Jump to content


Senate votes to let bush tax cuts for rich expire


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 10:24 PM

http://thinkprogress...tax-plan-fails/

#2 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,822 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:14 PM

That's just fine..Now I have a reason to lay off probably 2 people, maybe only 1, need to do the math. I still need to purchase the new equipment so it's them or this.
Equipment is a need to have, people not so much.
Isn't that just swell.
We do still have our vet's on the team so that's good news

#3 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,697 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:18 PM

That should pay for a couple of hours of runaway spending!

#4 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,990 posts

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:48 PM

Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.

#5 HardOnWind

HardOnWind

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,513 posts
  • Location:Tacoma, WA

Posted 25 July 2012 - 11:53 PM

That's just fine..Now I have a reason to lay off probably 2 people, maybe only 1, need to do the math. I still need to purchase the new equipment so it's them or this.
Equipment is a need to have, people not so much.
Isn't that just swell.
We do still have our vet's on the team so that's good news


Tax is payed on profits. Profit is what you get after you deduct payments for that excellent equipment you want to buy. So buy the equipment and pay less tax. :)

#6 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:07 AM

Rich or poor, death tax goes up to 55%. That's after being taxed to death... Oh sorry I must hate the poor because I'm one of them.Posted Image

#7 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,990 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:21 AM

Self-loathing.

#8 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:25 AM

Rich or poor, death tax goes up to 55%. That's after being taxed to death... Oh sorry I must hate the poor because I'm one of them.Posted Image


If this is true, expect to see more money fleeing this f'ng country, and a whole lotta creative 'accounting'. Uncle Sam deserves 55% of some dead persons estate like I deserve a 70' Palmer Johnson. What a complete fuking dick move, half black guy. A total dick move.....

#9 craigiri

craigiri

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,340 posts
  • Location:Home of US Sailing
  • Interests:Sailing, Innovation, Web Development, Writing, etc.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 12:35 AM

That's just fine..Now I have a reason to lay off probably 2 people, maybe only 1, need to do the math. I still need to purchase the new equipment so it's them or this.
Equipment is a need to have, people not so much.
Isn't that just swell.
We do still have our vet's on the team so that's good news


Something tells me the guy was going anyway......and the equipment is needed....

Since there will likely be no tax increase at all for folks making up to about 300K (after deductions, 250K), you must be a very rich dude. Congrats.

#10 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:56 AM

Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

#11 squirel

squirel

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,692 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:20 AM

Why don't we all have a good laugh at Democratic Senators and have another ginger ale? Add a splash of Tennessee bourbon if you wish to celebrate stupidity.

#12 mustang__1

mustang__1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,939 posts
  • Location:Philly, by way of Sarasota and Newport...

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:15 AM

nothing like raising taxes during a recession to jump start the economy.

#13 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:31 AM


Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.

#14 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:35 AM

nothing like raising taxes during a recession to jump start the economy.


It's just theater. Everybody knows it won't pass the House.

#15 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:38 AM

It's just theater. Everybody knows it won't pass the House.


So no different to then what Republicans pass in the House then.

#16 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:22 AM

It's not theater; it's brinkmanship.

Obama made it clear that in this election year with his Presidency on the line he won't sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Then Reid badly out maneuvered McConnell and passed the extension for the middle class.

And now the pressure is on Boehner and the trouble is that everyone knows that. The House can pass the Bush tax cuts 33 times just as it has repealed ObamaCare 33 times. That's theater.

But still the clock keeps ticking on all of the Bush tax cuts which expire this year and the pressure just keeps building on Boehner and the Tea Party.

Tick Tick Tick. And everyone is watching. Brinkmanship.

#17 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:36 PM

It's not theater; it's brinkmanship.

Obama made it clear that in this election year with his Presidency on the line he won't sign an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

That's funny, he did last time and the Bush tax cuts became the Obama/Pelosi/Reid tax cuts.

#18 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 01:47 PM



Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.


While those two arguments may have some validity, that wasn't the question. How is this going to positively impact poor people (or even the middle class)?

It might provide a temporary high for those people who simply want to poke-a-rich-guy-in-the-eye-with-a-stick. It also plays into class warfare for political purposes. I'm just trying to find out how raising taxes on the rich will have any real impact on the poor.

Anyone? Bueller?

#19 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:52 PM

That's just fine..Now I have a reason to lay off probably 2 people, maybe only 1, need to do the math. I still need to purchase the new equipment so it's them or this.
Equipment is a need to have, people not so much.
Isn't that just swell.
We do still have our vet's on the team so that's good news



This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Let's say you make $1m in Profit and the money passes to you through a k1. A raise in the top marginal reate of 200 basis point means a total tax increase of 20k (actually a bit less).

You are a moron.

#20 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 02:54 PM




Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.


While those two arguments may have some validity, that wasn't the question. How is this going to positively impact poor people (or even the middle class)?

It might provide a temporary high for those people who simply want to poke-a-rich-guy-in-the-eye-with-a-stick. It also plays into class warfare for political purposes. I'm just trying to find out how raising taxes on the rich will have any real impact on the poor.

Anyone? Bueller?


We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..

#21 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:06 PM





Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.


While those two arguments may have some validity, that wasn't the question. How is this going to positively impact poor people (or even the middle class)?

It might provide a temporary high for those people who simply want to poke-a-rich-guy-in-the-eye-with-a-stick. It also plays into class warfare for political purposes. I'm just trying to find out how raising taxes on the rich will have any real impact on the poor.

Anyone? Bueller?


We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..


One more time. How is raising taxes on people who make over $250k going to positively impact the poor, or even the middle class?

#22 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:41 PM

RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.

#23 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:43 PM





Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.


While those two arguments may have some validity, that wasn't the question. How is this going to positively impact poor people (or even the middle class)?

It might provide a temporary high for those people who simply want to poke-a-rich-guy-in-the-eye-with-a-stick. It also plays into class warfare for political purposes. I'm just trying to find out how raising taxes on the rich will have any real impact on the poor.

Anyone? Bueller?


We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..

You mean the Newt Gingrich years, don't you? Contract with America, cut spending, welfare reform, you know, all the stuff Clinton fought but took credit for.

#24 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,968 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 03:50 PM

RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My only argument would be to show me how the #s work. I don't want to hear anyone say "look how much more this will take in!", I want to hear "revenues will increase by this amount per year, they will be applied directly to these national debts, and in X # of years given current demographics we will have satisfied the debt, at which time, the increased tax levies will be retired".

#25 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:04 PM

It's just theater. Everybody knows it won't pass the House.


So no different to then what Republicans pass in the House then.


They won't even look at it. Tax bills must originate in the House, so when the Senate originates their own it's not just theater, it's an eclectic form of theater. Pure fantasy, like opera or ballet, only about a circle jerk.

#26 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,672 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:04 PM



Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.


Why don't you explain to the rest of us how this legislation has any positive impact at all on the poor?

We get two arguments from y'all:

1) this will hurt the economy because poor rich people will be demotivated to do the hard creative work that they do.
2) this will be a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget.

Am I missing anything? Help a brother out.

Yeah...How about one arguement from you.

#27 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:10 PM

RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

#28 TornadoCAN99

TornadoCAN99

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,792 posts
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

Posted 26 July 2012 - 04:38 PM

Rich or poor, death tax goes up to 55%. That's after being taxed to death... Oh sorry I must hate the poor because I'm one of them.Posted Image



That's not correct AFAIK...looks like a $5 million exemption and there is portability between spouses. Also lots of deductions are possible. Don't know too many poor $5-million-aires in my world.

#29 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:09 PM


RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Myself, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The tapital gains tax goes up to 20% this year.

As for your argument one, few small business owners even qualify for that bracket. It's the top 2% which by definition a small number.


As for Romney, there are three areas to consider.

1) foreign policy. I think he'd delegate that to the neocons.
2) domestic economy. I don't think there's much difference.
3) domestic social. I think there's a big difference.

#30 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,968 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:33 PM



RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Myself, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The tapital gains tax goes up to 20% this year.

As for your argument one, few small business owners even qualify for that bracket. It's the top 2% which by definition a small number.


As for Romney, there are three areas to consider.

1) foreign policy. I think he'd delegate that to the neocons.
2) domestic economy. I don't think there's much difference.
3) domestic social. I think there's a big difference.


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

#31 sumpin

sumpin

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,822 posts
  • Location:San Miguel
  • Interests:scallop mining and rudder fairing
    stair falling book cover mending

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:33 PM

Why is it you people have such difficulty with the truth? Why can't you just come out and say you loathe the poor? It isn't about spending because you don't pay for any of it. It's all a shell and pea game, if you paid no taxes you'd make even less.

Schadenfreude. You get your jollies from the suffering of others, parasite.



how about this one. try to grasp the concept:

I was poor!

I am not, now!

Stay out of my paycheck.

#32 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:51 PM

If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.

#33 Bus Driver

Bus Driver

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,458 posts
  • Location:Just this side of insanity.

Posted 26 July 2012 - 06:56 PM


We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..

You mean the Newt Gingrich years, don't you? Contract with America, cut spending, welfare reform, you know, all the stuff Clinton fought but took credit for.


As long as we're busy reminiscing - let's all pause for a moment and remember the GOP of old. You know the one. They were big on fiscal responsibility.

Whatever happened to them and their "elk"?

#34 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,968 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:04 PM


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


Quoting a chart showing rates during different administrations and offering "CBO scoring" as an answer really doesn't explain your justification, nor does it answer how we close on the current budget crisis.

I'm not pickin' at ya - I am interested in fixing our mess. I don't think that our current crop of congress critters has the stomach for it, and I daresay that much of our populace would generally like to kick the can down the road 'til THEY kick the can.

We've got a lot of smart people in this country, we ought to be able to come up w/a solution. I don't have a nice, pat answer - I don't think that there IS one.

I do feel that the sound bites coming from each side do nothing except to increase an ever widening divide, and to delay the serious discussion and analysis that are needed to identify most-contributing root causes, and to devise workable solutions to address them.

So - if you think somethin' is OK, and will help - explain why, how, and when. If, while thinking about those answers you discover that your idea doesn't do everything you thought it would, it doesn't mean that the idea has to be trashed. Identify where it DOES help, identify where it doesn't - and build from there. It's a simple engineering process:

Determine the true requirements, determine the constraints/assumptions, design a solution that will satisfy those requirements, vet the design, build it, test it, and implement it.

You wouldn't take a boat out to sea w/out being certain that as designed, it'll float and carry everything you planned for it to carry - why not expect the same rigor out of those folks who are responsible for writing legislation?

#35 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:18 PM


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


If "our" tax rates are too low, why not fix the problem completely by raising taxes on everyone? Aren't middle class tax rates the lowest they've been in years? Shouldn't the middle class be doing their fair share?

#36 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:46 PM

You can think of the CBO as a surveyor but unfortunately the CBO hasn't scored the Senate bill. They are however pretty rigorous.

Obviously the Bush tax cuts haven't worked. Trickle down hasn't worked. Again. If there was this Cause and Effect relationship between cut taxes and economy booms, we'd have a booming economy. But this has not worked. Reagan was smart enough to cancel the experiment. However Bush wasn't and the Republicans then forced Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. But Bush's extended experiment hasn't worked either and we have the deficit to show for it.

Yeah, taxes need to go back up. Congress needs to pass the Grover Norquist Is An Idiot Economic Security Act.

#37 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 07:48 PM

If "our" tax rates are too low, why not fix the problem completely by raising taxes on everyone? Aren't middle class tax rates the lowest they've been in years? Shouldn't the middle class be doing their fair share?

As I said, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire which would increase middle class taxes. That expiration won't happen until after the election and I'm ok with that too.

#38 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:11 PM

You can think of the CBO as a surveyor but unfortunately the CBO hasn't scored the Senate bill. They are however pretty rigorous.

Obviously the Bush tax cuts haven't worked. Trickle down hasn't worked. Again. If there was this Cause and Effect relationship between cut taxes and economy booms, we'd have a booming economy. But this has not worked. Reagan was smart enough to cancel the experiment. However Bush wasn't and the Republicans then forced Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. But Bush's extended experiment hasn't worked either and we have the deficit to show for it.

Yeah, taxes need to go back up. Congress needs to pass the Grover Norquist Is An Idiot Economic Security Act.



You seen the stuff about the "Thelma and Louise" plan?

#39 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:31 PM

Would that be the F35 at $300M per plane. But then it is faster than a 1966 Ford Thunderbird. Tends to choke pilots though.

Yeah, the defense budget needs to get cut.

#40 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,990 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 08:44 PM

You can think of the CBO as a surveyor but unfortunately the CBO hasn't scored the Senate bill. They are however pretty rigorous.

Obviously the Bush tax cuts haven't worked. Trickle down hasn't worked. Again. If there was this Cause and Effect relationship between cut taxes and economy booms, we'd have a booming economy. But this has not worked. Reagan was smart enough to cancel the experiment. However Bush wasn't and the Republicans then forced Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. But Bush's extended experiment hasn't worked either and we have the deficit to show for it.

Yeah, taxes need to go back up. Congress needs to pass the Grover Norquist Is An Idiot Economic Security Act.


Dude, you're feeding the troll. Let him show why returning to Reagan and Clinton levels is undoable or unsound.

#41 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:23 PM

Would that be the F35 at $300M per plane. But then it is faster than a 1966 Ford Thunderbird. Tends to choke pilots though.

Yeah, the defense budget needs to get cut.



No. It's about making Grover suck it.

The plan is, the Dems "go off the cliff" and let the Bush tax cuts expire. Taxmaggedon.

They introduce a bill that cuts taxes for the middle class and below.

Therefore: The Republicans would be voting for a tax cut, and not a tax increase. The Grover, angry as he might be, is nevertheless bound. They have not broken the Holy Pledge, and He can not condemn them to Eternal Damnation and Hellfire.

#42 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:29 PM



If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?


If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


If "our" tax rates are too low, why not fix the problem completely by raising taxes on everyone? Aren't middle class tax rates the lowest they've been in years? Shouldn't the middle class be doing their fair share?



Yes I have said tax rates on the middle brackets should go up no later than 2 years from now

#43 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 09:32 PM

We should also grant a tax holiday on corporate offshore money as long as that money is used for cap ex r&d or other job creation

I am consistently reasonable

#44 mustang__1

mustang__1

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,939 posts
  • Location:Philly, by way of Sarasota and Newport...

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:00 PM


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


are there more taxes than the federal income tax? or is that the only one that exists.



#45 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:07 PM

Exactly how this plays out near term is election drama. But there are hard facts:

  • The Bush Tax Cuts end this year.
  • There is an election in November followed by a lame duck session.
The timing of this doesn't play well for the Reps. But they chose this endgame in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts could have ended. Add to this that Mitt Romney paid 13.9% in 2010 and still won't release returns for other years. It doesn't look good.

Of course nothing real will happen until the lame duck session. But even still, I think the Reps are playing this terribly. Reid just used McConnell.

#46 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:07 PM

Show of hands here----how many of you DemmyLibs have voluntarily paid more tax than you were required this year? And mor better----how many of you hipocrites in the same category written a second, unsolicited check to the IRS this year?

I'll tell ya something, Gurlz, no one on my side of this issue is EVER going to take you seriously, until you start putting your money where your big yapping mouths are.

F'ng lying little hipocrites, the lot of you.....

#47 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:13 PM

Why should I pay more to pay your way? Nope we're going to go this the right way. EVERYONE pays more taxes.

It coming soon but don't worry were going to slash spending starting with the military but then moving to other domestic spending ending with entitlements where we will means test benefits and raise the age for SS benefits.

Problem solved...

#48 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:14 PM

Ps if you don't like it get the fuck out you're half Mexican anyway...

#49 Ned

Ned

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,391 posts
  • Location:Wahiawa, Oahu

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:15 PM




RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Myself, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The tapital gains tax goes up to 20% this year.

As for your argument one, few small business owners even qualify for that bracket. It's the top 2% which by definition a small number.


As for Romney, there are three areas to consider.

1) foreign policy. I think he'd delegate that to the neocons.
2) domestic economy. I don't think there's much difference.
3) domestic social. I think there's a big difference.


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.


+>1.

#50 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:18 PM





RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Myself, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The tapital gains tax goes up to 20% this year.

As for your argument one, few small business owners even qualify for that bracket. It's the top 2% which by definition a small number.


As for Romney, there are three areas to consider.

1) foreign policy. I think he'd delegate that to the neocons.
2) domestic economy. I don't think there's much difference.
3) domestic social. I think there's a big difference.


If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?

If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.


+>1.




Plus 1% too...

#51 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:21 PM

RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.

Does it do anything to curb spending? or is it going to take the sting our of Obamacare? How many pages were in the bill? Must be at least a couple hundred wouldn't you guess?

Meanwhile, back on the ranch, sleeping now qualifies as work in the welfare program. We must tax the rich in order to pay for the new welfare recipients. I figured it out. Ok go spend some more.

#52 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:26 PM



RD, Reduce the Deficit. This in fact will help everyone including both po folk and the swells.

Now queue up argument one or argument two. You seem like an argument two kind if guy. So try argument one for variety.


My initial argument was directed at Tiki who made some ridiculous comment suggesting if you didn't favor taxing the rich you hated the poor.

Argument one - There's a strong possibility that some small business owners will stop hiring. We'll have to wait and see.
Argument two - This is a drop in the bucket towards balancing the budget. I don't hear the balanced budget argument from Obama anyway. All I hear is "fair share".

How about argument 3 - across the board tax increases so everyone actually pays his/her fair share and has some skin in the game. Then, just maybe, there would be a more unified voice calling to rein in government spending. If Robin Hood Obama gets another 4 years, does anyone really think he'll do a damned thing about the deficit?

Romney was not my first choice for the GOP nominee but he does understand finance. You might want to consider pulling the lever for him. Desperate times require desperate measures.

Myself, I'm more than ok with simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire. The tapital gains tax goes up to 20% this year.

As for your argument one, few small business owners even qualify for that bracket. It's the top 2% which by definition a small number.


As for Romney, there are three areas to consider.

1) foreign policy. I think he'd delegate that to the neocons.
2) domestic economy. I don't think there's much difference.
3) domestic social. I think there's a big difference.

1)Foreign policy - yeah Obama has that down, send in the drones.
2)Let's see, Green energy perhaps, maybe a solar company?
3) Yeah big difference. one word Obamacare.

#53 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:27 PM

Taxes are taxes. Spending is spending. Sorry for the confusion.

#54 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:29 PM



We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..

You mean the Newt Gingrich years, don't you? Contract with America, cut spending, welfare reform, you know, all the stuff Clinton fought but took credit for.


As long as we're busy reminiscing - let's all pause for a moment and remember the GOP of old. You know the one. They were big on fiscal responsibility.

Whatever happened to them and their "elk"?

Most died out, and the elk is mounted on my neighbors wall.

#55 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:37 PM

1)Foreign policy - yeah Obama has that down, send in the drones.
2)Let's see, Green energy perhaps, maybe a solar company?
3) Yeah big difference. one word Obamacare.

As for foreign policy, you calling SEAL Team 6 a bunch of drones? You sure about that? Other than that, do you have a specific comment on Obama's FP?

As for domestic policy, ObamaCare is RomneyCare.

As for social policy, Romney is pro life. He's not even in favor of stem cell research. He's opposed to gay marriage. You can imagine I'd vote against that.

#56 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:40 PM

To be fair he was against life before he was for it.

#57 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:44 PM

To be fair he was against life before he was for it.


Yeah....but he didn't flip-flop on his own, he had help!.....

#58 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,191 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:48 PM


To be fair he was against life before he was for it.


Yeah....but he didn't flip-flop on his own, he had help!.....


Both good efforts, but I have to say, Gator's one-liner was funnier. You feeling OK, Boothy? ;)

#59 R Booth

R Booth

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 37,280 posts
  • Location:Just out of eyesight....
  • Interests:Postponing my funeral 'til tomorrow....

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:51 PM



To be fair he was against life before he was for it.


Yeah....but he didn't flip-flop on his own, he had help!.....


Both good efforts, but I have to say, Gator's one-liner was funnier. You feeling OK, Boothy? ;)


They all can't be home runs.....

#60 tikipete

tikipete

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,990 posts

Posted 26 July 2012 - 10:52 PM


To be fair he was against life before he was for it.


Yeah....but he didn't flip-flop on his own, he had help!.....


Well okay then! A spineless flip-flopper, nttawwt.

#61 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,710 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:27 PM

You can think of the CBO as a surveyor but unfortunately the CBO hasn't scored the Senate bill. They are however pretty rigorous.

Obviously the Bush tax cuts haven't worked. Trickle down hasn't worked. Again. If there was this Cause and Effect relationship between cut taxes and economy booms, we'd have a booming economy. But this has not worked. Reagan was smart enough to cancel the experiment. However Bush wasn't and the Republicans then forced Obama to extend the Bush tax cuts. But Bush's extended experiment hasn't worked either and we have the deficit to show for it.

Yeah, taxes need to go back up. Congress needs to pass the Grover Norquist Is An Idiot Economic Security Act.

I'll agree to raise taxes with two simple stipulations:

1. If you'll agree to cut spending across the board buy the same amount. Note I said across the board, that means every dollar spent gets cut. Every agency, every program, every freaking dollar.

2. Simplify the tax code to the point that the average family does not have to hire an accountant to work out the details of a 1040. To the point that there is very little question how much will have to be paid. To the point that all those silly social brackets are gone. While you are at it, trash the IRS. Cut them by at least 50%. Yes there are cheats, there will always be cheats. But the current code is co convoluted that honest people are being destroyed. If you question that, look at the industry built around dealing with the IRS.

#62 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,028 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 26 July 2012 - 11:44 PM

I'm cool with that. Turbo Tax isn't so hard to use; the IRS should provide it for free.

#63 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 01:26 AM

1343320708[/url]' post='3801680']

1343261271[/url]' post='3800864']
Rich or poor, death tax goes up to 55%. That's after being taxed to death... Oh sorry I must hate the poor because I'm one of them.Posted Image



That's not correct AFAIK...looks like a $5 million exemption and there is portability between spouses. Also lots of deductions are possible. Don't know too many poor $5-million-aires in my world.


Best die before end of year then sparky.Posted Image Deductions like moving money off shore aka Romney?

#64 tuk tuk joe

tuk tuk joe

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,205 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:20 AM

1343342269[/url]' post='3802147']

1343341573[/url]' post='3802125']
1)Foreign policy - yeah Obama has that down, send in the drones.
2)Let's see, Green energy perhaps, maybe a solar company?
3) Yeah big difference. one word Obamacare.

As for foreign policy, you calling SEAL Team 6 a bunch of drones? You sure about that? Other than that, do you have a specific comment on Obama's FP?

As for domestic policy, ObamaCare is RomneyCare.

As for social policy, Romney is pro life. He's not even in favor of stem cell research. He's opposed to gay marriage. You can imagine I'd vote against that.


Send in the drones there has to be drones...Posted Image A pro life neocon.. ha that's an oxymoron! Perhaps Stalin was also pro life..

#65 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 02:21 AM




If you're OK w/letting the tax cuts expire, could you enlighten me as to why? Do you think that the additional revenue generated by the expiration of those tax cuts will solve our nation's debt crisis? Or is it about "fair share"? What happens when it's YOUR fair share? Of course we won't have to worry much about that, 'cause we know that our elected representatives always behave conservatively and with restraint when they levy new taxes upon the populace.

Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image


I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?


If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


If "our" tax rates are too low, why not fix the problem completely by raising taxes on everyone? Aren't middle class tax rates the lowest they've been in years? Shouldn't the middle class be doing their fair share?



Yes I have said tax rates on the middle brackets should go up no later than 2 years from now


Why not immediately? I'm a bit tired of the argument that increased taxes result in economic growth, as in the Clinton years. During those years, the middle class paid more taxes. Why not raise taxes on all of us? "Hey - there's a rich guy. Who's got a pointed stick?"

If it was so fucking great for the country back then, let's tax everyone at those levels and things will be peachy.

#66 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 27 July 2012 - 10:34 PM

Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.

#67 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 28 July 2012 - 10:58 AM

Show of hands here----how many of you DemmyLibs have voluntarily paid more tax than you were required this year? And mor better----how many of you hipocrites in the same category written a second, unsolicited check to the IRS this year?

I'll tell ya something, Gurlz, no one on my side of this issue is EVER going to take you seriously, until you start putting your money where your big yapping mouths are.

F'ng lying little hipocrites, the lot of you.....


WTF does that have to do with anything? Seriously?

#68 B.J. Porter

B.J. Porter

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 28,679 posts
  • Location:On my boat, somewhere...
  • Interests:Hallberg-Rassy 53 "Evenstar"

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:00 AM




We are just returning to to the status quo of the Clinton years. Everyone was doing pretty well then. Oh yeah in a couple of years the lower brackets need to be restored as well..

You mean the Newt Gingrich years, don't you? Contract with America, cut spending, welfare reform, you know, all the stuff Clinton fought but took credit for.


As long as we're busy reminiscing - let's all pause for a moment and remember the GOP of old. You know the one. They were big on fiscal responsibility.

Whatever happened to them and their "elk"?

Most died out, and the elk is mounted on my neighbors wall.


Hunted to the brink of extinction by religious zealots and ignorant Tea Partiers.

#69 GRUMPY

GRUMPY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,680 posts
  • Location:Balikpapan, Indonesia
  • Interests:Hobie Miracle 20

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:27 AM





Our taxes are low, historically low, too low.
Posted Image




I want to know what the overall plan is - I want to see how it closes, and if it doesn't, then why? What gaps do we have? What needs to change to bridge those gaps? WHEN will the plan close? What will we do w/our tax structure once that closure occurs (wishful thinking) to #1) ensure that we don't get there again and 2) ease the burden on individuals?


If you can't answer those questions, then no matter what letter comes after your name, your plan is flawed, and isn't ready to be implemented.

The best analysis for this would be the CBO scoring.


If "our" tax rates are too low, why not fix the problem completely by raising taxes on everyone? Aren't middle class tax rates the lowest they've been in years? Shouldn't the middle class be doing their fair share?



Yes I have said tax rates on the middle brackets should go up no later than 2 years from now


Why not immediately?
I'm a bit tired of the argument that increased taxes result in economic growth, as in the Clinton years. During those years, the middle class paid more taxes. Why not raise taxes on all of us? "Hey - there's a rich guy. Who's got a pointed stick?"

If it was so fucking great for the country back then, let's tax everyone at those levels and things will be peachy.


It's an election year.

#70 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,032 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:21 PM

It's an election year.


It's always election year here now. The next race starts dominating the media the day after.

Several factors are causing that, but I suspect the biggest one is the need to raise tons of cash and "get out the vote". That's something Australia has largely solved by making voting mandatory, IMO.

#71 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 28 July 2012 - 05:25 PM

Well, we had one guy who said cut taxes to grow the economy and the other guy says raise taxes to grow the economy.

Neither one seems to work.

Maybe, when you figure out that the boss doesn't want to give you a raise, you might consider spending less.

#72 Bent Sailor

Bent Sailor

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,854 posts
  • Location:Lake Macquarie
  • Interests:Sailing
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates

Posted 28 July 2012 - 11:20 PM

It's always election year here now. The next race starts dominating the media the day after.

Several factors are causing that, but I suspect the biggest one is the need to raise tons of cash and "get out the vote". That's something Australia has largely solved by making voting mandatory, IMO.


Up until the last election, I'd agree with you. Sadly the losing party of the last federal election decided they was robbed and so have called for an immediate election ever since. They've been running in campaign mode rather than "doing their job" mode ever since and it's hurt Australia. One of the many bad practices the Liberals (ironically, the right-wing party here) have started importing from the US. The other major one is bringing religion into politics. As you might assume, I'm not impressed.

#73 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Location:balls deep in someones daughters.

Posted 29 July 2012 - 06:40 AM

Well, we had one guy who said cut taxes to grow the economy and the other guy says raise taxes to grow the economy.

Neither one seems to work.

Maybe, when you figure out that the boss doesn't want to give you a raise, you might consider spending less.


it's not always a possible to spend less, wages increases have not kept up with price increases, everyone needs to eat.
does anyone have any data on discretionary spending? is it rising or falling?

#74 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 02:35 PM


Well, we had one guy who said cut taxes to grow the economy and the other guy says raise taxes to grow the economy.

Neither one seems to work.

Maybe, when you figure out that the boss doesn't want to give you a raise, you might consider spending less.


it's not always a possible to spend less, wages increases have not kept up with price increases, everyone needs to eat.
does anyone have any data on discretionary spending? is it rising or falling?

Define discretionary spending. There really isn't any.

The fact is if a law is passed which requires the government to "do something" then the government has to spend money on it.

Part of the problem is the creation of taxes or fees which are theoretically defined for specific purposes. So, we get the highway trust fund, the aviation and airport trust fund, etc. etc. What these do is create a huge pot of pork for politicians to demand part of as the 'fair share' for their district. We don't need those.

I've pointed out the example of the Interstates before and pointed out Atlanta as an obvious example. Interstates 75 and 85 both run through the middle of town at a huge expense in terms of land acquisition, building and impact costs. There is absolutely no reason that That I-85 couldn't run down the east side of town and I-75 down the west side with as many exits as they would like for the governments of Georgia and Atlanta to connect to. Instead, we needed to build them a beltway to avoid the congestion caused by the stupidity in the first place.

We need a government who looks at the nation as a whole and determines what our needs and priorities are.

#75 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 03:04 PM

Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

#76 Bull Gator

Bull Gator

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 29,280 posts

Posted 29 July 2012 - 03:13 PM


Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.



I have schooled you again!

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2011/04/13/how-can-we-address-excessive-ceo-pay/

#77 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,968 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:09 AM

BG - the only time you have "schooled" anyone is when you parked your Vespa in the crosswalk, and forced 1st graders to walk around you. When that happened, you know that the "schooling" that was introduced to them was to avoid slimy old creatures who are drooling when they're asking "what you're having for lunch, little boy".

You are a toad - a slimy, warty, loathsome creature that survives only by your ability to dive into the murky depths and avoid those who would rather see your pathetic legs on the side of the BBQ, where the dog's dishes are prepared. If you are in possession of a modicum of decorum or self-decency - please, go someplace and shrivel away - you contribute nothing other than consternation (look it up - the first vocabulary lesson is free) here.

#78 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:34 AM



Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.



I have schooled you again!

http://management.fo...essive-ceo-pay/



How does "excessive" CEO equal ass raping the middle class?

Is there another page of the article I missed that shows companies reduce the wages of workers to make up the increase in executive pay?

#79 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:42 AM

The 1% is a model for the rest. The unfortunate part is they pay for their stuff. The folks who think they should have the same stuff put it on credit cares.

#80 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Location:balls deep in someones daughters.

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:43 AM




Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.



I have schooled you again!

http://management.fo...essive-ceo-pay/



How does "excessive" CEO equal ass raping the middle class?

Is there another page of the article I missed that shows companies reduce the wages of workers to make up the increase in executive pay?


that excessive ceo remuneration has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere definitely ain't from profits

#81 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:46 AM





Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.



I have schooled you again!

http://management.fo...essive-ceo-pay/



How does "excessive" CEO equal ass raping the middle class?

Is there another page of the article I missed that shows companies reduce the wages of workers to make up the increase in executive pay?


that excessive ceo remuneration has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere definitely ain't from profits


Perhaps you can shed some light on where it does come from.

#82 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Location:balls deep in someones daughters.

Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:15 AM

areage joe, the middle class tax payer?

rd, maybe you need to let go of the wheel, walk to the pointy bit and ask the guy there what sort of an education he can afford for his kids.

#83 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,669 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:13 PM





Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.



I have schooled you again!

http://management.fo...essive-ceo-pay/



How does "excessive" CEO equal ass raping the middle class?

Is there another page of the article I missed that shows companies reduce the wages of workers to make up the increase in executive pay?


that excessive ceo remuneration has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere definitely ain't from profits

Sure it does. In fact, there is often some left over after CEO remuneration. And if there isn't, the CEO usually gets replaced.

#84 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,075 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:29 PM


Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?

#85 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:42 PM

areage joe, the middle class tax payer?

rd, maybe you need to let go of the wheel, walk to the pointy bit and ask the guy there what sort of an education he can afford for his kids.


I am a bowman and it is a struggle to save for an education or anything else. I'm making much more now than I was this time last year. I am not even close to the 1%, but my increased in income must be reducing the income for someone else, right?

#86 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 49,810 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:47 PM



Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?

That's just data. Data is no match for rhetoric. Any idiot knows that facts have a liberal bias.

#87 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:51 PM



Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/s...come_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?


That is data, but It doesn't show a causal relationship between an increase in CEO pay and a decrease in the pay of others. That is why the link you provided does not constitute evidence of the 1% ass raping the middle class.

Using your logic, every time someone gets a raise, someone else must take a cut in pay as a result. That's simply not the case.

#88 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,075 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:57 PM




Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/s...come_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?


That is data, but It doesn't show a causal relationship between an increase in CEO pay and a decrease in the pay of others. That is why the link you provided does not constitute evidence of the 1% ass raping the middle class.

Using your logic, every time someone gets a raise, someone else must take a cut in pay as a result. That's simply not the case.

Where did I say anything about CEO pay?

#89 JMD

JMD

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,075 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 01:59 PM




Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/pre-tax_income_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?

That's just data. Data is no match for rhetoric. Any idiot knows that facts have a liberal bias.

And if the rhetoric doesn't quite do the trick it's time to trot out the straw men.

#90 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:07 PM





Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/s...come_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?

That's just data. Data is no match for rhetoric. Any idiot knows that facts have a liberal bias.

And if the rhetoric doesn't quite do the trick it's time to trot out the straw men.


Can you point out a causal relationship between the income disparity? The link you provided doesn't make any such claim or even inference.

#91 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,627 posts

Posted 30 July 2012 - 02:09 PM





Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.


I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/s...come_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?


That is data, but It doesn't show a causal relationship between an increase in CEO pay and a decrease in the pay of others. That is why the link you provided does not constitute evidence of the 1% ass raping the middle class.

Using your logic, every time someone gets a raise, someone else must take a cut in pay as a result. That's simply not the case.

Where did I say anything about CEO pay?


My bad. You didn't. The article BG used to school me did.

#92 ease the sheet!

ease the sheet!

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,455 posts
  • Location:balls deep in someones daughters.

Posted 30 July 2012 - 11:20 PM




Patience the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. They deserved a little prolonged break before everyone returns to the reasonable Clinton rates

Oh by the way you know how 47% of the population pays no taxes? Well they also have about .5% of the total wealth. So suck it.

I don't buy your assertion that the middle class has been ass raped by the 1%. I haven't seen any evidence to support that. I would guess that that 47% wouldn't be impacted if all the tax cuts were allowed to expire and everyone actually paid his/her fair share.

There's plenty of hard, verifiable data on this:
http://www.cbo.gov/s...come_shares.pdf

Notice the decline in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th quintiles (the ones in the "Middle") and the doubling of the 1%? Does that not constitute "evidence" and if so why not?


That is data, but It doesn't show a causal relationship between an increase in CEO pay and a decrease in the pay of others. That is why the link you provided does not constitute evidence of the 1% ass raping the middle class.

Using your logic, every time someone gets a raise, someone else must take a cut in pay as a result. That's simply not the case.


to make it simple for you.
if there is $100 dollars in the pot that needs to be divided amongst 2 people, if one person takes $90, the other person gets $10. there is only a certain amount of money in that pot!
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/the-rich-get-even-richer.html




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users