Was Pitts right?
in [Golf]
|
From: BAR on 18 Dec 2009 08:09 In article <DICdnX2RsNofkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:30 PM: > > On Dec 17, 6:19 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: > >> > >>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top > >>> 10% pays over 70%? > >> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. > >> > >> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." > >> > >> cb > > > > Gee Chris. That is not correct. According to the source I cited. The > > top 10% brought in 48% of the total adjusted gross income. > > I knew that. But the truth is that the top 10% doesn't pay > anywhere near 70% of all taxes. They just pay 70% of the > taxes you complain about. The regressive ones all seem to > be just fine. > > And of course, Paris Hilton can get by just fine paying > almost no taxes at all, having no need for actual income. > > So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris? You are just envious of those who have more than you. March on class warriors, for soon we shall inherit the earth and we will all be picking berries and living in caves.
From: BAR on 18 Dec 2009 08:11 In article <DICdnX-RsNqpjbbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/17/09 10:03 PM: > > On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > >> Doesn't have to be a lie to be under false pretenses. > > > > yes because it implies deception, > > Yes, but it doesn't make clear who deceived. > > It's moot anyway, because the administration lied repeatedly. > It's in the history books now. Who wrote the history books?
From: Moderate on 18 Dec 2009 08:12 "Chris Bellomy" <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote in message news:DICdnX2RsNofkrbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com... > kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:30 PM: >> On Dec 17, 6:19 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: >>> kenpitts wrote, On 12/17/09 6:04 PM: >>> >>>> Why does the bottom half of tax payers pay almost nothing? And the top >>>> 10% pays over 70%? >>> Because the top 10% makes over 70% of the income. >>> >>> This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Silly Questions." >>> >>> cb >> >> Gee Chris. That is not correct. According to the source I cited. The >> top 10% brought in 48% of the total adjusted gross income. > > I knew that. But the truth is that the top 10% doesn't pay > anywhere near 70% of all taxes. They just pay 70% of the > taxes you complain about. The regressive ones all seem to > be just fine. > > And of course, Paris Hilton can get by just fine paying > almost no taxes at all, having no need for actual income. > > So how do you feel about subsidizing Paris? > > cb Where do you get your information? Why is it consistently contradicted by facts? http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/top-10-percent-of-income-earners-paid-71-percent-of-federal-income-tax.aspx
From: BAR on 18 Dec 2009 08:15 In article <n7GdnbFA16LuhLbWnZ2dnUVZ_g1i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc says... > > Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:50 PM: > > In article <DICdnXmRsNpTjbbWnZ2dnUVZ_s5i4p2d(a)supernews.com>, > > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > > > >> assimilate(a)borg.org wrote, On 12/17/09 10:15 PM: > >>> On 17-Dec-2009, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >>> > >>>>> It should be zero. > >>>> So, you hate people who would succeed on their own merit. > >>> nice false dilema > >> So, you don't see a problem with forcing working people to > >> subsidize the Paris Hiltons of the world? > >> > >> Next time I'll just name a random Kennedy, because working > >> people subsidize them, too, when there is no estate tax. > > > > No, that's specious. > > > > Not taxing someone's property again is not "subsidizing" anyone. > > This whole notion of "taxing someone's property again" is > specious. What happens when you use that money to buy > something? It gets taxed again. When you used to hire > somebody? It gets taxed again. When the guy you bought > that thing from adds it to the bottom line of his business? > It gets taxed again. > > You're just using scare words that have no real meaning > when you go there. Thank you for making the argument that all taxes are insidious and evil.
From: Chris Bellomy on 18 Dec 2009 09:16
Alan Baker wrote, On 12/18/09 2:05 AM: > In article <z_-dnfNr6rQGt7bWnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)supernews.com>, > Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog(a)sirhc> wrote: > >> Alan Baker wrote, On 12/17/09 11:59 PM: >> >>> Nope. The same reasoning works for them. They got the money they have >>> because they made it happen. >> And they made it happen by being big players at Goldman Sachs >> and dumping all their risk on the taxpayer while they collect >> the reward. > > A tiny fraction did that, Chris. Be honest. It's a tiny fraction of people we're discussing, to which went a ton of money. >> Or, they made it happen by using the power bequeathed to them >> by their parents, and the connections power provides, to put >> themselves in position to win lucrative defense contracts from >> the government, again at the expense of the taxpayer. > > Nope. That won't *earn* them money. I suggest you look at executive compensation and share- holder return for certain defense industry corporations over the last decade. >> These are the ultra-elite I'm talking about here. We're talking >> wealth that no one in this group can imagine *seeing*, much >> less making in one year. In case you haven't been paying >> attention, they run the country, and have been running it >> for awhile now. > > You're talking about the politics of envy. No envy. I'm just saying that a permanent oligarchy is bad for the country. I sure as hell don't want to *be* part of the ruling elite. cb |