Obama cannot stop with the class envy[W:101; 163]

[srexob715]

so tell me newbie, why should Mitt pay more taxes than you?

AGain, you are not addressing the issue. And you want me to believe you are not trolling? PLEASE!

Is 15% equal to 30%? Yes or no?

 

[Karl]

horrible strawman,using the stock market as evidence knowing the stock market does not represent gdp,to try and overthrow his argument. [...]

Oookay . . . .

and the reason why tax revenues went up was not the tax hikes but rather the dot com boom combined with corporate belt tightening [...] without the boom, the tax revenues would not have gone up

In the common vernacular, the "dot com boom" refers to the NASDAQ which, if memory serves, is a stock market. However, I'm sure that you'll not see it that way :lamo

 

[TurtleDude]

AGain, this doesn't address whether 15% is equal to 30%. I KNOW it is, but getting you to admit it is the problem and my reason for thinking that you are trolling. I may be wrong, but I have a right to believe the evidence YOU YOURSELF provide. Don't like me believing the evidence you provide................STOP PROVIDING IT. Simple!

no one in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30% on their income newbie

are you unable to even read tax tables.

are you unable to comprehend you are comparing apples to oranges-earned income vs investment income?

 

[TurtleDude]

AGain, you are not addressing the issue. And you want me to believe you are not trolling? PLEASE!

Is 15% equal to 30%? Yes or no?

god is that stupid

do you know the difference between a 15% EFFECTIVE income tax rate vs a 30% marginal tax rate

do you actually pay income taxes?

 

[srexob715]

no one in the middle class pays an effective rate of 30% on their income newbie

are you unable to even read tax tables.

are you unable to comprehend you are comparing apples to oranges-earned income vs investment income?

Now I know you are trolling. I have asked you several times and you keep running! Now that is exposure of someone that is not willing to be honest!

 

[Karl]

[...] heres a hint go get gdp by year and compare it to tax income for the federal government.

View attachment 67126955

Now this argument is very interesting since I have already shown (post #194) that federal revenues increased by 75% during the Clinton administration, resulting in a nearly balanced budget at the end of that term, yet your position is that it was a bad/declining period for GDP? When revenues were good/increasing?

 

[TurtleDude]

Now I know you are trolling. I have asked you several times and you keep running! Now that is exposure of someone that is not willing to be honest!

Your stupid rants about trolling are getting old

 

[hazlnut]

If you listen to him consistently, it is stunning how Obama cannot talk for more than a minute or two without falling back into class-envy mode. It is like a dripping faucet. It is all he knows to do over and over and over and over and over.

What good is class-warfare? Well, it connects with weakness.. envy, anger (even fear). Those are the emotions Obama looks to stoke in you, so that you will get behind him to give him political power to give those horrible, abusive captains of industry what they have coming.

If you read the Communist Manifesto written by Marx (and Engels, many people do not know), it is alarming how closely Obama's lines of arguments match along. I am not labeling him. I am saying, read it and listen to the man.

We need leaders who are willing to take on the challenges we face, out of control national debt and exploding entitlement obligations. But Obama just keeps on seeking political leverage with the class envy stuff, like a 2nd-rate political hack or back-bencher. He is a disgrace.

If you really hate the rich, then the perfect place for you would be where there are NO rich... like Cuba or North Korea. Look, the rich guy living down the road doesn't hurt you or me. He might have created a service or product that I like, or he may hire my brother.

"Class-Envy" = dumb fox news talking point.

You serve your masters well.

Let me guess, you think he's a 'socialist' too?

 

[TurtleDude]

Now this argument is very interesting since I have already shown (post #194) that federal revenues increased by 75% during the Clinton administration, resulting in a nearly balanced budget at the end of that term, yet your position is that it was a bad/declining period for GDP? When revenues were good/increasing?

If the government could balance the budget by imposing a 90% marginal tax rate on the "rich" would you support it?

 

[TurtleDude]

"Class-Envy" = dumb fox news talking point.

You serve your masters well.

Let me guess, you think he's a 'socialist' too?

Don't far lefties like you, by definition, crave masters?

just saying......

 

[srexob715]

Your stupid rants about trolling are getting old

Then I would stop trolling!

 

[beerftw]

Oookay . . . .

In the common vernacular, the "dot com boom" refers to the NASDAQ which, if memory serves, is a stock market. However, I'm sure that you'll not see it that way :lamo

but in the dot com boom gdp went up,under obama gdp has remained fairly stagnant compared to the stock market.

if you were atleast half smart you would know the stock market doesnt equal gdp,otherwise if it were true gdp would have skyrocketed under obama with the stock market.

the dot com boom im referring to was all those dot com companies,

 

[TurtleDude]

Then I would stop trolling!

did you post here previously under another name?

 

[srexob715]

did you post here previously under another name?

STill can't address simple math. More evidence of trolling! Now, if you are not trolling, there is an easy way to prove me wrong. Let's see if you figure it out. I bet you don't!

 

[beerftw]

Now this argument is very interesting since I have already shown (post #194) that federal revenues increased by 75% during the Clinton administration, resulting in a nearly balanced budget at the end of that term, yet your position is that it was a bad/declining period for GDP? When revenues were good/increasing?

no you argued that tax income rose 75% due to tax increases,no point of your ever mentioned gpd,second i said the increase in revenue under clinton was from increase in gdp.

nice strawman though once again creating a fake argument to knock it down,keep going though i dont think you could dig a deeper hole even if i handed you a shovel.

 

[TurtleDude]

STill can't address simple math. More evidence of trolling! Now, if you are not trolling, there is an easy way to prove me wrong. Let's see if you figure it out. I bet you don't!

you do understand asking if a 30% marginal rate on earned income is more than a 15% effective rate on investment income cannot be answered because in some cases a 15% effective rate is going to be higher a percentage of investment income than a 30% effective rate is on earned income

but you do understand it is dishonest to try to compare marginal rates vs effective rates and one source of income that -ACCORDING TO THE CODE-is taxed on a different schedule than a DIFFERENT FORM OF INCOME that is taxed on a second schedule

 

[srexob715]

you do understand asking if a 30% marginal rate on earned income is more than a 15% effective rate on investment income cannot be answered because in some cases a 15% effective rate is going to be higher a percentage of investment income than a 30% effective rate is on earned income

but you do understand it is dishonest to try to compare marginal rates vs effective rates and one source of income that -ACCORDING TO THE CODE-is taxed on a different schedule than a DIFFERENT FORM OF INCOME that is taxed on a second schedule

And you want me to believe you are not trolling! LOL! If you are not trolling, then you will be able to do simple math. If you are trolling, then you will avoid it at all costs! The evidence you provide is compelling!

 

[TurtleDude]

And you want me to believe you are not trolling! LOL! If you are not trolling, then you will be able to do simple math. If you are trolling, then you will avoid it at all costs! The evidence you provide is compelling!

YOur posts continue to be childish and full of nonsense. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference and rather than admit that, you spew crap.

 

[srexob715]

YOur posts continue to be childish and full of nonsense. You have demonstrated that you don't understand the difference and rather than admit that, you spew crap.

Again you run away from simple math and have the audacity to call me childish. I hope a moderator kicks you off for trolling and then calling people names when they expose you. KEEP RUNNING TROLL, it makes me laugh the more you do it!

 

[TurtleDude]

Again you run away from simple math and have the audacity to call me childish. I hope a moderator kicks you off for trolling and then calling people names when they expose you. KEEP RUNNING TROLL, it makes me laugh the more you do it!

You continue to demonstrate how truly intellectually bankrupt your posts are.

you have proven

1) you don't understand the difference between a marginal tax rate vs an effective tax rate

2) that a 30% marginal tax rate might result in a lower effective tax rate than someone who has an effective tax rate of 15%

3) that earned income (and short term capital gains) is subject to several different tax brackets, the top bracket being 35% which kicks in around 379K (IIRC)

4) that investment income (not STCG though) tops out at 15% and that investment income is subject to far less brackets than earned income.

5) that no one in the middle class no matter how you define that has an effective federal income tax rate of 30%

6) that Romney's EFFECTIVE federal income tax rate is higher than 97% of America's

7) that comparing a middle class person's entire tax bill, federal income tax, FICA, sales tax, property tax, etc will probably allow someone to say that this ENTIRE tax rate is a higher effective rate than the 15% effective rate that some uber wealthy people who have millions upon millions of INVESTMENT income pay. however, such a comparison is fraudulent because if we take into account all the taxes those uber wealthy pay, you have to include in that the death tax which in many years was 55% above one million


and the most important fact, trying to whine about the progressively of the one tax that applies to most tax payers by using OTHER taxes that are not is DISHONEST

The RICH PAY THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE RATES on

FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON EARNED INCOME

FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS

and FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON INVESTMENT INCOME

 

[Karl]

If the government could balance the budget by imposing a 90% marginal tax rate on the "rich" would you support it?

If you could formulate an argument without hypotheticals or strawmen, would you present it?

However, for the sake of discussion and as an observation of fact, I will note that the rich have 'toiled' under a 90% marginal rate in the past[sup][1][/sup], and during that period the economy seems to have been better than it is now.


___________________________________________________________
1. 1943-44, 1950-63 (source)

 

[TurtleDude]

If you could formulate an argument without hypotheticals or strawmen, would you present it?

However, for the sake of discussion and as an observation of fact, I will note that the rich have 'toiled' under a 90% marginal rate in the past[sup][1][/sup], and during that period the economy seems to have been better than it is now.


___________________________________________________________
1. 1943-44, 1950-63 (source)

the country would be better off if people on welfare all their lives were neutered as well but that is besides the point

I guess you are in favor of that. and we were in better shape in 1943-44? tell me what were the other financial superpowers in 1950-63. thanks

 

[Karl]

the country would be better off if people on welfare all their lives were neutered as well but that is besides the point

I guess you are in favor of that. and we were in better shape in 1943-44? [...]

The unemployment rate for those two years was 1.9% and 1.2%, respectively (source).

You're welcome :mrgreen:

 

[Karl]

no you argued that tax income rose 75% due to tax increases [...]

LOL, no, I did not, but you are welcome to post up a quote that proves I did. Given your pattern of post failure to date, I would advise against it. . . . .

I posted data that showed revenues increased under Clinton, who was also raising taxes. I did not claim a direct and/or exclusive correlation between the two. However, compared to data that shows decreasing revenue under Bush, who was also lowering taxes, an interesting set of circumstances is presented.

nice strawman though [...]

Indeed.

 

[TurtleDude]

The unemployment rate for those two years was 1.9% and 1.2%, respectively (source).

You're welcome :mrgreen:

gee and 100K americans dying in the war-I guess you are saying Obama is going to start year another war.

of course there was high employment-most of the men were in the military or filling the jobs of those who served and the women were working too


But I guess to you that is good (so you must like Bush, he had far better employment figures than Obumble)

in the cold war, Europe was rebuilding, Japan was rebuilding and guess where their tools and machines were being built