hi5

yahoo online chat

avrupa chat

almanya chat

Keep your story straight, dammit!

Comment by muckdog — February 29, 2008 @ 10:14 pm

You’re really that stupid? you can’t figure out that fat rich white slobs enriching themselves further at the expense of working people is not the way to do it? Suckdog, you are but shit on my shoe.

Keep your story straight, dammit!

Whatever crash and burn is happening to our economy, the Chimp and his cronies won’t be affected. Not in the slightest. They all have they monies safely stashed away and their well guarded ranches paid for. In short, they’ll sit high on the hill in their castles, while Joe Average suffers.

These bastard republicans don’t give a sh*t. The last seven years has guaranteed I will NEVER vote for a republican again. You can take that to the bank….if there are any left.

Sorry OT on this but…

FBI documents contradict 9/11 Commission report

Newly-released records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request contradict the 9/11 Commission’s report on the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and raise fresh questions about the role of Saudi government officials in connection to the hijackers.

…

The timeline similarly documents Al-Ghamdi’s bookings for several other post 9/11 flights, including one on Sept. 20, 2001 from Casablanca, Morocco to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and another on Sept. 29, 2001 from Riyadh to Damman, Saudi Arabia. (FBI Timeline 2, p. 296 under “H Alghamdi”)

.

Heh.

The rich, through ownership, are by farthe heaviest users of publicly-funded services & infrastructure. In fact, they could not be rich or have gotten rich without public funds.

What part of “you use it, you pay for it” don’t these would-be freeloaders understand?

The progressive part of the tax system is Simple. Once you determine your Income, making it progressive is just arithmetic.

The complicated part is determining your income. Why? because of all the deductions….put in by congress to influence and reward sectors of the economy. That’s where the tax system becomes complicated and Unfair.

Comment by Marcus Aurelius — February 29, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

You’re probably right. The only alternative, as I see it, is a non-progressive tax system that devastates the middle class.

For that matter, any law set down in writing will immediately inspire someone to try to push its envelope, exploit it for unfair gain or flat-out circumvent it. That’s human nature.

A progressive tax system will inevitably be complex. But we’ve got to fund our government, and seems to me that those who benefit most from its protections and have greatest access to its resources ought to pay more to support it. That means a progressive tax system.

Comment by Marcus Aurelius — February 29, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

Yeah, and I am sure you can’t write it in one paragraph without screwing the middle class.

Bet’cha if you try to fix that loophole with an amendment, you create at least two more (if your heart is pure, if not, you’ll use it to make as many loopholes as you can to benefit your group).

Comment by Marcus Aurelius — February 29, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

It is unrealistic to write a tax code in one paragraph. The only tax system you will get that way will screw the middle class. We need a strongly progressive income tax, including a negative income tax for the poor. We could greatly simplify the current system simply by cutting out all the special breaks written for industry. Then return to progressive income tax rates, reduce FICA, and tax realized capital gains and dividends as income. Add consumption taxes to specific products that have externalized costs, such as gasoline.

It’s that neocon branding thing. Figure whatever they are branding “fair tax” to mean exactly the opposite and you will be on the money. I wonder why the Democrats haven’t learned how to do this? They can rename SCHIP the Children’s Health Care Initiative. That would be a good branding name and it would even be true.

Your analysis is incorrect. The rich person would likely pay less, because the tax is paid on consumption only. It is a sales tax. The rich person would not pay any taxes at all on any investment income. No capital gains taxes. No dividend taxes.

Bush’s own Treasury department studied this tax scam. Paul O’Neill, Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, provided documents on this study to reporter Ron Susskind. These documents were subsequently published in Slate, and probably elsewhere (maybe in Susskind’s book, but I’m not sure about that). In any case, the Treasury study concluded that this sales tax would result in a MASSIVE tax break for the rich, and that the only way to accomplish it in a revenue neutral way would be to make it up on the backs of the middle class. But koolaid drinkers like VA Voter just don’t get it.

Of course, revenue neutral isn’t in the spendthrift Bush’s limited vocabulary. Bush is perfectly happy running massive deficits, because he is spoiled rich boy who never had to pay for anything in his sheltered life.