MARCELL DAREUS POWER

detroit is 50% illiterate. almost the same amount with no jobs. when baghdad is literally safer, im pretty sure the economic plan is to blame. left or right... its not because they are black or arab..

umm, no. the extra 2$ out of 15$ goes to the needed taxes or the cult. you see he pays the cult instead of the full amount on taxes... the tax rate would go down because of the donation to the cult...

Well yeah, youre right. there is no new atheist movement. its just been labeled that way for the above reasons...

i think this whole new athiest movement does open secular people up to attack that we are dogmatic or that we are close minded. it doesnt make sense, but theists fall for it...

everyone flip flops. although i think romney is a bit too much... he only changed his mind on abortion 5 times.

saying it over and over like some imbecile doesnt make it true... it has to do with income that is taxable. a person makes 100$ from capital gains. usually 15$ will be taxed. instead, that person gives 2$ to the branch davidians and now he is only taxed at 13$... 100-15 = 85 98-13 = 85 the 2$ went to the branch davidians instead of a !@#$ing hospital or debt reduction. :wallbash: :wallbash: as tom would say, who is obssesed with me, youre a !@#$ing idiot...

Obama repeated right wing bigotry to get elected so he can actually stop bigotry in govt. the issue is not the politics to get elected. its what that person actually does while in office. politicians get this, play politics. im sure there are examples of romney repeating left wing talking points to get elected in mass while he passed right wing legislation... we all knew obama was for gay marriage and ending the dont ask dont tell policy. if you didnt know that, youre an idiot as tom would say... its not obama or romneys fault people are dumb...

1st point, its not his ****. its labors. we already proved that in the thread that lasted 1 month because you dont understand how profit is created through use value and market changes...... but nevermind that... assume it is capital gains and is his income. any income must be taxed. by reducing that tax through charity, thats money taken away from debt reduction and roads, etc... really? its capital gains, ( income)... this is like me taking my check, and instead of paying the normal tax, i reduce it by giving some of that tax money to the branch davidians...

so if your left, its crusading and seeking attention. more ad hom btw. but if its right wing, you are simply correct and logical... :wallbash: even if im stupid as !@#$, i hate when people on the left and right want to shut others down. ban them, put them in prison, limit speech, pc cutlure gone wild... go !@#$ yourself! and the more he is ignored the sooner he'll go away. Along with two Youtube videos, this is what he posted in the Shoutbox yesterday. Not a link, but the whole damn thing: doesnt everyone here want to argue politics? should we all just run away in our little corner and be scared? because you disagree you want to ban, instead of dealing with the ideas. the same thing happened. it was a salient example. in iceland over 7-8 years, the bankers privatized the banks and then levereged out 100 billion when the gdp was only 13 billion in 2000. they sold the cdos, left town and now iceland workers are left with the tab...

hows this, !@#$ Reagan!

no, you have a no reading comprehension. hypothetically, this is 2 million out of 50 million from capital gains, which is given to charity, ( mormon church) , before he files. so he goes from 15% to a lower rate... im talking about income, which i made clear... :wallbash:

its kind of similar to tax deductions for charity. so mitt gives 2 million to the mormon church. and then he writes that off. why am i supporting the mormon church? thats 2 million that can pay down the debt, help with food stamps, help with roads, or ironically give subsidies to some oil company... the tax rate should be set, and what you do with your money, gained or lost is for your discretion. we shouldnt lose tax dollars because you want to give to some art gallery or church or make a bad investment... do pawn shops get this privilege? really? when labor takes a pay cut? buy a house and sell it? buy a car and sell it? buy a hammer and sell it? - for you tom... because thay money is potentially earned or lost. the tax percentage shouldnt go down when capital losses take place. a restaurant worth 1 million or 5 million should be taxed at 35% or whatever % congress agrees on... it shouldnt change because the market changed... if you are for corporate welfare with tax subsidies, well, i dont know what to tell you. thats pretty sick to hate food stamps but love subsidies for big oil or big weapons companies...

you shouldn't pay taxes that year. If you have a $1,000,000,000 in the bank , then you shouldn't pay taxes that year. because they made a stupid market investment. we are not talking about money just sitting in a bank, rather capital gains, ie money invested. ie house bought for 500k, and then sold for 250k... the 250k should still be taxed. the money left over should still be taxed at the same rate. this is why i brought up propety taxes not changing even when the value of a home goes down dramatically... you are advocating deductions for bad behavior. to some degree, in a capitalist system, all the rich people pay zero taxes or a lower rate compared to others, because most of their income is from capital gains. even if they get gains, they still dont get the regular 35% like the tax code suggests... if you engage in a market, e.g., like the example you gave where you sell your house, and its worth less, why should the state tax code change to make up for your poor market investment? so you buy the house for 500k and it sells for 250k... why should i pay for your stupid mistake? in many cases this results in very wealthy people paying zero taxes. ( because its capital gains)... the example on the first page implied net worth had nothing to do with market action, when of course it did. ie net worth and income were not related when they are .... the money is not just sitting in the bank getting 2% interest. someone is taking their set amount, and when they lose it, they can write it off and lower their tax burden to zero or close to zero. this implies that money is static in a market and its somehow not your fault you lost money. why should a business taking losses get a tax break? if a restaurant loses a chain, should they have a lower tax rate, or no tax at all??? do we have the same option for blue collar workers? if their company tells them to take a pay cut, can they write that off? from previous gains? obviously if you are laid off, you are not taxed because you are not earning anything or engaged in a market.... you are not invested... the implication here is that money is just sitting there and it takes loses, which is not what we are talking about. we are talking about investment, not a savings account... this is somebody taking money and investing in company x, and when company x loses that money, they can now write that off... this is a reward for bad market behavior. of the first page the guy said $10 and $1,000,000,000 in one year with no penny earned. well if its sitting in a bank. sure. if its invested and lost, you dont get lower tax rates because you !@#$ed up. http://www.ourfuture.org/node/19978--- you asked about tax subsidies...

nt should you still pay taxes? or should you pay zero taxes? if you take the 500k loss, the tax rate shouldnt go from 15% to 0%. and remember, we are still not even talking about subsidies, ie corporate welfare. so if you gained 20$ and then lost 30$, you can deduct the losses(10) and still come out with no loss. ie right back where you started....

if you want a more salient example, if you invest in a bar and the bar takes losses because of the market, just like a house, you should not have your taxes reduced, to make up for losses. the % of 20% or whatever it is, should stay the same.

but you cant write off losses from the original value? correct? so if invest 100$ and lose 50$, i can deduct the 50.... in other words, a % based tax makes obvious sense. the taxes are the same regardless of income or loss. but thats not what happens. you can deduct taxes to actually make up for what you lost.

because the tax code changes through deductions or they get subsidies. for example. if i buy a house, and the property value goes down, to bad. you still need to pay property taxes at the same rate as everybody else. otherwise the state is protecting bad investment. the burden of the market gets diminished greatly...

you see corps have this thing called a pension fund or fund for paying for vacation time. when they buy bad debt to fund those ops, then they cant exist anymore...

WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why? why should the tax code change because you made a stupid decision? whether through a deduction or subsidy?

no, people do pay taxes. the question is why should the govt(ie taxpayer) make up for your bad market investments. again, i invest in a bar, and the bar fails/or takes losses. why should the govt make up the money i lost?

That's great. way to distract from the issue. we are not talking about the how of capital gains, rather when an investment takes losses, the state bails them out.... omg! THEY ARE NOT GETTING TAXED. WHEN THEY TAKE LOSSES, THEY GET FREE MONEY FROM THE STATE... why?

the idea that i can invest in a bar, the bar goes under and then the taxpayer can make up my losses is govt protection of bad investment. the point here isnt that they are not getting taxed. the point here is that they are getting taxpayer money when their invesment fails in a market. why should the state make up your losses?

im talking about economic protection. if you make a bad investment, and you lose money, bye bye. creative destruction of free markets. that goes for capital gains or co-ops that lose money from investment. if nobody goes to my bar, im done. the idea that i can invest in a bar, the bar goes under and then the taxpayer can make up my losses is govt protection of bad investment. the point here isnt that they are not getting taxed. the point here is that they are getting taxpayer money when their invesment fails in a market.

"People say you do it to avoid taxes," Joyce said. "Sure, but it's a legal way of doing it. You can't blame somebody for minimizing their legal tax obligation." - this is not a free market but rather state protection of corporations. small or big, the state should not be helping corporations. this is why people are so mad. big business and big banks are not allowed to fail by the state, but when people lose their job and house, nobody helps them. they actually lost money from investments and were given taxpayer money to help them

so if youre rich, you shouldnt pay taxes?