- Joined
- Aug 19, 2012
- Messages
- 4,905
- Reaction score
- 1,578
- Location
- The darkside of the moon
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
So in other words, nothing I said was wrong, you just think it was man to point out that using a station known for open lying and misrepresentation of the facts was a bad idea. I can live with that. I don't have any other way to describe fox news or it's parent company without negative terms that might be considered mean to those who do those things. Is there a nice way to say they are a bunch of lying idiots who constantly misrepresent things and get them wrong? tell me and I might use it to describe fox.I fought my way through your rant that lacks paragraphing, logic, and any point. I did notice you constructed several straw men, attacked the source, and managed to call a very smart person poorly informed based on one quotation. While this post did a great job of butchering quality debate, it failed to rebut a single thing in the post you were addressing.
So, I'm wondering if you have anything relevant either to the OP or to her post to add.
So in other words, nothing I said was wrong, you just think it was man to point out that using a station known for open lying and misrepresentation of the facts was a bad idea. I can live with that. I don't have any other way to describe fox news or it's parent company without negative terms that might be considered mean to those who do those things. Is there a nice way to say they are a bunch of lying idiots who constantly misrepresent things and get them wrong? tell me and I might use it to describe fox.
I just don't feel the need to defend Fox when it has nothing to do with the OP or the post you were addressing.
So, I'm wondering if you have anything relevant either to the OP or to her post to add.
Yeah, that fox news deliberately misrepresents things and lies about things to make their point so using their site as a source makes her point irrelevant if she cannot prove it another way with something reliabel. What I am saying is fox is so bad you actually have to back it up when you use it because it should be considered automatically biased and misrepresented. It is like using a spoiled 2 year old as your source. You don't need to spend time refuting points made by such sources. I don't read tabloids about bigfoot and then suddenly go out and have to prove to myself bigfoot doesn't exist.
The question, though, is whether Romney paying 14 percent is “probably less than you.”
It’s not if you look strictly at the income tax paid to the IRS. Scott Hodge, president of the business-backed Tax Foundation, released a report based on 2009 IRS tax data that found 97 percent of American tax filers paid a lower rate of income tax than Romney did. The bottom 40 percent of tax filers pay no income tax at all, or receive a refund, Hodge told us in a phone interview, and so “by definition, those people are paying less than Mitt Romney.” On average, Hodge said, people making between $100,000 and $200,000 paid about 12 percent in federal income taxes. That’s less than Romney’s 13.9 percent, and people making less than $200,000 represent more than 97 percent of all tax filers.
“Clearly the vast majority pay less than Romney,” Hodge said.
If you are, then you should consider options to lower your tax rate...purchase a home, invest in an IRA Or 401k, .....
Thanks. As I noted, the claim is TRUE when you include all federal taxes. Apparently the ad didn't specifically limit the claim to income taxes.
I'm not saying tax them to death. All I'm saying is make it reasonable like it was in the past and slowly phase out certain tax deductions for them as well as those for families like my own making around $50,000 along with making reasonable cuts to all parts of our government.
As a percentage of income yes they pay less for those things. State, local taxes I can't say for every state but that's how it is in Kentucky and several other states.
I'm sorry that I offended you. Keep up the good work defending your masters.
Fox news fact checking? You mean the people who cannot get facts straight are pretending to be fact checkers? The people who blatantly lie on a regular basis are the people who you trust with your facts? The people who say the world is a few thousand years old, pollution doesn't exist, their is a war on christmas, evolution doesn't exist, Obama was born in kenya, coal burning is clean, and that they are fair and balanced despite being overwhelmingly biased are your source for facts? The people who consider Donald trimp, Sarah palin, Mark fuhrman, and Alan west reliable correspondants are your source for facts? The people who think Bill O'rielly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean hannity, Steve Ducey, that bimbo gretchen, and Glen beck are news reporters are the people you get your facts from? The station that multiple countries will not allow to broadcast news because they lie so often is the one you get your facts from? The station owned by rupert murdoch who is best known for being the world's biggest tabloid producer and is up on charges in other countries for lying and doing crazy ass **** like hacking into the voicemail of terrorist victims is who you are getting your facts from?
No wonder you are so poorly informed.
Thanks. As I noted, the claim is TRUE when you include all federal taxes. Apparently the ad didn't specifically limit the claim to income taxes.
Regardless if it is true or not, when you defend the rich it still makes you sound like an asshole even most rich get that and for the record isn't there like not even 5 million millionaires in USA? Do you seriously think they need defending or better yet, that most of them even care if they are taxed like they were 14 years ago? Not only that as a percentage of their income, they usually pay less into state, local, social security and Medicare.
I'm not saying tax them to death. All I'm saying is make it reasonable like it was in the past and slowly phase out certain tax deductions for them as well as those for families like my own making around $50,000 along with making reasonable cuts to all parts of our government.
Fox news fact checking? You mean the people who cannot get facts straight are pretending to be fact checkers? The people who blatantly lie on a regular basis are the people who you trust with your facts? The people who say the world is a few thousand years old, pollution doesn't exist, their is a war on christmas, evolution doesn't exist, Obama was born in kenya, coal burning is clean, and that they are fair and balanced despite being overwhelmingly biased are your source for facts? The people who consider Donald trimp, Sarah palin, Mark fuhrman, and Alan west reliable correspondants are your source for facts? The people who think Bill O'rielly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean hannity, Steve Ducey, that bimbo gretchen, and Glen beck are news reporters are the people you get your facts from? The station that multiple countries will not allow to broadcast news because they lie so often is the one you get your facts from? The station owned by rupert murdoch who is best known for being the world's biggest tabloid producer and is up on charges in other countries for lying and doing crazy ass **** like hacking into the voicemail of terrorist victims is who you are getting your facts from?
No wonder you are so poorly informed.
$ 50,000 income married filing jointly
Federal income tax
only standard exemption.
Taxable income $50,000- $7400=42600
$42,600 -17000 = $25600 Tax on this level 10% of 17000=$1700 3.4% of $50,000
Tax on Remaining $25,600 at 15% = $3,840 or 7.68% of $50,000
Total income tax for couple with no other deductions $5,540 or 11.08%
Worse case sernio
Adult child living at home with no personal exemption
$50,000 - $8700 = $41,300 Tax on 8,700 $870
15% tax on 41,300 =$6195
Total Income tax =$7065 Tax Rate 14.13%
Yes, dear. Don't like the source, make Google your friend. It's all over the place.
Yeah. A while back it became fashionable among some of the leftists to claim they paid a higher tax rate than Romney. Yet when invited to demonstrate how.... they all refused...... :thinking:
Yeah. A while back it became fashionable among some of the leftists to claim they paid a higher tax rate than Romney. Yet when invited to demonstrate how.... they all refused...... :thinking:
I fought my way through your rant that lacks paragraphing, logic, and any point. I did notice you constructed several straw men, attacked the source, and managed to call a very smart person poorly informed based on one quotation. While this post did a great job of butchering quality debate, it failed to rebut a single thing in the post you were addressing.
So, I'm wondering if you have anything relevant either to the OP or to her post to add.
If you can't argue the facts, attack the messenger.
Yeah. A while back it became fashionable among some of the leftists to claim they paid a higher tax rate than Romney. Yet when invited to demonstrate how.... they all refused...... :thinking:
Nonetheless, the fact is that I paid a 5-6% higher tax rate than did Mitt Moneybags.
I seriously doubt you paid a higher rate than Romney. Sorry, prove it. Income/deductions/exemptions etc. Or show us a hypothetical. Pick your numbers.
I'll post my taxes (and I'm not even running for Pres!) when I file them early next year. If I pay a higher tax rate, then what?
Why not post last year's now? If you pay a higher rate, then I suggest you write your Congress Clowns. They're the jakes responsible for it. Not Mitt Romney.
I'm looking for mine, can't find the damned thing. But I'll keep looking.
I seriously doubt you paid a higher rate than Romney. Sorry, prove it. Income/deductions/exemptions etc. Or show us a hypothetical. Pick your numbers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?