Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

14.1%


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
149 replies to this topic

#25 saX man

saX man

    halt the tomfoolery

  • Joined: 09-September 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,245
  • Reputation: 388
HUDDLER

Posted 21 September 2012 - 09:48 PM

I enjoy the political threads in the Tinderbox, but the only thing I can take away from any of them are that...

A. Obama sucks
B. Romney sucks
C. I have no faith in politicians in general

Random post, cool story bro, etc...but just felt like saying it.


As a lurker, I enjoy the alien ones the best

they at least provoke conversation rather than: link + anti-(insert politician here) line

#26 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 23,826
  • Reputation: 3,110
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:32 AM

So success now is defined as paying more taxes? I call that stupidity. It's a game of accounting. You play by the rules and use the deductions etc that are there and work it down.

And let's define "fair share" shall we? What is that? How do you reach that #?

#27 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,867
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:38 AM

You all are missing the point, If all this is true then why not just release, you know, the "long form"? I hear that solves everything.

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,867
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:42 AM

http://www.huffingto..._n_1904573.html

When he loses he can always go back and do this.

#29 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,867
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:44 AM

This is probably closer to what he did in previous years and would explain why we are not going to see those returns. And it's nothing to do with whats legal or smart - its about the fact that the rich are benefitted FAR MORE with our tax codes than the sniveling, entitled, freeloading government dependent poor.

#30 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,867
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:47 AM

http://money.cnn.com....html?hpt=hp_t2

Why this 20 year thing is pretty much bullshit.

#31 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,131
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:23 AM

This is probably closer to what he did in previous years and would explain why we are not going to see those returns. And it's nothing to do with whats legal or smart - its about the fact that the rich are benefitted FAR MORE with our tax codes than the sniveling, entitled, freeloading government dependent poor.



Unless said poor qualify for earned income credit (and the majority of poor do), in which case they can get more more back than they pay in (even when including social security and medicare taxes). At very least, they pay very little overall in total federal taxes.

The tax code, in the confusing and halting style in which it is written, actually favors the poor more than it does the wealthy. And I am not complaining about that, but both do better regarding federal taxes than those making between 40-200 or so thousand a year.

#32 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,867
  • Reputation: 2,555
SUPPORTER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:43 AM

The rich use tax accountants and paid for rules to save millions, then they put it into tax havens. The poor might get a few thousand they use to buy things they need, helping the economy.

#33 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,333
  • Reputation: 5,879
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:55 AM

The rich use tax accountants and paid for rules to save millions, then they put it into tax havens. The poor might get a few thousand they use to buy things they need, helping the economy.


God you and the other flaming liberals in here are truly fuging idiots.

His effective rate was 14% because he donated nearly 1/3 if his income to charity. He donated to help people who need help. If he was a greedy bastard, he would have just not made those donations and paid a higher effective tax rate. If he had done that, he would have netted more money.

Your hatred blinds you to logic....it more likely you are just an angry and plain dumb person.

#34 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 18,131
  • Reputation: 1,529
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 09:58 AM

The rich use tax accountants and paid for rules to save millions, then they put it into tax havens. The poor might get a few thousand they use to buy things they need, helping the economy.


Or the rich buy expensive cars, houses, vacation homes etc which help the econom... while the poor give it coke dealers which helps the columbian economy.


Fwiw, neither my statement nor yours is correct. Each individual person handles it differently, according to his or her own desires, experience, upbringing and beliefs. I have known both wealthy and poor people and there really isn't any, all rich people do this, or all poor people do that standard.

#35 SuperMan

SuperMan

    I'm always holding back.

  • Joined: 12-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,265
  • Reputation: 141
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 10:43 AM

God you and the other flaming liberals in here are truly fuging idiots.

His effective rate was 14% because he donated nearly 1/3 if his income to charity. He donated to help people who need help. If he was a greedy bastard, he would have just not made those donations and paid a higher effective tax rate. If he had done that, he would have netted more money.

Your hatred blinds you to logic....it more likely you are just an angry and plain dumb person.


Trying to have a logical discussion with a liberal is a lost cause.

The average liberal IQ is well below the curve.

#36 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,176
  • Reputation: 5,288
HUDDLER

Posted 22 September 2012 - 11:08 AM

God you and the other flaming liberals in here are truly fuging idiots.

His effective rate was 14% because he donated nearly 1/3 if his income to charity. He donated to help people who need help. If he was a greedy bastard, he would have just not made those donations and paid a higher effective tax rate. If he had done that, he would have netted more money.

Your hatred blinds you to logic....it more likely you are just an angry and plain dumb person.

He didn't donate to people who need help, he tithed to the Church of Mormon. There's a difference.