DC Tom Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I think I read the phrase Sputnik Moment in both NYT & WSJ this week. I think it had something to do with math. I couldn't add up the numbers. I just had to look it up... “Fifty years later, our nation’s Sputnik moment is back,“ Mr. Obama said. Wow. Hey, Mr. President...if you have to explicitly point out to people a "Sputnik Moment", it isn't one. Yeah, the people that pay the most to buy the government? Those people? The people that get most of the government's money? The people who benefit the most from the government's bought up laws? Them? The poor, poor, wealthy people! They NEED a tax cut, haven't you heard about the investment opportunities for that added capital in China?? Why waste it on Americans? Hey. Moron. If you CUT taxes, then the people who pay MORE taxes will benefit more from the cut. If you pay $10k in taxes this year and taxes are cut by 10%, you only pay $9k next year. If you pay $5k, you pay $4500 next year. If you pay zero, you pay zero next year. The person who pays NO taxes derives no benefit from a tax cut, because you can't cut something that doesn't exist. That's not a judgement. That's just mathematical fact. Tax cuts benefit tax payers. Tax cuts provide more benefit to those that pay more taxes. The rich pay more taxes. Therefore, tax cuts benefit the rich more. The amazing thing is that pinheads like yourself and pBills can't grasp the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I just had to look it up... “Fifty years later, our nation’s Sputnik moment is back,“ Mr. Obama said. Wow. Hey, Mr. President...if you have to explicitly point out to people a "Sputnik Moment", it isn't one. Hey. Moron. If you CUT taxes, then the people who pay MORE taxes will benefit more from the cut. If you pay $10k in taxes this year and taxes are cut by 10%, you only pay $9k next year. If you pay $5k, you pay $4500 next year. If you pay zero, you pay zero next year. The person who pays NO taxes derives no benefit from a tax cut, because you can't cut something that doesn't exist. That's not a judgement. That's just mathematical fact. Tax cuts benefit tax payers. Tax cuts provide more benefit to those that pay more taxes. The rich pay more taxes. Therefore, tax cuts benefit the rich more. The amazing thing is that pinheads like yourself and pBills can't grasp the math. Umm of course they will benefit more from a cut based on their income. Can you tell me why they would receive the extra help with the estate tax? I would like for them to go back to the levels under Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Umm of course they will benefit more from a cut based on their income. Can you tell me why they would receive the extra help with the estate tax? I would like for them to go back to the levels under Clinton. Why should there be an estate tax at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Why should there be an estate tax at all? That wasn't my question.. why give these roughly 3,000 people more? I like how under Clinton people chastised him for wanting to raise taxes, yet there were 22 million new jobs created under his term as President. People talk about removing unemployment benefits to give those without jobs incentives to hire. Why not do the same to those would be hiring and maybe aren't now. Let's give them some incentive. Simply lowering their rates does not do that. I have also said it a thousand times. Give those companies who hire are against outsourcing, etc extra tax breaks. Those companies who do outsource either leave their rates the same or raise them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 That wasn't my question.. why give these roughly 3,000 people more? Give? Give them their own money? Why take it in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 From Forbes: Second, the estate tax proposed as part of the deal is far better than what is scheduled to occur at the end of the year–and what the president originally wanted. Without congressional approval of the compromise, the estate tax, now expired, returns in 2011 at a 55% rate and a $1 million exemption from the tax. Obama wanted a return to the 2009 estate tax level–a 45% rate and a $3.5 million exemption. For the ultra-rich, the exemption amount is relatively trivial, but a reduction in the in the rate from the scheduled 55% to the proposed 35% level is a big win for the wealthy. Third, as I’ve written before, getting rid of the Making Work Pay tax credit and replacing it with a reduction in Social Security payroll taxes provides a benefit to the wealthy where they didn’t enjoy one before. The Making Work Pay credit doesn’t give anything to an individual taxpayer with an adjusted gross income of more than $95,000 per year or a to a couple earning $190,000 or more annually. But the the payroll tax cut would give the maximum $2,136 tax break to workers who earn $106,800 or more. (The Social Security tax applies to all earned income up to this amount.) On a related note, the working poor would suffer under the Making Work Pay/payroll tax swap, as Roberton Williams at the Tax Policy Center (and a Forbes.com contributor) has noted: If Congress and the president accept the compromise in its current form, a single worker earning $10,000 will see her taxes jump by $200 from this year to next—her $200 payroll tax cut replaces her $400 MWP. And a couple earning $25,000 would lose $300 as its $800 MWP morphs into $500 in payroll tax savings. Nothing else in the compromise tax agreement compensates for those losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) That wasn't my question.. why give these roughly 3,000 people more? I like how under Clinton people chastised him for wanting to raise taxes, yet there were 22 million new jobs created under his term as President. People talk about removing unemployment benefits to give those without jobs incentives to hire. Why not do the same to those would be hiring and maybe aren't now. Let's give them some incentive. Simply lowering their rates does not do that. I have also said it a thousand times. Give those companies who hire are against outsourcing, etc extra tax breaks. Those companies who do outsource either leave their rates the same or raise them. It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give!!!! Get this out of your !@#$ing head. IT'S NOT GIVE. NO ONE IS GIVING THEM ****!!!! Factually speaking, we are arguing how much the GOVERNMENT TAKES!!! NOT GIVES!!! Get that out of your thick skull!!!! I've been patient with you PBills, but that is about to change. Edited December 10, 2010 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give,It's not Give!!!! Get this out of your !@#$ing head. IT'S NOT GIVE. NO ONE IS GIVING THEM ****!!!! Factually speaking, we are arguing how much the GOVERNMENT TAKES!!! NOT GIVES!!! GET THAT OUT OF YOUR THICK SKULL!!!! I've been patient with you PBills, but that is about to change. Oh good, I am SOOOOO happy you have been patient with we. Big f'ing deal if that is about to change? What are you going to do? Oh that's right, nothing. Ok, how about this... why do they deserve to have the government take LESS from them? By GIVING them extra tax breaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Oh good, I am SOOOOO happy you have been patient with we. Big f'ing deal if that is about to change? What are you going to do? Oh that's right, nothing. Ok, how about this... why do they deserve to have the government take LESS from them? By GIVING them extra tax breaks? You are seriously asking why a person "deserves" to have less of their money TAKEN from them? Why does a person deserve to have any of their money taken from them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Oh good, I am SOOOOO happy you have been patient with we. Big f'ing deal if that is about to change? What are you going to do? Oh that's right, nothing. Ok, how about this... why do they deserve to have the government take LESS from them? By GIVING them extra tax breaks? Because it's theirs ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 You are seriously asking why a person "deserves" to have less of their money TAKEN from them? Why does a person deserve to have any of their money taken from them? Fine. Let's remove the taxation of everyone. Because it's theirs ... That does not mean they should receive extra breaks over other people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Ummm, I'm going to need a street and house number. You can PM me with it. It's an Italian thing. Oh and BTW, you said you love her. Will you miss her terribly when she's gone? She lives near the strip mall off the traffic circle. Near the diner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 (edited) That does not mean they should receive extra breaks over other people. Other people don't pay that tax at all. Only 1 segment of the population pays that tax. How are they getting a break over people that don't pay it at all if that tax is reduced? The people receiving the tax break are the ones not paying it at all. Fine. Let's remove the taxation of everyone. You used the word "deserve". Please explain why someone deserves to have any of their money taken from them. Edited December 10, 2010 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Oh good, I am SOOOOO happy you have been patient with we. Big f'ing deal if that is about to change? What are you going to do? Oh that's right, nothing. Ok, how about this... why do they deserve to have the government take LESS from them? By GIVING them extra tax breaks? Maybe because I thought that you were actually open to listening to logic and reason. And to answer your last question, it is this mentality that keeps people down. They look at others who have achieved, and believe that they are entitled to pay even more to the government so that they can subsidize your way of living. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Fine. Let's remove the taxation of everyone. That does not mean they should receive extra breaks over other people. They're not receiving anything extra. How exactly are they? I live in a province that is a tax cow. Trust me, once you see a good chunk of your money going to taxes and how inefficient, you'd understand my point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Maybe because I thought that you were actually open to listening to logic and reason. And to answer your last question, it is this mentality that keeps people down. They look at others who have achieved, and believe that they are entitled to pay even more to the government so that they can subsidize your way of living. Pathetic. I am open to logic and reason, however there is more than one option. Sad thing is that this whole situation is coming down to the wire. As we know tax rates are on a scale based on earned income. If they are adjusting this right now... having this fight... they should be adjusting it in a fair way across the board. I find it funny that most millionaires say they would actually pay more in taxes. Yet there is this huge fight over lowering their rates by as much as 10%, lowering estate taxes, etc. Go back to a model that worked... the model that was under the Clinton administration and 22 million jobs were created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 They're not receiving anything extra. How exactly are they? I live in a province that is a tax cow. Trust me, once you see a good chunk of your money going to taxes and how inefficient, you'd understand my point of view. I used to live in Niagara County, NY. One of the highest taxed areas in the state. I understand your feelings on this. Even Forbes magazine states that they are getting a great deal. This is makes me mad... Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I used to live in Niagara County, NY. One of the highest taxed areas in the state. I understand your feelings on this. Even Forbes magazine states that they are getting a great deal. This is makes me mad... Exxon tries to limit the tax pain with the help of 20 wholly owned subsidiaries domiciled in the Bahamas, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands that (legally) shelter the cash flow from operations in the likes of Angola, Azerbaijan and Abu Dhabi. No wonder that of $15 billion in income taxes last year, Exxon paid none of it to Uncle Sam, and has tens of billions in earnings permanently reinvested overseas. These are not private. Invest in Exxon and you'll receive the rewards of smart business moves. Also, high taxes forces companies to go overseas to remain competitive or else their investors will let their voices be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 You are seriously asking why a person "deserves" to have less of their money TAKEN from them? Why does a person deserve to have any of their money taken from them? excellent observation I'm all for it, no public money on defense, law enforcement, court system, trade negotiation, roads, trains, public education, R and D, water, sewage, waste management, no business subsidies, no public fire fighting, no contract law, no licensing requirements for any profession, no product safety, no food safety,no legally recognized marriage, no housing code, no property rights enforced by anything other than your ability to defend them- sounds like utopia to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 Umm of course they will benefit more from a cut based on their income. Can you tell me why they would receive the extra help with the estate tax? What "they" receives "help with the estate tax"? The dead? I would like for them to go back to the levels under Clinton. So would I, if accompanied by spending cuts (otherwise, I'd rather keep my money). Doesn't make you less of a moron, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts