kelpdiver 2 #76 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuote The assessment of the Texas school system would need to come from its graduation rate. And if Chicago, which is already 20% of IL, is doing a poor 56% as claimed, seems like fair counter evidence. Someone else trying to compare a city with an entire state. Compare apples with apples, and since you are blaming immigration, Chicago has more immigrants than Dallas/Fort Worth or Houston. support this. In particular, let's examine the type of immigrants. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #77 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteI've highlighted the error in your assertion. What is my error? I'm just copying the IRS website.. Do they have something wrong on their website?? You seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #78 August 24, 2011 >People who make more are taxed at a higher percentage. Warren Buffett paid 17.7% in taxes in 2008. Did you pay a higher percentage than that? Yes? Does that mean you paid more than him in 2008? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #79 August 24, 2011 QuoteYou seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. so let's look at the list: mortgage deduction (encouraging home ownership) deduct interest on other purchases (encouraging economic activity) education (need I spell it out?) Prius (enviro freak legislation) business writeoffs (enabling small business) etc so all forms of government manipulation of the market in terms of subsidies, writeoffs, social engineering every single one of these are stuff the left or the right will advocate - pick a side the only diff, then, in this thread, is this stuff is apparently ok if you make less than $150K, but it's bad if you make over? so here's the rub - ELIMINATE all of these for EVERYBODY, and then the net result is a more fair balance sheet for everybody - why? deductions and subsidies will always help those that have more to protect. So a little pain for the poor, but a LOT of pain for the rich, and we also simplify the tax code greatly for everyone gov dabbles in just way too much - get them out of it ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 August 24, 2011 QuoteWell now, if a license plate is the qualification to consider an area to be a State, Changing the scenario again? I said it was analogous to a state. Driver's licenses/license plates aren't issued against a city, but against a state or similar analogue. Quotelet's add Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam Let's see how they're treated by Congress, shall we? We'll use that favorite of the Libs, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Quote(d) STATE.—In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Quote State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia (this one is repeated several times, but I'm only quoting it once) Quoteto all 50 States, territories, and District of Columbia. QuoteWhether the hospital is located in a State, a territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia Quote‘‘(E) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Looks like that 'dog' of yours won't hunt.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #81 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteI've highlighted the error in your assertion. What is my error? I'm just copying the IRS website.. Do they have something wrong on their website?? You seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. Blues, Dave And those in the lower brackets have deductions and credits that THEY can take which lower THEIR taxable income.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #82 August 24, 2011 Quote so all forms of government manipulation of the market in terms of subsidies, writeoffs, social engineering Agreed, and this is the part I don't like. Quoteso here's the rub - ELIMINATE all of these for EVERYBODY, and then the net result is a more fair balance sheet for everybody - why? deductions and subsidies will always help those that have more to protect. So a little pain for the poor, but a LOT of pain for the rich, and we also simplify the tax code greatly for everyone gov dabbles in just way too much - get them out of it And again, agreed. It would hurt, and should probably be phased in, but I support the general idea. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #83 August 24, 2011 QuoteQuoteWell now, if a license plate is the qualification to consider an area to be a State, Changing the scenario again? I said it was analogous to a state. Driver's licenses/license plates aren't issued against a city, but against a state or similar analogue. Quotelet's add Puerto Rico, American Virgin Islands, The Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam Let's see how they're treated by Congress, shall we? We'll use that favorite of the Libs, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Quote(d) STATE.—In this title, the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Quote State that is one of the 50 States or the District of Columbia (this one is repeated several times, but I'm only quoting it once) Quoteto all 50 States, territories, and District of Columbia. QuoteWhether the hospital is located in a State, a territory of the United States, or the District of Columbia Quote‘‘(E) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa. Looks like that 'dog' of yours won't hunt. What you posted is merely clarification in regards to an Act. They are only lumping everything together under one heading to makes it easier. That alone does not make D.C., which is a city, comparable to a State. In regards to statistics, D.C. is lumped in with States also as it's schools and other entities are separate from the surrounding States. That alone, still, does not make D.C. comparable to a State. It is not even close in comparison. Your analogy is without merit. From the link I posted: Experts disagree on whether the district should achieve statehood. U.S. Senate historian Donald Ritchie said, “You’d think a democracy would be embarrassed to have a half-million of its citizens disenfranchised.” Ritchie’s argument is that, by setting aside a capital district, the authors of the Constitution clearly expected the area to have a population. Historian Jeff Brauer disagrees: “From the Framers’ viewpoint, the idea was the capital city would be a federal district … (not) part of any state, and a district that would not be a state itself.” The Framers, he says, feared that if the capital city was within a state, or if its citizens had full representation as a state, it and they would have too much access to federal power. “They saw it as more of a place of transition, not of permanence … especially since the ideal was a citizen government with a high turnover rate,” Brauer says. The federal government also was expected to play a relatively small role back then. Therefore, a huge bureaucracy with lots of public workers living in the district was not anticipated. So the district’s original purpose was to be the federal government’s seat – and not much more. As for Strauss, he said his job is not without its advantages: “I do get to walk in parades.”"...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #84 August 24, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote I've highlighted the error in your assertion. What is my error? I'm just copying the IRS website.. Do they have something wrong on their website?? You seem to be asserting that those who make 180,000/year pay taxes at the 180,000/year rate. The reality is their taxable income is 180,000 minus interest on their mortgage, the interest on their timeshare or yacht, their kid's college tuition (and a credit for buying said kid a Prius), capital gains, losses from their Mary Kay business (including the purchase of wifey's new car with the Mary Kay sticker on it), etc... Income /= taxable income, which is kind of the point the subject of this thread is trying to make. Blues, Dave And those in the lower brackets have deductions and credits that THEY can take which lower THEIR taxable income. Agreed, to an extent. I'm quite opposed to the oxymoronic "earned income credit"...in no way should we be "refunding" taxes one didn't pay, much less on income one didn't earn. However, in part due to the hard income restriction but mostly due to the bias of tax breaks, the people who file a 1040-EZ without itemized deductions are almost entirely in dirt-poor to marginally survivable income brackets. Most of our tax breaks go to those with the most to gain by them, and this is mostly due to those people paying to elect politicians who will do them that favor. Take away tax breaks for anyone and it would go a long way toward cleaning up Congress (of course few, if any, politicians would support such a change, for exactly this reason...it would hinder their ability to buy/sell votes). Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
