Harmony Central Forums
Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Phil Mickelson is PO'ed about his Tax Rates!

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse









X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Phil Mickelson is PO'ed about his Tax Rates!

    Kudos to Tony Nitti.  I had to double-check that this wasn't a C/P from the Onion.

    "To be honest, it

    ____________________________________________
    The Homebrews!http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-rupertamp

    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." -Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

  • #2

    So Lefty is a righty.  Big deal.

    Comment


    • #3
      Oh my, whatever shall we do? How dare we dump such a tax burden on the rich, just because they make 90% of the money!!! -Adam
      Originally Posted by nicholai


      He seems to like bacon a lot......









      Originally Posted by Luigi


      Jesus probably doesn't love everyone, especially ****************************s. He probably wants to punch them but He won't. That's what makes him Jesus.









      Originally Posted by GuitarNoobie


      ...we should be talking about the national debt, the number of incarcerated citizens in this country(the prison industrial complex), the military industrial complex, the so called war on drugs and corporations/banks that are running over people and buying our politicians...

      Comment


      • #4

        lol


        Phil should get in a time machine and go back to the 60's, when tax rates were higher and a tournament winner might pull in 25k.

        http://www.harmonycentral.com/t5/Electric-Guitars/I-smeared-bacon-fat-on-my-strat-now-it-stinks/td-p/16697195

        Comment


        • RogueGnome
          RogueGnome commented
          Editing a comment

          Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth.

           



        • Caulk Rocket
          Caulk Rocket commented
          Editing a comment

          Into Nation wrote:

          lol


          Phil should get in a time machine and go back to the 60's, when tax rates were higher and a tournament winner might pull in 25k.


           

           

           

          He likely wouldn't have paid any more back then.

           

           

           

          A predecessor Minimum Tax was enacted by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[15] and went into effect in 1970. Treasury Secretary Joseph Barr prompted the enactment action with an announcement that 155 high-income households had not paid a dime of federal income taxes.[16] The households had taken advantage of so many tax benefits and deductions that reduced their tax liabilities to zero.[17] Congress responded by creating an add-on tax on high-income households, equal to 10% of the sum of tax preferences in excess of $30,000 plus the taxpayer's regular tax liability.[18]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_Minimum_Tax


        • Minning Around
          Minning Around commented
          Editing a comment

          Into Nation wrote:

          lol


          Phil should get in a time machine and go back to the 60's, when tax rates were higher and a tournament winner might pull in 25k.


          I've followed golf a long, long time and what you say is true. When you look at the money celebreties make nowadays for doing basically nothing it becomes very difficult to feel any remorse for Mr. Mickelson. Taxes is one way we sacrifice for our country. The people who came before him and set up this great system of economic opportunity would be ashamed of Phil's greed.

          Besides, he will always be known as a choker when it came time to beat Tiger.  And personally, I like Phil a lot more than Tiger.


      • #5

        RupertB wrote:

        Kudos to Tony Nitti.  I had to double-check that this wasn't a C/P from the Onion.

        "To be honest, it

        Comment


        • RogueGnome
          RogueGnome commented
          Editing a comment
          mauser wrote:
          Not sure how this nation ever got to the point in which the people believed they had the right to take away the earnings of another person. 

          Income tax is what the government calls it.  Theft is what it'd be called if we did it on an individual basis.

          If you don't have the right to legally do something yourself.....you certainly don't have the right to ask the government to do it for you.

           

           

           

           

          uh, yeah.

          It's called "the Constitution". (More than just a vessle for the 2nd amendment; right to bear arms )

           

          Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:

          Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]
          Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

          The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.

          The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution allows the Congress to levy an income tax


        • mdwagner73
          mdwagner73 commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:

          RupertB wrote:

          Kudos to Tony Nitti.  I had to double-check that this wasn't a C/P from the Onion.

          "To be honest, it


        • Graeca
          Graeca commented
          Editing a comment

          mauser wrote:

          RupertB wrote:

          Kudos to Tony Nitti.  I had to double-check that this wasn't a C/P from the Onion.

          "To be honest, it


      • #6
        PFB: The income tax wasn't created due to a lack of revenue.

        It wasn't needed to pay for things then, and it isn't needed now.

        Do some research on why it was instituted and you might not sound so uninformed.

        Comment


        • #7
          Erok: Same goes for you. Research it and you wont sound so stupid.

          Well....you might.

          Comment


          • #8
            Mdwagner: there was more revenue coming in than could be spent.

            Kinda makes you wonder why they needed income tax.

            Comment


            • mdwagner73
              mdwagner73 commented
              Editing a comment

              mauser wrote:
              Mdwagner: there was more revenue coming in than could be spent.

              Kinda makes you wonder why they needed income tax.

              First they needed it to pay for war costs.  Then they needed it to find a way to even out the tax burden which was being shouldered disproportionately by the less affluent.  Because tariffs and sales taxes are regressive, as I already alluded to. Can you present any logical argument for shifting the burden back to the less affluent?


          • #9
            Rogue: no, I was born after that.

            So the concensus is that if you don't like the government infringong upon you rights and taking your property, move to Somalia.

            Kinda makes me wonder if some of you believe there's any limit to what the government can do. Or, if you believe ratifying an amendment makes anything a-ok.

            Comment


            • splatbass
              splatbass commented
              Editing a comment

              mauser wrote:


              So the concensus is that if you don't like the government infringong upon you rights and taking your property, move to Somalia.



              There is no right not to be taxed on income.


          • #10
            And I'm still looking for a logical explanation of how people we delegate tasks to could possibly have more and different rights than the people who did the delegating. If you believe there should be two sets of rules, one for government and one for the people....then you believe in and support tyranny.

            You can talk about amendments and democracy all you want.....but you can't simply vote away the rights of other people, simply because they stand between you and what you want the government to do.

            Comment


            • moonlightin
              moonlightin commented
              Editing a comment

              mauser wrote:
              And I'm still looking for a logical explanation of how people we delegate tasks to could possibly have more and different rights than the people who did the delegating. If you believe there should be two sets of rules, one for government and one for the people....then you believe in and support tyranny.

              You can talk about amendments and democracy all you want.....but you can't simply vote away the rights of other people, simply because they stand between you and what you want the government to do.

              I don't think you'll find any single person here who things govco folks should have more and better privileges then your avg joe. You have two separate thoughts going on here.


          • #11
            Another Brick: Neither party will ever try to stop it. They're both beholding to the bankers being made wealthy from our tax dollars, not to mention other corporations such as defense contractors.

            People blindly accept being raped by the government and Federal Reserve system, and think it's patriotic.

            Bunch of sheep.

            Comment


            • Another Brick
              Another Brick commented
              Editing a comment
              Good thing you recognize the rich want as much free stuff from the government as do the poor. If only more people did.

          • #12
            Another Brick: they're also more likely to get it.

            Comment



            Working...
            X