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
Martha Careful (19h) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (19h) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (23h) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
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
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

19h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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