Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
31
DWetzel
ID: 53326279 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 18:05
"Bush managed revenues like a conservative and spent like a Democrat."
In other words, exactly like a typical Republican from the latter half of the 20th century.
32
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 18:44
re 28...email sent
re mortgage deductions....I could and would concede, the deduction on a SINGLE residence, price not to exceed the mean +10%, in that market area.
Tough as nails to administer? Yep. Fair to the middle class? Yep.
Does away with subsidizing the purchase of a vacation home by a select and relative few? Yep.
33
weykool
ID: 343561414 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 18:46
No reason to look any further than this as to why the GOP got us into this fiscal mess. Their ability to rationalize why the wealthy shouldn't pay more in taxes is worthy of Circe de Solei. How much is enough for you? If we raise the top rates up to 39% why not 49%.....why stop there? No matter what rate you come up with there are enough left-wingnuts who will argue they can afford to pay a little bit more.
5% of taxpayers pay 95% of the total income taxes You are correct, its the top 50% who pay 95% and the top 5% who pay more than 50%. My guess is most of the socialists on these boards dont believe it anyways, so no harm done.
34
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 18:49
Since you use the term "socialist" as though it were a bad thing, I take you are antisocial?
35
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 19:05
"No matter what rate you come up with there are enough left-wingnuts who will argue they can afford to pay a little bit more."
And no matter how much you point out that the wealthy have gotten exponentially wealthier over the last 10 years at the expense of everyone else, right-wingnuts will always complain that 35% is too much, they should only have to pay 25%, or 15%, or 1% (why stop there? Make it 0%! But please build a massive wall to keep the brownies out, and keep buying stuff from defense contractors, and rich people need Medicare too so keep that.)
You're sounding a lot like one of those.
36
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 19:07
BTW, shall we finish the comparative? Since 50% pay 95% of income taxes, how much of the discretionary cash, is in the hands of that same top 50%?
Then, if the top 5% pay more than 50% of the inc taxes; how much of the discretionary cash is in THOSE same hands?
Now, I honestly do not know the answers to those questions, nor do I even know how to begin FINDING the answers. I'd think, it would involve working from a baseline income (poverty level for exd??) and determining what percantage of people are at what levels above that line...ie how man=y are 10% above, 15%, 20% etc etc...and then computing a "total" discretiuonary income dollar figure, then establishing how many control what per centage of those dollars.)
Largely pointless, unless it indicates an extremne availability of a large br of those discretionary dollars in a very small nr oif hands. In which case, it would not be "socialist" to ask those small nrs to pay the vast majority o taxes...it would be entirely fair.
For ex, if I control 90% of the income, then I SHOULD pay, not less than 90% of the taxes.
37
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 19:12
We're all socialists*. We're just haggling about the price now. If you think the current tax rates are OK, you're clearly a socialist.
*unless you want to advocate for 0% taxes on anything and no government whatsoever, I suppose. Then you're just nuts.
The average yearly unemployment, allowing for a one-year time lag, was
5.0% for Democratic administrations (5.2% without a lag) and 6.3% for Republican administrations (6.0% without a lag) for the last fifty-six years. The average yearly change in unemployment for the last fifty-six years, allowing for a one-year time lag, has been
-2.2% for Democratic administrations (-3.1% without a lag) and +8.7% for Republican administrations (9.2% without a lag). There might be some interest in comparing the recent Clinton administration (1993-2000) with the current BushGW administration (2001-2003) and the previous Reagan/BushGHW (1981-92) administration.
Allowing for a one-year lag, the
Reagan/BushGHW administration had a yearly average of 7.1% unemployment (7.1% without a lag), the Clinton administration had a yearly average of 5.0% unemployment (5.2% without a lag) and the current BushGW administration had a yearly average of 5.9% unemployment (5.6% without a lag) up to now. The average yearly change in unemployment, allowing for a one-year lag, was
+0.1% for the Reagan/BushGHW administration (+1.2% without a lag), -4.1% for the Clinton administration (-7.5% without a lag) and +12.2% for the BushGW administration (+14.7% without a lag).
This shows the U. S. unemployment data for the years 1929-2000 compared to the presidential terms (Dem=1, Rep=0) and Democratic control index of the federal government (see below for definition). Note the large rises in the Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan/Bush administrations and the falls in the Kennedy-Johnson, Carter and Clinton administrations, especially the former and the latter.
39
weykool
ID: 343561414 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 20:46
#36 Sarge Could be best summed up by: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
#38 Why a 1 year lag? Do you really think the hole Obama is digging for us will be fully realized next year? I dont think so.......but 10 years from now we will all be paying the price for his policies.
40
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Jul 29, 2011, 20:56
Obama is not and has not been DIGGING the hole. That was done by GWB. Obama, has been his level best to fill the damn thing in.
Why a 1 yr lag? Because virtually no Pres/party change; can institute any MAJOR and IMMEDIATELY impactful actions, within days of taking office/over. So the 1 yr lag, reflects the simple truth, that the outgoing administrations olicies have a "lagging" affect/impact.
Never known anyone to question the point behind the "lag" being factored in before.
41
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 13:44
#33: Because no one is calling for rates to be raised to 49%. It is a specious argument to pretend otherwise.
What has been asked is that the wealthiest pay the same rates as during the Clinton Administration.
42
DWetzel
ID: 33337117 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 14:16
PD, don't sully these right wing socialism rants with petty garbage like facts.
Did you do crap like that when Reagan saved us from the Germans at the Alamo? I don't think so! So why do you hate America now?
43
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 14:37
ahhhh shades of Animal House...CLASSIC!!
44
The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 15:16
A dollar says Jay Leno could find people on the street that actually believe Reagan saved us from the Germans at the Alamo. Go to a Tea Party rally. If you had a dollar for each instance you could put your kids through college.
The rates on the top 2% need to be rolled back. We simply can't afford it anymore. And if it does deter job creation then the customer service reps in India and the seamstresses in Beijing will just have to go on unemployment. That's where the jobs are being created anyway.
If the job creators won't be patriotic and create jobs here, why should we treat them well with low tax rates?
The job creators aren't the wealthy. The job creators are the consumers.
46
The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 16:17
I understand that we are a consumer driven economy. My backhanded slap calling business owners job creators alludes to the fact that yes we Americans do consume things but its the Chinese that are making them. We'll never right the ship unless that changes.
47
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 16:58
A dollar says Jay Leno could find people on the street that actually believe Reagan saved us from the Germans at the Alamo.
I'll not touch that bet. After watching one night when he could find NO ONE (at least who they showed) who recognized the opening line for the Gettysberg Address, but found 3 people who knew "SpongeBob" based on a description of where the character lived...I will no longer underestimate the ignorance of the American Public.
48
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sat, Jul 30, 2011, 22:20
1) The 'new' job creators, aka the consumers buy plenty of chinese goods thus shifting plenty of jobs, eh?
2) Take a second look at who voted for NAFTA and GATT and WTO. It was a bipartisan screwing.
3) Why should we tax Ross Perot to death?
49
Seattle Zen Leader
ID: 055343019 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 00:16
The 'new' job creators, aka the consumers buy plenty of chinese goods thus shifting plenty of jobs, eh?
Try buying American made goods in an area where Walmart has run almost every small retail business out of existence. Blame NAFTA and WTO for the manufacturing exodus if you want (as you insist that American manufacturing could have somehow continued to compete with cheap overseas labor and that cost of living here wouldn't have soared otherwise) but It sounds odd to hear you blame individuals and families for trying to stretch their money as much as possible.
And when were the consumers not the job creators? please tell me about this time when the American job market was flush with employment opportunities at businesses which had no concern for whether anyone would pay for their goods and services.
51
Boldwin
ID: 35615181 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 09:16
There's not that much difference between the CEO of Boeing saying that he just cannot wait until the day when Boeing is no longer considered an american company, and an american who aggressively outsources his purchasing. Same result. Same lack of concern.
52
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 09:33
Medicare and Medicaid fraudsters are beating U.S. taxpayers out of an estimated $90 billion a year - $60 billion of it from Medicare - using a billing scam that is surprisingly easy to execute. Steve Kroft investigates Medicare
53
Mith
ID: 46121210 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 11:49
Same result. Same lack of concern.
You're out of your mind. A CEO's choice to move overseas forces the consumer's hand regarding decisions on how to provide for his family. They are not the same result. One prompts the other.
And your Boeing CEO could leave the company for a gig as a mime in the park tomorrow and still have plenty enough set aside to cover a new BMW for himself every 5 years for the rest of his life.
How could you possibly be so brainwashed as to blow off the different kinds of decisions those people make as the same lack of concern?
54
The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 15:08
This subject is the one thing Trump made sense about. He commented one time about how he'd rather see his kid with 3 plastic dinosaurs made here than have 6 plastic dinosaurs made in China.
BTW, this is not some chicken or the egg riddle. The product has to be made in China first before a consumer can purchase a product made there.
55
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 15:42
Except Clap, Trumps line of Signature shirts....are made in China.
56
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 15:59
The purchase of goods made overseas isn't a losing situation (at least, it is rarely a losing situation). Retailers make money, shippers make money, and the workers of both are making money.
Continuing to subsidize goods with tax money that can be better made elsewhere is almost always a losing situation, however.
57
The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 17:39
The problem Perm Dude is that when good manufacturing jobs with benefits are outsourced (especially in heartland type communities where options are limited) what kinds of jobs fill the void? WalMart greeters and McJobs most likely.
We've got to protect good paying blue collar jobs like they are worth their weight in gold. Jobs are a national resource no different than oil, air and water.
There's got to be a way for the moderately educated (some college or high school degree) to earn some kind of a living. Those are the people most in danger of going on the government programs. Its no secret that this country was at its best when middle America could earn a decent living that involved a home, vacations, and kids.
58
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 18:44
Protect at what cost? I understand the need to not subsidize overseas jobs, but standing in the way of capitalism in general is what you'd do if you had a death wish traveling with you.
Are we worse off because clothing is now made mostly overseas? If we're not including the poor family with 4 kids to clothe in that discussion than we're missing some of the answer.
59
The Clap
ID: 41613226 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:21
It is not the clothing by itself that is killing us. It is the electronics, injection molds, auto parts, tools, and nearly every SKU at WalMart. The sheer volume of it and it is no longer the simple stuff. Nothing is safe anymore and it is killing this country.
60
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Sun, Jul 31, 2011, 21:34
Maybe. My own thoughts on Wal Mart is in the Wal Mart thread.
Too often, the knee jerk reaction of the left to trade and capital policy is protectionist--an answer which hurts those workers, long term, far more than it helps.
The answer to helping the blue collar worker is to foster, encourage and (at times) to pay for flexibility. Education, re-training, and lifelong learning (partially on the taxpayer dime) is a far better long term strategy than in protecting industries which employ blue collar workers from adjusting in ways which involve a loss of traditional jobs.
61
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:33
On some days, the pilots with Great Lakes Airlines fire up a twin-engine Beechcraft 1900 at the Ely, Nev., airport and depart for Las Vegas without a single passenger on board. And the federal government pays them to do it.
Federal statistics reviewed by The Associated Press show that in 2010, just 227 passengers flew out of Ely while the airline got $1.8 million in subsidies. The travelers paid $70 to $90 for a one-way ticket. The cost to taxpayers for each ticket: $4,107.
"They fly the empty plane so they can still get the money," Smith said. ..................... The less money the federal government gets, the less they can waste away. They've shown no ability to be a good custodian of funds and until they do, I'm going to oppose their request for more.
62
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:49
I agree with cutting many subsidies (don't know about this particular one, but there are a lot of ripe fruit there).
The biggest obstacle, however is Grover Nordquist, who holds the insane belief that cutting subsidies is a "tax increase" because it allows the government more revenue it otherwise wouldn't have.
There is no bigger voice on the Right than Nordquist, and his sway over GOP policy is practically pathological.
63
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 15:49
$1,800,000 vs $1,000,000,000,000
One would need to TOTALLY eliminate 500,000+ such expenditurers, to create a 1 trillion dollar cut. Good luck finding $1000 bills, 2 pennys at a time.
64
WiddleAvi
ID: 137361215 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 16:36
I hate that excuse that cutting 1.8 Million is a drop in the bucket (We hear that so often). Who cares ? Any waste should be cut doesn't matter if its only 100k
65
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 16:48
I completely agree. Pretty soon we're talking real money, but we have to start somewhere, if for no other reason than to increase tax wasting vigilance.
66
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 17:06
I agree that waste needs to be trimmed to the extent possible. But I dont think we need to spend much time/effort concerning ourselves with pittances, when there are vast amounts whioh could be cut/reallocated FIRST.
Dont go looking for the penny first, when your books are off by $100.01 at the end of the year. Look for the $100, and worry abvout the penny later.
67
WiddleAvi
ID: 137361215 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 18:53
And thats why nothing will ever get cut because everyone is going to say whats the point of cutting this, it's only a drop in the bucket. Guess what, when looking at the deficit everything is a drop in the bucket.
You know the one, where B7 selectively quoted only THE most extreme example, and did so out of context.
69
Perm Dude
ID: 5510572522 Fri, Aug 12, 2011, 21:24
#67: Actually, the reason things don't get cut a lot is because individual reps all fight hard to bring that money to their district. They just aren't interested in cutting money for their own districts very much, if at all. Tea Party members are just as bad, despite their lip service to cutting spending.
70
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 11:38
Here is the rest of that airline story
You know the one, where B7 selectively quoted only THE most extreme example, and did so out of context.
That is the exact same story as I posted in #61. Exactly. Word for word. The same authors. There is no rest of the story because it is exactly the same story. Nothing was quoted out of context. Selected quotes were copied and pasted because we're not supposed to reprint the entire story. You're a liar and your credibility around here is shot.....I'm referring to sarge33rd in case there is any doubt. If you do it again, I’m putting you on ignore and you and Baldwin can have a nice discussion.
71
sarge33rd
ID: 1964421 Sat, Aug 13, 2011, 12:05
roflmao putting me on ignore? Is there such a thing? Oh and FTR, I dont lie. Used to, always got caught, quit...many years ago.
And I'll plead mea culpa on the repost. Comp here is slower than Palin and I hadnt bothered to look back at your post.
72
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 13:55
The IRS is paying out billions of dollars in fraudulent tax refunds to identity thieves; a problem that the tax service’s inspector general told CNBC is a “growing problem” involving numbers that are increasing “exponentially.”
In a new report to be issued Thursday, the inspector general for the IRS says that tax thieves are stealing the identities of taxpayers and then filing bogus returns on their behalf and collecting fraudulent refunds as a result.
The inspector general estimates that the IRS could issue as much as $21 billion in fraudulent tax refunds over the next five years.
The scam is so rampant that thieves are apparently sending in false returns in bulk without even bothering to change the mailing address on the returns. The inspector general said it found one residential address in Lansing, Michigan that was the source of an astonishing 2,137 tax returns, and to which the IRS directed more than $3.3 million in potentially fraudulent refunds .................... If only someone coud dream up a solution to prevent sending 2137 refunds to the same address.
73
slug
ID: 265522515 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 14:18
So someone steals my identity and files a tax return under my name. IRS issues a refund. What happens when I file the legitimate return? Are they processing & issuing a refund to two returns for my social security number?
74
sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 14:21
ID Theft is the crime here, not the IRS mailing out refunds under legit SSANs. That said, yes, 2k refunds to one address? Simple line of code, maybe 2, checks for that.
75
Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 14:50
They should be coding that today. Yesterday.
76
sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 14:51
I agree entirely.
77
Mith
ID: 23217270 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 15:03
The last paragraph of the linked article suggests they might.
78
Frick
ID: 14082314 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 15:29
Don't the tax refund advance "scams" probably do something similar, (i.e. make you get a paper check sent to their address). If so, having hundreds, if not thousands, of checks sent to the same address is possibly not unusual.
79
sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 15:33
I dont know Frick, that the check can be rerouted. Never done that, so I really dont know how those work.
80
Boldwin
ID: 18643169 Thu, Aug 02, 2012, 16:01
If only someone coud dream up a solution to prevent sending 2137 refunds to the same address.
From the country that runs our elections.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com