If I was ever liberal, I certainly am not now

[burdizzos]

Originally posted by bbl Anyone who is still believes that liberals support more gov't spending and taxation needs a reality check. Another example of "If you repeat it enough, people will start believing it." I noticed that the 78pbass mentioned supporting social programs without mentioning the Iraq war. OK.

I agree that using the word "liberal" was a poor choice of words. Perhaps he should have used some other generalization for big gov't.


The republicans haven't done a single thing to convince anyone that they aren't big spenders. They've dropped more cash on bull{censored} social programs than any lefty could hope for. Then there's the amount of money that's been pissed away with the war.

I'm hoping for a shift of power in the house this fall.

[Emprov]

Originally posted by bbl Anyone who is still believes that liberals support more gov't spending and taxation needs a reality check.

 

Is it not fair to say that liberals tend to support more govt programs though?

[bholder]

Originally posted by burdizzos I'm NOT defending hawhuff, but could you show me where money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich?

 

 

Huge tax givebacks to the rich while cutting social programs that benefit the poor are often perceived as such.

 

But perhaps more appropos, as mention by someone else, it's really the middle class that foots the bill, the truly wealthy usually find ways out of paying their taxes.

 

And Jazz's point about exploitation of the poor for benefit of the rich is valid as well.

[burdizzos]

Originally posted by bholder Huge tax givebacks to the rich while cutting social programs that benefit the poor are often perceived as such. But perhaps more appropos, as mention by someone else, it's really the middle class that foots the bill, the truly wealthy usually find ways out of paying their taxes. And Jazz's point about exploitation of the poor for benefit of the rich is valid as well.

 

 

 

So because one group is paying less and another group is getting less, the latter group is somehow giving to the former?

 

 

The IRS data directly contradicts the idea that the middle class foots the bill, we've been over this before, but you still spout this off as it it's fact.

 

 

At its core the free market system is exploitive, but it produces more wealth than any other system so the net effect is more money such that even those who are poor, really aren't that bad off.

[lug]

Originally posted by bholder Huge tax givebacks to the rich while cutting social programs that benefit the poor are often perceived as such.

 

 

Burdizzos asked *show me where money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich?*

 

Now reread that and show where it costs the poor THEIR money. It causes the poor to spend less of the Middles and Rich's money, nothing else.

[bbl]

Originally posted by 78pbass ... the more I earn, the less I get.

 

 

Not true, not until your taxable income exceeds about $125K (married) or $150,000 (single) a year. Does it?

 

Looks like you're either in the 25% or 28% bracket, depending on your situation.

 

I think 28% is quite fair for what we get in return in this country.

[lug]

Originally posted by bbl Not true, not until your taxable income exceeds about $125K (married) or $150,000 (single) a year. Does it? Looks like you're either in the 25% or 28% bracket, depending on your situation. I think 28% is quite fair for what we get in return in this country.

 

 

Sure. Now charge EVERYBODY that and then we can talk about "fair"

[Emprov]

Originally posted by bbl Not true, not until your taxable income exceeds about $125K (married) or $150,000 (single) a year. Does it? Looks like you're either in the 25% or 28% bracket, depending on your situation. I think 28% is quite fair for what we get in return in this country.

 

 

What does that have to do with anything? Are you thinking that it gets less fair if he exceeds those amounts?

[niomosy]

Originally posted by chris-dax Here you go.....

That's a pretty good read, Chris. I'll give you points for that one

[78pbass]

Originally posted by bbl Not true, not until your taxable income exceeds about $125K (married) or $150,000 (single) a year. Does it? Looks like you're either in the 25% or 28% bracket, depending on your situation. I think 28% is quite fair for what we get in return in this country.

Not true, etntirely in my case. the commission taxable base is annualized, so I am taxed on my anomaly commission as though its the norm. you were right, It was at 28%. my next check will be back at 25%, because it will be back to my normal.

So in this case, the more I earn in commissions, the less I get of it. Incenting, isn't it

[bholder]

Originally posted by lug Burdizzos asked *show me where money is being taken from the poor and given to the rich?* Now reread that and show where it costs the poor THEIR money. It causes the poor to spend less of the Middles and Rich's money, nothing else.

 

 

I said "is perceived as such", I didn't say I was agreeing or disagreeing. While it's true that it's not the poor's money we're discussing in that particular case, it is true that money that was once going to the poor is now being given back to the rich. Are you arguing that? In any case, the main difference of opinion seems to be that you guys think that's right, and I think, in most cases, that it is wrong.

 

The huge tax givebacks to the wealthy have not resulted in "a rising tide that lifts all boats" as promised, it's resulted in the gap getting wider, and I think that is completely wrong. It's just more trickle down theory crap, which has been proven wrong time and time again.

 

I'm not saying that some, perhaps many, social programs are not wasteful, but this administration has gutted them all pretty equally, and wasted far more money on useless quests that have only gotten us in more trouble.

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be on the poor side of the equation personally, I'm definitely on the upper side of the middle, and probably pay more taxes (both in absolute value and as a percentage of my income) than the great majority of people on this board. Yes, it pisses me off, but I honestly don't mind paying more than someone less fortunate, as long as the money is spent appropriately (which it most definitely is not).

[bbl]

Originally posted by 78pbass what, exactly does that mean? I omitted my thoughts on that subject to avoid tangential arguments.

 

 

It means that Republicans support huge government spending. Look who's in charge, right now, and look both at the level of spending and at HOW your tax dollars are being spent. Those "social programs" aren't to blame for your increasing tax bill.

 

You cannot prove that liberal policies increase your tax bill more than conservative policies. Both "tax and spend" and "borrow and spend" result in higher taxes eventually.

[78pbass]

Oh, yeah - the more we earn, the less we get:
http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=133517,00.html

Schedule Y-1

[Jazz Ad]

Originally posted by burdizzos The IRS data directly contradicts the idea that the middle class foots the bill, we've been over this before, but you still spout this off as it it's fact.

It depends on the point of view.

Middle class people give a lower part of their income to the system than the rich but it impairs them a lot more.

Poorer people either don't pay taxes or get a lot more back through assistance and services.

Regardless of varying rates, the more taxes you pay the more you have left in the end. I hardly see it as a base for complaining.

Richer people pay for poorer people. It seems fair and logical to me but yeah, you could always choose another kind of society.

At its core the free market system is exploitive, but it produces more wealth than any other system so the net effect is more money such that even those who are poor, really aren't that bad off.

It is bad if no regulation system is put into place, then wealth entirely goes to the rich. The biggest income is generated by investments (stock options, trades), not salaries, even for the highest positions in a company.

[bbl]

Originally posted by Emprov Is it not fair to say that liberals tend to support more govt programs though?

 

 

How could that be a fair statement? All you need to do is look at what's happening right now to see that it isn't.

 

Your statement is clear, easy to disgest, and untrue. A great political soundbite. Just like "Dems are soft on defense."

[burdizzos]

Originally posted by bholder I said "is perceived as such", I didn't say I was agreeing or disagreeing. While it's true that it's not the poor's money we're discussing in that particular case, it is true that money that was once going to the poor is now being given back to the rich. Are you arguing that? In any case, the main difference of opinion seems to be that you guys think that's right, and I think, in most cases, that it is wrong. The huge tax givebacks to the wealthy have not resulted in "a rising tide that lifts all boats" as promised, it's resulted in the gap getting wider, and I think that is completely wrong. It's just more trickle down theory crap, which has been proven wrong time and time again. I'm not saying that some, perhaps many, social programs are not wasteful, but this administration has gutted them all pretty equally, and wasted far more money on useless quests that have only gotten us in more trouble. And don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming to be on the poor side of the equation personally, I'm definitely on the upper side of the middle, and probably pay more taxes (both in absolute value and as a percentage of my income) than the great majority of people on this board. Yes, it pisses me off, but I honestly don't mind paying more than someone less fortunate, as long as the money is spent appropriately (which it most definitely is not).

 

 

 

That last part is where we completely agree, almost. You don't mind paying when the money is spent correctly and you honestly believe that if the right people were in charge, the gov't would spend it correctly. I know that there's no way the federal gov't will get it right, so I don't think they should be collecting the money in the first place.

 

I am 100% in favor of some very liberal social programs, but I think they should be handled at the state level to allow informed voters to keep on top of those who would {censored} it up.

[78pbass]

Originally posted by bbl It means that Republicans support huge government spending. Look who's in charge, right now, and look both at the level of spending and at HOW your tax dollars are being spent. Those "social programs" aren't to blame for your increasing tax bill. .

 

 

Again, i omitted by design. I never said I was going to the other side did I? Stop assuming.

 

I have always had Libertarian leanings, but at this point I am against spenders. As a (soon to be) registered Democrat (aka, social and economic liberal) I was for things that come out of taxes, now I less for those that are attuned to being cheated adn that act as sieves.

[lug]

Originally posted by bholder The huge tax givebacks to the wealthy have not resulted in "a rising tide that lifts all boats" as promised,

Have you checked the economy lately? As far as givebacks, everybody got $600. The guy that payed in $3000 AND the guy that payed in $200,000. Despite the spin, the Rich did not really get much of a break there. They talk percents when it suits them and real dollars when it doesn't. Also the term GIveback should clue libs in on whose money it was in the first place. I've seen people rail againt the ultra poor not getting the $600 tax rebate despite the fact that THEY DIDN'T PAY ANY TAX IN THE FIRST PLACE.

[Emprov]

Originally posted by bbl How could that be a fair statement? All you need to do is look at what's happening right now to see that it isn't. Your statement is clear, easy to disgest, and untrue. A great political soundbite. Just like "Dems are soft on defense."

 

 

I wasn't saying it was or it wasn't fair, I was asking you a question. In any case, all things considered, (and based on what I've seen), the Democratic party contains or is supported by more special interest groups than is the Republican party, each with their own agenda. It follows that these agenda would turn into programs at some point.

[niomosy]

Originally posted by burdizzos That last part is where we completely agree, almost. You don't mind paying when the money is spent correctly and you honestly believe that if the right people were in charge, the gov't would spend it correctly. I know that there's no way the federal gov't will get it right, so I don't think they should be collecting the money in the first place. I am 100% in favor of some very liberal social programs, but I think they should be handled at the state level to allow informed voters to keep on top of those who would {censored} it up.

 

 

Aren't a number of programs already handled at the state level? Granted, the Fed still takes the largest chunk of your paycheck.

[bbl]

Originally posted by 78pbass Not true, etntirely in my case. the commission taxable base is annualized, so I am taxed on my anomaly commission as though its the norm. you were right, It was at 28%. my next check will be back at 25%, because it will be back to my normal. So in this case, the more I earn in commissions, the less I get of it. Incenting, isn't it

I think you're confusing "tax" with "withholding." The Feds withhold more when your commission check is larger, but you're not paying more tax on your larger checks.

So the Feds are withholding more than you'll actually pay, which sux, but there's a lot you can do to make sure your annual tax bill = annual withholdings.

A lot of people are happy when they get a large refund, but in reality, they've given the gov't an interest-free loan.

[lug]

Originally posted by bbl I think you're confusing "tax" with "withholding." The Feds withhold more when your commission check is larger, but you're not paying more tax on your larger checks. So the Feds are withholding more than you'll actually pay, which sux, but there's a lot you can do to make sure your annual tax bill = annual withholdings. A lot of people are happy when they get a large refund, but in reality, they've given the gov't an interest-free loan.

 

 

yup

[Crescent Seven]

Originally posted by lug Have you checked the economy lately? As far as givebacks, everybody got $600.

I bought a pound of pot with that $600 and turned it into $1300.
C7

[bbl]

Originally posted by Emprov I wasn't saying it was or it wasn't fair, I was asking you a question. In any case, all things considered, (and based on what I've seen), the Democratic party contains or is supported by more special interest groups than is the Republican party, each with their own agenda. It follows that these agenda would turn into programs at some point.

When I say "fair statement" I mean "true statement."

Fair enough.

[bbl]

Originally posted by Crescent Seven I bought a pound of pot with that $600 and turned it into $1300. C7

Tax free!