Socrtease
Verified User
Actually I mispoke, SF is not a republican. I have known that for a while. He is however, by his own admission, a moron.
Mccain is wrong, he owns 10 houses!!!
- Thread starter Robdawg
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Socrtease
Verified User
When we were talkling about a flat tax group you said you were going to call it the Flat Tax group for Morons and Lawyers. I, am the lawyer, so by process of elimination you admitted you were the moron. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.
Epicurus
Reasonable
I suppose if you supersimplify everything in reality down to two factions then your sort of logic works.
E.g PUBS DO THIS SO DEMS CAN DO THIS!
However in the real world, where most of us reside, things are not that simple.
Intelligent people criticized the pundits who tried to make Kerry's money an issue in '04.
Intelligent people critize the partisan hacks who spend hours scouring Al Gore's utility bills for hypocrisy.
And intelligent people are criticizing this ridiculous non-issue about McCain's wife's houses today. And you would see it too were you not so irrational regarding McCain.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... touche...
1) It's Karl Rove's world and we just live in it.
2) They're not McCain's wife's houses. Many are his as well by virtue of him at least being a member of the LLCs that own the houses as well as his likely status as a beneficiary of some of those trusts that own other houses.
d) I'm not all that irrational regarding McCain. In fact, the insinuation that I am irrational regarding John McCain, a former prisoner of war, is outrageous.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And how involved do you think John McCain is in the day to day operations of those LLCs? So his not knowing how many houses he owns isn't a surprise.
And what does any of this have to do with who we want as president? This is just so much nonsense being blown out of proportion. Just like the bullshit with Obama's comment about inflating our tires. Blown all out of proportion in a ridiculous attempt to make it an issue.
1) Maybe it isn't a surprise, maybe it is. I find it interesting that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, has chosen to attack his opponent as an elitist even though John McCain, a former prisoner of war, owns too many house through too many business entities to keep track of them all. It's an issue because John McCain, a former prisoner of war, made it an issue.
2) The issue isn't that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, is rich and owns a lot of houses. The issue is that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, is rich, owns a lot of houses and is proposing an economic agenda benefits people like him, that are rich and own a lot of houses. His tax cuts, unlike Obama's, a highly skewed towards people like himself. Hell, the tax cut he gets under his plan is five times the annual income of the median American.
Having said all of that, can we talk about something else?
C
Cancel3
Guest
Can we talk about something else? You mean to avoid the conversation bringing up the history of tax cuts? That when tax cuts (on state or federal level) have been aimed at the top they did the economy more good than when aimed at the bottom or middle?
Or that when capital gains taxes are increased the revenue to the government decreases, and when the capital gains taxes are decreased the revenue to the federal government increases?
Ok, sure lets talk about something else.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
Economic activity as a measure of health is a stupid measure. People spending themselves into massive debt is not a good economy. This is why gdp is a spurious measure at best.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
McCain doesn't own a single one of the houses on the list, and without a look at the trust documents, which are not public record, there's no way to tell if he has a beneficial interest.
C
Cancel3
Guest
And how would you measure the health of an economy? By checking with our reptile-hybrid overlords?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
# of people out of debt and showing increases in salary over expenditures.
You need to defend gdp. Why is people spending more better if they're going into massive debt to do it? I know it's their choice, but is it really a better economy?
C
Cancel3
Guest
So if the economy is booming and people are stupid enough to continue their spiral into debt, this means the economy is doing badly?
I cannot see how personal spending habits of the masses would be a reliable indicator of economic health.
Epicurus
Reasonable
They got one under Bush, too.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
2006
Top 1%
$388,806
39.89
Top 5%
$153,542
60.14
Top 10%
$108,904
70.79
Top 25%
$64,702
86.27
Top 50%
$31,987
97.01
Bottom 50%
<$31,987
2.99
2000
For Tax Year 2000
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%
$313,469
37.42
Top 5%
$128,336
56.47
Top 10%
$92,144
67.33
Top 25%
$55,225
84.01
Top 50%
$27,682
96.09
Bottom 50%
<$27,682
3.91
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Hmm... so apparently the percentage of income tax paid by the bottom 50% went down under Bush. The percentage of income tax paid by the top 1, 5, 10, 25, 50% went up under Bush.
That has a whole hell of a lot more to do with where income gains were made during that time period than with tax rates.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed030108a.cfm
I agree that what you say also plays a part, but to act as though the cuts didn't benefit every group is silly. To act like the top earners somehow reaped all the benefits of the tax cuts is silly. Of course when a group pays the bulk of the taxes for the country they are going to get the bulk of the pure dollars... otherwise you would be see the bottom 50% paying no income taxes at all. But I know... that is "fair" to you isn't it?
Last edited: