Zero2Cool
10 years ago

I wouldn't ever agree to a maximum wage for anybody, because that would be very UnAmerican. All they need to do is correct the tax code: no more capital gains taxes - income is income and you pay in the top rate for all your income exceeding X amounts of dollars. No more cap on the Social Security tax, which is currently at $125,000. Wealthy people pay SS tax on all of their income not just the first $125K. And in times of financial crisis the top rate is adjusted to make up the difference. I guarantee you that those politicians will keep their spending in check.

Being born an American shouldn't just be a privilege to some and leave out those that were born in poverty.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



Yeppers, agreed.

I will admit, at first I thought cap those bastards, but how justifiable is that? Think of Bill Gates, he donates BILLIONS of dollars to help others. If we had capped him, would those same billions have gone to help people? If so, would it be more, would it be less?

Regardless, you should be able to earn as much as you can. I just disagree with screwing people over for financial gain.
UserPostedImage
sschind
10 years ago

You don't think that tax code is extremely complicated for the average people do you? Funny how we never get into the nuts and bolts of taxation when we are electing our corrupted leaders. Well, we kind of did with Mittens in '12, but it was dropped suddenly for some reason.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



The tax code is extremely complicated that is why some people don't pay their full share, because of the "complications." Pick something and make everyone follow it. I really don't care what numbers we pick, Some people would think 25% is too high. Others think 35% is too low, that is why I said it was subjective. whatever number we choose someone will think it is unfair. What we need to do is agree on a number and use that number. My guess is that if we picked a number that was even lower than the top rate today and made everyone pay that amount we would have a hell of a lot more money in the treasury. That is what I mean by paying their FULL share. Not "OK I'm in the top bracket, I pay x amount on my income, except this, this is tax free. Oh and that over there, that's only taxable at a much lower rate. Oh, and that big pile in the corner, no one knows I even have that. Seems FAIR to me"

It really shouldn't be that difficult. Maybe not quite as easy as

A) how much did you make
B) send it in.

but income up to a certain amount tax free
between that number and another number 15%
then 25 %
then 33%

I really don't even think it matters what you set the limits at, the key is making everyone pay the full amount that their income level says they should pay.
DakotaT
10 years ago
Graduated tax rates are the most fair, and they are designed in a manner in which you start out life earning a lower salary and as progress through the years and start earning more, you start paying more income taxes. These graduated tax rates are to help a person raise himself up by the bootstraps.

But in our system, since politicians (lawmakers) are now all for sale and this process is technically legal; the wealthy get them to create credits, deductions, and loopholes to avoid taxation. So the people that should be paying the most tax are avoiding it, which is the basis of my 2 year rant with the usual dillholes in this forum that slurp everything the wealthy Republicans spew at them.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago

Graduated tax rates are the most fair, and they are designed in a manner in which you start out life earning a lower salary and as progress through the years and start earning more, you start paying more income taxes. These graduated tax rates are to help a person raise himself up by the bootstraps.

But in our system, since politicians (lawmakers) are now all for sale and this process is technically legal; the wealthy get them to create credits, deductions, and loopholes to avoid taxation. So the people that should be paying the most tax are avoiding it, which is the basis of my 2 year rant with the usual dillholes in this forum that slurp everything the wealthy Republicans spew at them.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



It is still amazing that you are so gullible as to think that there is not 1 single wealthy Democrat who doesn't take advantage of the current tax laws. It is equally amazing that you are so gullible as to think there there is not Democratic support for the current tax laws. That even when the Democrats had majority representation that somehow the Republicans magically passed a bill to change the tax code. Keep believing that all that is wrong with America is because of the Republicans. It is what makes you so cute.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago

It is still amazing that you are so gullible as to think that there is not 1 single wealthy Democrat who doesn't take advantage of the current tax laws. It is equally amazing that you are so gullible as to think there there is not Democratic support for the current tax laws. That even when the Democrats had majority representation that somehow the Republicans magically passed a bill to change the tax code. Keep believing that all that is wrong with America is because of the Republicans. It is what makes you so cute.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



I'm not gullible to anything. Every time Republicans take control of Washington they lower taxes for the wealthy and screw the people needing social programs. I am so sick of this country's hypocrisy of claiming to be Christian nation and then doing the exact fucking opposite in the name of greed. Yes Wayne, there are wealthy Democrats, but at least they pretend to give a shit and throw the needy a bone once in a while.

And what does it matter to you anyway if I chastise the Republicans - you don't claim to be one, right?
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago
all I ask is that you not be a hypocrite and blame both parties equally.

The Republicans could not change the tax codes without help of the Democrats.

From 1955 through 1995 and 2007-2011 the Democrats controlled the House. The Senate from 1955-1981, 87-95, 01-03 and 07-14.

The Republicans have controlled both chambers very little of the time.

You're still cute with your railing.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago

all I ask is that you not be a hypocrite and blame both parties equally.

The Republicans could not change the tax codes without help of the Democrats.

From 1955 through 1995 and 2007-2011 the Democrats controlled the House. The Senate from 1955-1981, 87-95, 01-03 and 07-14.

The Republicans have controlled both chambers very little of the time.

You're still cute with your railing.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



That's why they were called the Bush tax cuts right? Then we went to war on a credit card. Own the shit once.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago

That's why they were called the Bush tax cuts right? Then we went to war on a credit card. Own the shit once.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



You are pissing and moaning about a tax bill that happened 13 years ago? In the past 50 years do you realize how many times there has been "tax reform"? Probably 1000 times. You are cute when you get upset. It does make it hard for you to see straight.

edit- just out of curiosity I went to look and see who voted for the bill in 2001. 12 Democrats voted in favor of the bill including Feinstein. Only 58 Senators voted for it so it would not have passed without bi partition support. The same for the House. 29 Dems votes for it which allowed it to pass. Your beloved people are just as responsible for your hated law.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
10 years ago

You are pissing and moaning about a tax bill that happened 13 years ago? In the past 50 years do you realize how many times there has been "tax reform"? Probably 1000 times. You are cute when you get upset. It does make it hard for you to see straight.

edit- just out of curiosity I went to look and see who voted for the bill in 2001. 12 Democrats voted in favor of the bill including Feinstein. Only 58 Senators voted for it so it would not have passed without bi partition support. The same for the House. 29 Dems votes for it which allowed it to pass. Your beloved people are just as responsible for your hated law.

Originally Posted by: wpr 



And now your beloved Republicans do nothing but block legislation at their country's peril, just to obstruct Count Chocula. And why was there a surplus that allowed those Bush tax cuts in the first place? Because Clinton raised the top rates, just like Obama did a couple years ago. There is a fundamental difference between the two parties when it comes to taxation and social programs. I'll never again vote for the party that values the war machine over social programs that help lower end Americans. And those that do are heartless doucebags. Associate yourself with that shit if you must.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member
10 years ago
You are so cute when you get confused. You remind me of Mateo in the "Listen Linda Honey" video. You don't even know what you are talking about and you change the conversation when you get stuck in a corner.





You blame the wealthy Republicans for all the woes that ever happened to all mankind since the beginning of the world ignoring the fact that there are just as many wealthy Democrats cutting deals and lining their pockets too. You seem to enjoy the line they give out that they want to help the little guy while they stuff their pockets.

You try and point to the Bush 2001 tax cut as your "proof" how evil the Republicans are and I show you that there was very strong support from the Democrats in the Senate and that the bill would not have been passed without their support including Dianne Feinstein who is considered by some as one of the more liberal Democrats. (In the Senate, 48% of those who voted in favor of the bill were Dems.)

As I have said before but you don't listen, I do not associate myself with any political party. I am sure you still do not understand it because you are so busy stammering, "Listen Linda Honey" to comprehend something as simple as that.

Continue on Dear.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (3h) : Packers were not selected for the 2025 Hall of Fame game.
dfosterf (5h) : PFOW Out of our division would be a good thing imo
Zero2Cool (7h) : Jameson Williams is done at 24 years old? What? He's a WR, not QB. I'm missing something here haha
wpr (7h) : Tomorrow is almost here.
packerfanoutwest (7h) : would you want him if Pack needed a back up qb?
packerfanoutwest (7h) : JW is done......stick a fork in him
Zero2Cool (9h) : You should. He goes to AFC that helps Packers.
packerfanoutwest (20h) : don't care
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Lions shopping Jameson Williams?
packerfanoutwest (22-Apr) : Packers General Manager Brian Gutekunst says Green Bay’s roster can win, even without adding anyone in the draft.
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : It's a poor design. New site has SignalR like our gameday chat
wpr (22-Apr) : Ah today's Shout was very quick to post.
wpr (22-Apr) : now 3
Zero2Cool (22-Apr) : Who? What?
beast (22-Apr) : What is he supposed to say? He doesn't want players currently on the team?
Martha Careful (21-Apr) : meh
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : Sounds like Walker and Wyatt will be with Packers for beyond 2026
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : It's so awesome.
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : new site fan shout post fast
wpr (21-Apr) : Slow posting in Fan shout.
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
wpr (21-Apr) : Only 4
Zero2Cool (21-Apr) : If only we had a topic to read about and discuss it. That's something new website must have!!!
dfosterf (21-Apr) : Justice Musqueda over at Acme Packing put up an excellent synopsis of the Packers 1st round options this am
wpr (19-Apr) : 5 days
beast (18-Apr) : 6 days
wpr (17-Apr) : 7 days
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : sounds like Packers don't get good compensation, Jaire staying
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Nobody coming up with a keep, but at x amount
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Trade, cut or keep
dfosterf (16-Apr) : that from Jaire
dfosterf (16-Apr) : My guess is the Packers floated the concept of a reworked contract via his agent and agent got a f'
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Yes, and that is why I think Rob worded it how he did. Rather than say "agent"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Same laws apply. Agent must present such an offer to Jaire. Cannot accept or reject without presenting it
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : I'm thinking that is why Rob worded it how he did.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The Packers can certainly still make the offer to the agent
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Laws of agency and definition of fiduciary responsibility
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Jaire is open to a reduced contract without Jaire's permission
dfosterf (16-Apr) : The agent would arguably violate the law if he were to tell the Packers
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : That someone ... likely the agent.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : So, Jaire has not been offered nor rejected a pay reduction, but someone says he'd decline.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovksy says t was direct communication with someone familiar with Jaire’s line of thinking at that moment.
Zero2Cool (16-Apr) : Demovsky just replied to me a bit ago. Jaire hasn't said it.
dfosterf (16-Apr) : Of course, that depends on the definition of "we"
dfosterf (16-Apr) : We have been told that they haven't because he wouldn't accept it. I submit we don't know that
dfosterf (16-Apr) : What is the downside in making a calculated reduced offer to Jaire?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers are receiving interest in Jaire Alexander but a trade is not imminent
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Jalen Ramsey wants to be traded. He's never happy is he?
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : two 1sts in 2022 and two 2nd's in 2023 and 2024
Zero2Cool (15-Apr) : Packers had fortunate last three drafts.
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
37m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Packers Draft Threads / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

17-Apr / Random Babble / wpr

13-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

12-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

11-Apr / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Rockmolder

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1-Apr / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

31-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.