Taft2016
Verified User
And here's the second twin whose mother was swigging Prestone during breastfeeding.
IRS Data Shows: "The Rich" Pay Higher Rates
- Thread starter Damocles
- Start date
And here's the second twin whose mother was swigging Prestone during breastfeeding.
Taft2016
Verified User
Or Solyndra.... which would be the taxpayers...
With the exception of the Kaiser family, fat Obama donors.
Another incredibly stupid post that only dullards can thank.
How do the tax laws favor the rich dimwit? By the way, I am amused with your cut and paste thought process from the "think progress" leftist web site. I find them using the word "think" rather ironic,
Do you know the difference between profit, and taxable income? Do you know that when companies have a net loss, that loss can carryover to preceding or following years. These are not tax loopholes, they are tax methods that are generally accepted and used by many companies and corporations.
But here's the real issue dimwit; even if you taxed corporations at 100%, it wouldn't make a dent in the Democrats four year spending spree they went on before losing the House.
We don't have a revenue problem dimwit, our Government has a spending problem. Trying to further destroy the capacity for creating jobs won't change that fact or make things better for the millions who have given up even trying to find work in this crappy economy which is the result of Obamunism thanks to idiots like you who abetted and aided his election and re-election.
But alas, you're a dimwit leftist stuck on stupid Marxist class envy rhetoric, how could you be expected to comprehend reality, the truth or basic facts.
Dumbass
Another incredibly stupid claim from the dullard class. Reaganomics didn't destroy the economy. This economy isn't "destroyed by any stretch; it is stuck on malaise thanks to idiot Democrats who have spent us into trillion dollar deficits and $17 trillion in debt you moron.
Your notion of what would help the economy is so incredibly stupid and ignorant it doesn't even deserve a respons but rather correctly laughed at and lampooned for the ignorance it represents. Your version of reality would force everyone to be a ward of the State and make everyone as miserable as dimwitted Marxistmleftist like you appear to be.
Hell dimwit, you give stupid a bad name.
Moron.
Earth to brain dead moron; Jamie Dimon is a Democrat and huge Obama supporter whose company was asked by this administration to buy the assets of Bear Sterns and Washington Mutual in an effort to prevent a financial collapse.
Hopefully he has learned that one cannot trust asshats like Obama and Democrats and that morons like you will clamor for his head regardless.
Yes, you REALLY are THAT incredibly stupid and ignorant.
Last edited:
Another incredibly stupid post from the dullard class; If not for the investor class, businesses could not hope to accumulate the capital necessary to create a company you moron.
Good lord, did the short bus make a drop off at JPP?
Last edited:
Who do you think owns PUBLIC companies; why yes, the SHAREHOLDERS you dimwit.
You really are THAT stupid.
Moron.
Leftists cannot do math; they can only parrot the ignorant talking points of their masters in the DNC.
By the way, any regular income those hedge fund managers earn is taxed at the maximum rate. But alas, you are a simple minded dimwit prone to parrot talking points you have no clue as to their meaning.
Yes, you really are THAT stupid.
Wrong again dimwit; you're removing all doubt what an incredibly stupid asshat you are.
Yes, you really are THAT stupid.
Did you vote for Obama? Of course you did; you're a dimwit.
No you're not an anarchist; you're an incredibly ignorant dimwit. Most likely you are also a loser do-nothing sitting on your ass all day expecting others to pay for your ass time.
What tax codes were changed to only favor corporations and the rich; another incredibly stupid claim with nothing honest to back it up.
But I would like to deal with the moronic Bloomberg article and dissect why it is so incredibly wrong and stupid and could only be swallowed by dimwitted dullards like you:
FIRST:
Let’s start with “lower.” Taxes cannot be lower for everyone and still raise the same amount of money. For each dollar your taxes are lower, someone else’s must be a dollar higher. Yes, we know the argument that cutting taxes may cause people to work harder and thus substantially increase government revenue. This theory has dominated conservative economic thinking for three decades with scant evidence to support it. If you want to give everyone a tax cut—under the current system, under a flat tax, or under any other arrangement—[/b]all you have to do is lower the tax rate.[/b] This has nothing to do with flatness.
The first bolded part is flat out wrong; no one says it causes people to work harder. It creates more wealth which allows businesses to expand thus creating MORE workers paying TAXES. Thus tax revenue increases because there are MORE taxpayers.
The second bolded part is ironic in that the authors dimwitted argument first claims that tax reductions do nothing but make the rich richer then argues that by merely lowering the tax rates it would do the same thing as a Flat Tax.
But this is a moronic argument. What a simple flat tax or Fair Consumption tax would do is remove the massive paper work requirements of the current abomination of a tax code; a code no one, even experts, can comprehend in its entirety. Currently individuals and companies spend an estimated $400 BILLION annually in tax code compliance. Imagine if all that capital could be put back into the economy instead of on tax compliance and paperwork?
SECOND:
Would a flat tax be “fairer” than the current system? Perry plans to call for a rate of 20 percent, which is lower than today’s top rate of 35 percent and higher than the lowest rate (which is zero). If your income currently puts you in a bracket higher than 20 percent, a 20 percent flat tax constitutes a tax cut. If you’re in a bracket lower than 20 percent, a flat tax will constitute an increase, unless it comes with lots of deductions, in which case it’s no longer flat. If lowering taxes on high incomes and raising taxes on low incomes would be an improvement, then a flat tax is fairer than the current code. Otherwise, it isn’t.
It is apparent that the author of this article is also ignorant regarding "effective" tax rates and "nominal" tax rates. His claim that everyone's tax rates would automatically go down ignore the fact that after deductions and favoritism contained in the current code, the effective rate paid by the rich with a 35% nominal rate can actually lower than a 20% flat rate with no deductions.
In addition, by simplifying the tax code, compliance costs are lower and make tax evasion less desirable and profitable.
LAST:
Even if the flat tax were the only option, this wouldn’t make the tax code much simpler. Multiple brackets add one line and one simple calculation to the chore of computing your taxes. What causes the tremendous complexity of the tax code is defining taxable income. Some complexity is unavoidable in a complex economy. Some of it represents the hard work of lobbyists for special interests. None of it has anything to do with tax rates or how many brackets there are.
The willful ignorance in this last claim is self-evident. To suggest that the current code containing 71,864 pages is not much simpler than a flat tax requires the willing suspension of common sense and intelligence. REALLY?
No wonder you are such an incredibly dimwitted dullard; you get your information from idiots like this.
And here's what I just don't get, Christie....guys like Taft have NO problem with "corporate welfare" or rich folk receiving Soc Sec THAT THEY DON'T NEED, or everyone else footing the bill for corporations to set up off shore business (with subsequent outsourcing to boot). But Taft will squeal like a pig at the very thought that some poor schmuck living in public housing will get to watch cable. Seems to me if things are so great on public assistance as Taft makes out, then he should sell his stock and get on it!
Another incredibly stupid comment from someone who really is THAT stupid; tell me dimwit; do you have to work at being this stupid, or does it come naturally for you?
Moron.
Who do you think the victims were? Poor people who didn't know better not to invest in risky investments?
Yes, you really are THAT stupid.
Freddy Figbottom
Was it me?
They created investment products out of mortgages they KNEW were bad. And coerced the ratings agencies to put a aaa rating on them. It's fraud. You're a cretin.
No one was coerced into doing anything you dimwit; they were all willing participants in a money operation and pyramid scheme. The greedy idiots who bought up the junk were just as stupid and gullible as you are and don't deserve anyone's pity.
But I am not surprised that you confuse your "investor class" talking points with "financial bundlers."
Yes, you really are THAT stupid.
christiefan915
Catalyst
That's all you can bring, a cheesy insult? Quelle disappointment.
Here's a project for your spare time, Offisa Pupp.
1. Make a list of all the designer and high-end names you see needy people wearing or owning.
2. Put each name separately into google along with the word "replica", i.e. "Air Jordan replica."
3. Prove with complete accuracy that all the "greedy" needy you see are wearing actual high-end goods rather than cheap fakes.
4. Shut down all the replica vendors so the "greedy" needy don't have access to anything that might brighten their lives a speck.
