Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 1218192021222324 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 349

Thread: 59% support AOC's plan to raise top bracket to 70%

  1. #316 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It is not a false argument to not comment on every argument you made.
    Yes it is. It's your primary tactic here.

    You deliberately withhold information, you consistently act in bad faith, you shift goalposts, and then you construct false straw man arguments.

    So that makes you a pretty shitty person.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  2. #317 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    11,869
    Thanks
    6,396
    Thanked 4,386 Times in 3,225 Posts
    Groans
    57
    Groaned 189 Times in 178 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    If you think taxes are punishment, then your parents did a shit job raising you.
    I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool. I have been at the same job for 30 yrs and have worked my ass off to move up in the company and for what so you can give lazy asses like yourself a raise screw you. Go back to moms basement and play your video games because you won't make it in the real world. We have trouble finding people to work because they have the unreal expectation of getting something, for nothing well done jackass.

  3. #318 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    Why should the successful who create jobs be punished at some point the risked everything and now you want to punish them? What a tool!
    Since you cannot make an economic or fiscal argument in your defense, you seek to shift the debate to emotions.

    Keep your emotions in check and smile more! You'll probably find a man easier and won't have to be a spinster!
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  4. #319 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool. I have been at the same job for 30 yrs and have worked my ass off to move up in the company and for what so you can give lazy asses like yourself a raise screw you. Go back to moms basement and play your video games because you won't make it in the real world. We have trouble finding people to work because they have the unreal expectation of getting something, for nothing well done jackass.
    You are just a posturing jackass who was so stupid, you got conned by a reality TV show host.

    Your parents failed. They were garbage people who raised a garbage child into a garbage adult.

    There is no need for your voice to be heard in the public debate anymore.

    There is no need for you to have representation in government.

    You don't want to be a part of society, fine.

    Isolate yourself and withdraw from society.

    You won't be missed.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  5. #320 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    The share of the income they got is not proportional to the share of taxes they paid.
    I know. The share of federal income taxes they paid is higher than their share of income.

    Top 1% (2015)

    20.65% Share of AGI
    39.04% Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid

    [IRS: Statistics of Income, Individual Income Rates, and Tax Shares, 2017]

  6. #321 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    11,869
    Thanks
    6,396
    Thanked 4,386 Times in 3,225 Posts
    Groans
    57
    Groaned 189 Times in 178 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Since you cannot make an economic or fiscal argument in your defense, you seek to shift the debate to emotions.

    Keep your emotions in check and smile more! You'll probably find a man easier and won't have to be a spinster!
    I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool. Learn it live it love it you will feel better about yourself.

    Here is a video you should watch this has to be you!

    https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-l...ons-ii/3506378

    I am a man you little prick, you are a soy boy! It's evident when you threaten people, and then walk it back you yellow spined coward!

  7. #322 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I know. The share of federal income taxes they paid is higher than their share of income.
    They paid a 242% tax rate???

    Nope.

    They paid a much lower rate than that.

    Furthermore, none of this is an economic or fiscal argument against tax increases on the rich.

    You're trying to shift the grounds of the debate to fairness.

    Top 1% (2015)
    20.65% Share of AGI
    39.04% Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid
    We're not talking about their share in a vacuum, we're talking about how their share got to 20.65%.

    Just curious, what was the 1% share of AGI in 1980? Do you have that number, or did you leave it out like you usually do because it undermines your argument?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  8. #323 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    How many republicans refused the money over the years ?
    No candidates (Democrat or Republican) refused federal funding for the general election until Obama in 2008. In 2012 and 2016 neither candidate took the money because they could raise and spend much more than they could under the law (about $150 million vs. $1.22 billion in 2012).

    Some Democratic and Republican candidates refused the federal matching funds for the nomination process during the latter years of federal funding.

  9. #324 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I know. The share of federal income taxes they paid is higher than their share of income.

    Top 1% (2015)

    20.65% Share of AGI
    39.04% Percent of Federal Income Taxes Paid

    [IRS: Statistics of Income, Individual Income Rates, and Tax Shares, 2017]
    So here's another great example of how you lie in the most insidious way possible.

    You present a number, in a vacuum, and try to establish that as the source of the debate.

    But the debate isn't about what their share of the AGI is in 2015, the debate is about how their share grew from what it was in 1980 to what it was in 2015.

    That is what you leave out; the context.

    And it's obvious why you leave that context out...because if you included it, you would have to show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 2015 is much, much higher than what their share was in 1980. Because of that, you can show how much their share of the AGI grew over the 35 years of trickle down Consertvative economics.

    By leaving that context out, you inadvertently do two things:

    1) Prove my point that you act in bad faith.
    2) Undermine and discredit your own argument.

    So again, I have to ask why do you do that?

    I really believe it's a mental illness thing with you. I think you are mentally ill. No one would stoop to levels that low, and no one would employ bad faith tactics that insidious unless they were mentally ill.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  10. #325 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wolverine View Post
    I believe no one should be taxed more than anyone else, it's called coveting when you do, you want more earn more you useless tool.
    So emotional!

    Try smiling more, you'll look prettier.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  11. #326 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    They paid a 242% tax rate???

    Nope.

    They paid a much lower rate than that.

    Furthermore, none of this is an economic or fiscal argument against tax increases on the rich.

    You're trying to shift the grounds of the debate to fairness.



    We're not talking about their share in a vacuum, we're talking about how their share got to 20.65%.

    Just curious, what was the 1% share of AGI in 1980? Do you have that number, or did you leave it out like you usually do because it undermines your argument?
    No, you are not reading again or checking the links (which you complain about when I don't give documentation).

    The income of the top 1% increased 242% between 1979-2015.

    I left out 1980? I also left out 1981 and every other year until 2015. You expect me to list every year? I used 1979 because the IRS data goes from 1979-2015. We have already been through this 2-3 times--must be short-term memory loss.

    I never shifted the grounds. You falsely claimed the top gained 100% of the income so I posted income shares to show how full of BS you are. So, you brought up income gains.

  12. #327 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    No, you are not reading again or checking the links (which you complain about when I don't give documentation).
    Your post contained no link.

    When I cut and paste what you "sourced" in your post, it didn't bring me to any page where you got that info.

    And it's important to include 1980's 1% share of AGI because that will show how much it grew over 35 years of trickle-down.

    You held it back because you knew that it would be much lower than their share of AGI in 2015.

    Admit it, that's why you held it back.

    My argument was that the 1% saw all the income gains in the years of your trickle down. You posted some bullshit about how their share of AGI in 2015 was about 20%. But you didn't post what their share of AGI was in 1980, before the trickle down and transfer of income started so we can see how much their share grew. I contend you held that info out because it would show that their share of AGI grew at the expense of everyone else. And since you refused to post what that 1980 number is, we can safely assume you withheld it because it would show how much their share of AGI grew after tax cuts.

    So I gotta ask again, why do you do that?

    Why do you post things in a vacuum and then try to argue them without context, and why do you continually hold back information that is damaging to your argument?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  13. #328 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    So here's another great example of how you lie in the most insidious way possible.

    You present a number, in a vacuum, and try to establish that as the source of the debate.

    But the debate isn't about what their share of the AGI is in 2015, the debate is about how their share grew from what it was in 1980 to what it was in 2015.

    That is what you leave out; the context.

    And it's obvious why you leave that context out...because if you included it, you would have to show that the 1%'s share of AGI in 2015 is much, much higher than what their share was in 1980. Because of that, you can show how much their share of the AGI grew over the 35 years of trickle down Consertvative economics.

    By leaving that context out, you inadvertently do two things:

    1) Prove my point that you act in bad faith.
    2) Undermine and discredit your own argument.

    So again, I have to ask why do you do that?

    I really believe it's a mental illness thing with you. I think you are mentally ill. No one would stoop to levels that low, and no one would employ bad faith tactics that insidious unless they were mentally ill.
    Now you are changing the debate to how their share of income grew and the context?

    We were discussing the share of taxes paid by the wealthy, their tax rate, their share of taxes vs. share of income. When I showed you were wrong about the wealthy paying a smaller percent of taxes than their share of the income, you drop that argument and switch to context.

    If I made the same illogical arguments you make your anger would erupt (if it ever goes away) and we would hear accusations about "changing the goal posts," "sophistry," and "bad faith."

  14. #329 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,527
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,570 Times in 17,095 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    People should not discuss the problem until they are educated about the facts. Wealth gap has to be addressed quickly.

  15. #330 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    We can ban it with a Constitutional Amendment.

    So you just choose to ignore the things you cannot explain.

    What a fucking fraud.
    I only ignore things that are stupid or impossible. Nobody is going to amend the Constitution to restrict free speech or the freedom of Americans to contact their elected representatives.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-31-2017, 03:58 AM
  2. How Romney's Tax Plan Could Raise Middle-Class Taxes
    By signalmankenneth in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2012, 05:11 PM
  3. GOP plan to cut taxes on the rich & raise them on the 99%
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-09-2011, 03:57 AM
  4. Cain: My 9-9-9 plan will raise taxes ....
    By Guns Guns Guns in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-16-2011, 01:39 PM
  5. Obama's healthcare plan: why we should support it
    By Cancel 2018. 3 in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 08-11-2009, 05:10 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •