Printable View
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439131]The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.[/QUOTE]So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439131]The "private" hospital that you use receives heavily (utility bills would be 400-500% higher without the subsidies) subsidized natural gas, electricity, and water. You are a direct beneficiary of those subsidies.[/QUOTE]Jackson you must be psychic, here is the very argument you predicted.
Does not matter how far down the food chain you are, your're still a moocher according to our liberal / progressive brethren.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439134]So now Jackson is a hypocrite because the private hospital that he pays through his insurance uses subsidized utilities? So what's the solution? How can he quit being a hypocrite? Go live in a cave and never come out?[/QUOTE]The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.
[QUOTE=ElAlamoPalermo;439137]The solution is for Jackson to stop calling US citizens parasites for benefiting from subsidized healthcare. At the point he ceases to be a hypocrite.[/QUOTE][size=3][b]US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites![/b][/size]
Damn that felt good.
Jax.
[QUOTE=Jackson;439138][size=3][b]US citizens (and foreign nationals illegally in the USA) who accept Obamacare subsidies are parasites![/b][/size]
Damn that felt good.
Jax.[/QUOTE]
Very interesting that Jax framed his answer in terms of specific "line item" subsidies, whereas I always suspected Rock was referring to broader subsidies that help lower the costs of healthcare delivery, thereby helping keep individual costs lower. Even more interesting, is that Jax declares calling other people parasites makes him feel good. One wonders if he ever bothers to understand the personal and financial situations of these people, to put a human face on it, or if he is too wrapped up in his ideology to bother, and so just paints everyone with a broad brush.
Hey Jax, do you think it's possible to be a producer and a parasite at the same time? If so, why do you think a producer would also choose to be a parasite?
BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439091]The best examples I can think of are Warren Buffet taking a big hit if the Buffet rule were implemented, and blaming George Bush for tax increases that occurred on January 1, 2013. Maybe in some bizarre, legalistic sense you can make your case. But using common sense, these positions are ridiculous and represent false information. I still don't know whether you actually believe things like this. I'm coming around to Jackson's point of view. You probably don't believe everything you write, but instead are trying to make a case or confuse the issue, like a politician or a very aggressive trial lawyer. You're not necessarily fabricating information, but you are distorting it.[/QUOTE]Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.
Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. I think [I]you[/I] distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes. I know you have a grudge against him because his proposal impacts him much less than someone making only a few million.
I don't think I "blamed" Bush for recent tax increases. In fact I give him and Congress some credit for putting in the sunset provision. But the fact is the sunset provision caused the tax cuts to expire. So if someone is looking to blame someone for those tax rate increases, it would be those who enacted a law with an expiration date. Obama and Congress are responsible for making some of those cuts permanent. BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.
[QUOTE=Jackson;439138]
Damn that felt good.
Jax.[/QUOTE]Your opinion on US Citizens is quite clear. However your opinion on resident aliens in Argentina is not clear; do you believe that resident aliens in Argentina who DO NOT pay personal asset taxes and DO NOT pay personal income tax in Argentina (even though both are legally required of resident aliens) yet benefit directly from heavily subsidized healthcare are parasites?
P.S.: This is a hypothetical situation and not intended to infer that any specific resident alien in Argentina does not pay legally required taxes.
[QUOTE=Esten;439142]BTW, the DNC will not be replacing me. Debbie considers me a strategic asset, and George will continue to fund my trips to help maintain my board cred.[/QUOTE]I knew it! At last, the truth comes out.
[QUOTE=Esten;439143]Tiny, your efforts to step in and help your collegues with their arguments would make Lassie proud. But if that's the best you got, I feel pretty good. These are very thin examples.
Buffett has previously disclosed his personal tax rate is typically somewhere near 15%. Doubling it to 30% would be an additional tax hit of 6-12 M on personal taxable income of 40-80 M (in the ball park of what he has reported before). Yes 6-12 M may not be significant to someone like Buffett, but generally speaking it's a big number, and likely a far bigger hit than your Koch heroes take by not getting an ethanol subsidy. [/QUOTE]Esten, Let's revisit what you wrote most recently about the Buffett rule:
[QUOTE=Esten;438998]Liberals like Buffett and Soros support the Buffett rule, where they would take a significant hit. Tell me when the Kochs start supporting the Buffett rule, and maybe then I'll give them some credit. In the meantime, their free-market "liberty" propaganda will only continue to deceive the LIV, and perpetuate trends in economic inequality.[/QUOTE]Yep, looks like we're coming up with different numbers. Since Buffett is worth about $60 billion, by your estimates he would pay .01% to .02% more of his net worth per annum in income tax if the Buffett Rule, which he has so selflessly promoted, were implemented. My estimate was .009%.
Significant hit? Are you nuts? .01% or .02% of his net worth?
It wouldn't surprise me if Koch Industries' benefit from the ethanol subsidy, which they believe should be eliminated, were one or two orders of magnitude greater than the $6 million Buffett might lose out on annually if his special tax were implemented.
[QUOTE=Esten;439143]I think [I]you[/I] distort the discussion by trying to talk about Berkshire's wealth and corporate taxes, rather than Buffett's personal income and individual taxes.[/QUOTE]
You've got that completely backwards. [b]You're distorting the discussion by focusing only on his personal income and individual taxes and saying he's taking a significant hit, which is ridiculous.[/b] Exactly how does mentioning Berkshire's corporate taxes distort anything? All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire.
[QUOTE=Esten;439143]BTW, you think I always agree with Obama, but I disagree with him on making most of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent. I think that was a really bad move. To keep his campaign promise (not to raise taxes on the middle class), he should have just extended them until the end of his second term. That should have been simple enough. Since raising taxes on the middle class is politically very difficult, future revenue generation will likely again be focused on high earners, though perhaps that was Obama's calculus.[/QUOTE]While I disagree strongly with your belief that higher taxes and higher government spending are good things, it's interesting that you apparently believe what's politically expedient or politically beneficial to Obama and the Democrat Party should outweigh what's best for the country.
The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.
For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.
There is a simple way to have your tax done.
The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.
That would save Millions of dollars.
The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.
[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439151]The simple answer is to enact a flat tax, then we could eliminate nearly all of the IRS. We ALL pay the same, no deductions. Abolish the inheritance tax and corporate tax. The removal of the corporate tax would immediately bring a flood of funds held off shore due to our current tax structure by corporations. Everybody pays.
For our liberal / progressive friends it is about "social justice", whatever that is.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;439152]There is a simple way to have your tax done.
The IRS could do it. For people with no deductions the IRS knows how much taxes you pay. Because it is taken out of your paycheck.
That would save Millions of dollars.
The problem is the Companies that do taxes; Turbo tax, H&R Block, etc. Do not want that. The rich do not want that either, because then they will not be able to claim so many deductions.[/QUOTE]WT69 tows the party line and continues to spread the inaccurate premise it's the evil rich. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to give the IRS more power, or worse yet just tell the IRS to take what they want in tax?
[URL]http://taxfoundation.org/article/what-do-americans-really-pay-income-taxes[/URL]
Very enlightening article about how much we pay in taxes. Top 10% pay 71% of the taxes and liberals still think they are not taxed enough!
By the way, everyone has lost under Obama.
Obama campaigned in 2008 as the uniter not a divider and his would be the most transparent administration in the history of the US. Yet this man continues to attempt to divide the people by race, class, economics, gender and the list goes on. As far as transparency, his has been the worst since Nixon.
When you see the sign The IRS you are not reading it correctly it really means it's all TheIRS
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8[/URL]
Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.
[QUOTE=RevBS;439154][URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/23/bob-dole-says-the-republican-party-is-way-more-conservative-than-it-was-even-20-years-ago-hes-right/?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394&hpid=z8[/URL]
Some of you are smearing the toilet seat these days. Especially those whose poster boy is Cliven Bundy.[/QUOTE]Sounds like a bunch of left wing clap trap to me REV.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;435781]You trot out Warren Buffet. I say he's a self-serving hypocrite. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;439150]All I'm saying is that the guy is not a freeloader, because he does indirectly bear his share of billions in taxes via his ownership in Berkshire. [/QUOTE]You seem to flip-flop on Buffett to suit your purpose. I know you don't like the Buffett Rule, but please review what it is: [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule[/URL].
It only affects personal income. Therefore, it has nothing to do with Berkshire and the taxes Berkshire pays. Any attempt to introduce Berkshire into a discussion of the Buffett Rule is dishonest. Under the rule, Buffett's effective tax rate would increase from about 15% to 30% for income over 1 M. You are trying to switch from a 15% tax hike on his income, to a 0.02% hit on his paper wealth. We can agree to disagree on whether his tax hit is significant or not. But your attempt to conflate discussion of the Buffett Rule is clear for all to see.