tax dollars. Unless the unemployment is so prolonged to drop you down to the 15% bracket, you end up paying 4-5times as much at a time when you 1) need to save your capital and 2) can't afford to have a coverage gap lest your ER bill be refused. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #174 March 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteI've been to the sites and found the number you discuss - however, a breakdown of HOW they came to that number is unavailable, hence the requests for supporting information. It says so right in the article. I guess you REALLY didn't bother to read them. Are you adopting the rushmc model of debate. Now, would you like to provide a DETAILED breakdown of how the data you posted on taxes paid by various income groups was obtained. PS I'm sorry the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, reported a methodology that you don't approve of. I've read that report before - it didn't have the information requested of you THEN, either. I did notice (after your incessant "300k/year" mantra) that NCVS only makes the 300k estimate from 87 to 92. What was that about methodology again, professor? Seems rather like the Brady Bunch howling about how many criminals the insta-check has prevented from buying guns, but then can't show ANY arrests? (Attempting to buy a gun while unqualified is still a felony, as I recall) I also notice that you STILL can't answer any questions about what percentage of criminal guns that 300k comprises, nor any information about how many of those stolen guns were subsequently returned to their rightful owners... all questions that have asked of you before, Professor. The graph I posted came from the Tax Foundation, most likely from the same report you posted yours from - it certainly looks familiar, and should, since I believe I posted a link to it a month or two ago.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #175 March 4, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI've been to the sites and found the number you discuss - however, a breakdown of HOW they came to that number is unavailable, hence the requests for supporting information. It says so right in the article. I guess you REALLY didn't bother to read them. Are you adopting the rushmc model of debate. Now, would you like to provide a DETAILED breakdown of how the data you posted on taxes paid by various income groups was obtained. PS I'm sorry the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, reported a methodology that you don't approve of. I've read that report before - it didn't have the information requested of you THEN, either. I did notice (after your incessant "300k/year" mantra) that NCVS only makes the 300k estimate from 87 to 92. If you think the number has gone down, post a more recent one. Quote I also notice that you STILL can't answer any questions about what percentage of criminal guns that 300k comprises, nor any information about how many of those stolen guns were subsequently returned to their rightful owners... all questions that have asked of you before, Professor. Oh very funny. How many criminals report thefts of their illegal guns? Enquiring minds want to know. You might also notice that the US DoJ report mentions that these numbers are for incidents of gun theft, and that in many cases more than one gun is stolen in an incident. So the real number of stolen guns is going to be even higher than 300,000/year. Now if you want to quibble, I suggest you quibble with the US DoJ and not with me. I'm sure they will be very impressed with your credentials in statistics.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
