On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:45:47 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 22:02:05 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:58:38 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:54:44 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

bull****. if your income is a million bux your effective tax rate is
over 30% because almost all your income is taxed at the marginal rates

lemme ask: did you take ANY math in school? any at all?

the fact is the very rich dont pay ****.

Which is it? "over 30%" or "don't pay ****"?

The fact is the top 5% pay 40% of the taxes.

you're so full of right wing bull**** i can smell it in PA

No, Philadelphia always smells like that. ;-)

Perhaps you would believe the IRS web site ... but I doubt it.

You can go here and crunch the numbers yourself
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in12ms.xls

you can go here, to the congressional budget office report:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../201117pap.pdf

and find that between 1979 and 2007 the income of the richest 1% grew
by

TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE percent

did their taxes go up that much?

nope. in fact they went DOWN

but you won't believe the CBO because faux news hates it

The top 1% pay 36.7% of the taxes

they have 37.1% of the country's wealth. AND their income has
skyrocketed above and beyond those of the rich of other countries

you have yet to make an argument as to why turning the US into a 3rd
world country is a good think

not sure why the right wing thinks destroying the middle class is good
economics

but you're doing it

On 11/24/11 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:59:37 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:56:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:52:05 -0500, wrote:

you're ignoring the whole point to the difference between tax rates
and marginal tax rates. middle class tax rates are 28%. that is a
fact.

What is the effective tax rate? (What you actually pay)
I showed you it is 12% or less for a couple ,making $100,000.

the effective tax rate depends on ALOT of factors, many of which the
right wants to elmiinate for the middle class in favor of cutting
taxes for the wealthy.

aint no right winger talking about eliminating middle class taxes like
they are capital gains

Some of us actually invested our money and like lower capital gains
taxes.

I think a slightly lower tax rate on *long-term* capital gains
encourages investment and I favor it. I think short-term capital gains
should be taxed at a much, much higher rate in order to discourage
speculation. There are societal reasons to encourage long-term
investments and very few to encourage speculators.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:50:46 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:


I think a slightly lower tax rate on *long-term* capital gains
encourages investment and I favor it

actually there's evidence this is incorrecct.

first, we did that. long term capital gains were once MUCH higher
(over 70%) than they are now; even under clinton they were double what
they are now.

under bush capital gains were lowered by almost 50%. we LOST jobs.

2nd, a recent paper detailed he


http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...fer-curve-rich

finds we could raise marginal tax rates on high earners to over 70%
before we'd lower investment

i think we have to go with the EVIDENCE.

On 11/25/2011 7:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/24/11 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:59:37 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:56:31 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:52:05 -0500, wrote:

you're ignoring the whole point to the difference between tax rates
and marginal tax rates. middle class tax rates are 28%. that is a
fact.

What is the effective tax rate? (What you actually pay)
I showed you it is 12% or less for a couple ,making $100,000.

the effective tax rate depends on ALOT of factors, many of which the
right wants to elmiinate for the middle class in favor of cutting
taxes for the wealthy.

aint no right winger talking about eliminating middle class taxes like
they are capital gains

Some of us actually invested our money and like lower capital gains
taxes.

I think a slightly lower tax rate on *long-term* capital gains
encourages investment and I favor it. I think short-term capital gains
should be taxed at a much, much higher rate in order to discourage
speculation. There are societal reasons to encourage long-term
investments and very few to encourage speculators.

*Imposter alert*

--
1-20-13 The end of an error

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:07:57 -0500, Drifter wrote:

On 11/25/2011 7:50 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 11/24/11 11:32 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 21:59:37 -0500, wrote:


I think a slightly lower tax rate on *long-term* capital gains
encourages investment and I favor it. I think short-term capital gains
should be taxed at a much, much higher rate in order to discourage
speculation. There are societal reasons to encourage long-term
investments and very few to encourage speculators.

*Imposter alert*

THAT makes sense. there's little reason to propose lowering capital
gains taxes

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:19:42 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:00:57 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


gee that's a shame. no reason we should pay all the taxes while the
capital gains folks pay zip, after what they did to this country


What we did was provide capital to the job creators so guys like you
can find work. I imagine your investments amount to the EE bond your
grandmother gave you and a set of Obama inaugural collector plates.

i keep asking the same question

you keep ignoring the same question:

if we gave these cuts to the job creators to create jobs

where are the jobs???

you're just a True Believer in the bull**** wall street cult

you dont know **** about the economy

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:23:43 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:04:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. in fact, an argument for taxing capital gains is precisely to
drive finanical instruments overseas and quit subsidizing false
investments that have dstroyed our economy.

So you want to drive capital offshore?

yep. drive all collateralized default swaps offshore. let them do to
the chinese economy what they did to ours

Send US money to other countries to build up their industry?

HAHAHAHA

have you LOOKED at the chinese economy??

WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT YOU MORON!!

christ you're as dumb as a bag of rocks


Who do you think provided the money that got Ford, Microsoft or Apple
going? It was stock holders.
You really are stupid.

you live in a rat hole, completely isolated from any information
except the vomit that faux news feeds you

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:33:42 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:13:56 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 23:45:4

The fact is the top 5% pay 40% of the taxes.

you're so full of right wing bull**** i can smell it in PA

No, Philadelphia always smells like that. ;-)

Perhaps you would believe the IRS web site ... but I doubt it.

You can go here and crunch the numbers yourself
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09in12ms.xls

you can go here, to the congressional budget office report:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../201117pap.pdf

and find that between 1979 and 2007 the income of the richest 1% grew
by

TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE percent

did their taxes go up that much?

nope. in fact they went DOWN

Since there was no change in the tax law between 2007 and 2009, how do
you explain that.

it's YOUR contention cutting capital gains taxes creates jobs

we DID cut capital gains by 50% during bush's term

WHERE ARE THE JOBS??

you IGNORE this question. you keep BLEATING that bankrupting the
middle class by giving ALL our money to the rich will create jobs

OK. we did that

WHERE ARE THE JOBS???


BTW why make a statement that is not supported by the link you post.
Do you think I won't read it and take your 275% numbers at face value

i gave you the link to the CBO study. can't help it if faux news keeps
feeding you ****.

the very fact you keep bleating WRONG information tells us about the
bull**** kool aid you drink from the True Believer fountain at wall
street


Your article seems to make it sound like Wall Street INVESTORS took
the worst hit.

"house prices declined 17 percent and the Wilshire 5000 index of
publicly
traded equities fell 39 percent."

Yet you think it is all gravy for us.

gee. middle class unemployment DOUBLED

AND we BAILED YOU OUT

NOW you want MORE money to continue to destroy our country

how ****ing GREEDY can you get?

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:23:43 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:04:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote:

wrong. in fact, an argument for taxing capital gains is precisely to
drive finanical instruments overseas and quit subsidizing false
investments that have dstroyed our economy.

So you want to drive capital offshore?

yep. drive all collateralized default swaps offshore. let them do to
the chinese economy what they did to ours

Send US money to other countries to build up their industry?

HAHAHAHA

have you LOOKED at the chinese economy??

WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT YOU MORON!!

christ you're as dumb as a bag of rocks


No. But he sure stepped into that one with a blindfold on.
Except for stockholders and those working on Wall Street -
an ever-decreasing class in the U.S. - capital used to build foreign
factories and businesses does nothing for U.S. unemployment.
In fact, it's detrimental to U.S. employment.
Wall Street should just wholesale relocate to China.
That way nobody will complain about it.
And it might very well happen.
Wouldn't bother me.

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:15:30 -0600, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:23:43 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 02:04:54 -0500, bpuharic wrote:


Send US money to other countries to build up their industry?

HAHAHAHA

have you LOOKED at the chinese economy??

WE'RE ALREADY DOING THAT YOU MORON!!

christ you're as dumb as a bag of rocks


No. But he sure stepped into that one with a blindfold on.
Except for stockholders and those working on Wall Street -
an ever-decreasing class in the U.S. - capital used to build foreign
factories and businesses does nothing for U.S. unemployment.
In fact, it's detrimental to U.S. employment.
Wall Street should just wholesale relocate to China.
That way nobody will complain about it.
And it might very well happen.
Wouldn't bother me.

you know i wouldnt mind how ****ing rich the rich got if we ALL got
richer AND we all had jobs. inequality is a natural result in a mature
developed economy

BUT the right worships inequality of OPPORTUNITY, and will work to
preserve the privileged regardless of the costs to the econoomy. they
just simply refuse to look at the evidence. he keeps bleating the same
failed arguments over and over...