Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

LOL.

Sounds about right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
nickerson - I would love to argue with you, but your posts are just far to complicated for my simple talking point brain to understand. Never mind that may own post disproves my original argument regarding Fannie and Freddie. You are just to smart for me, and every time you post I think dirty thoughts and touch myself. I lover you m52nickerson!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson: investment instruments.

...and you have been proven wrong on your argument about the rich and taxes in so many threads it silly. Remember a higher rate does not equal a fair share.

---

Actually, I've not been proven wrong. You're just too stubborn to acknowledge the facts.

And yes, a higher rate does not equal a fair share. It's absolutely UNfair that some should pay a higher rate. On that, we agree.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You're going to have to do your own homework and educate yourself, my friend. I have neither the time or interest to do such work for anyone else beside for me. And especially not for you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Sorry I really can't provide any proof of what I claim, so I concede.

---

Well thank you vary much. I'm glad you realize that everything you just said was backwords.

---

You're a liar. I never said those words. I know you think you're being cute and clever, by fabricating something I never said, and portraying it as a quote , but that's really beyond the pale, and shows just how childish and idiotic a person you are.

---

Quote:

---

Your simplistic chart completely ignores the array of loop holes and exemptions that have come and gone, over the decades.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
Geezer, again: I do NOT rely on "partisan sites

---

Quote:

---

Rule 35: That which does not kill me has made a tactical error

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Rule 35: That which does not kill me has made a tactical error

---

I will be sure to remedy that whenever we meet....

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's a joke.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's a joke.

---

Darn. Sorry. The trace is complete and the hitters are already on the way.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
rappy, I am repeating this so it doesn't get missed.

This is what YOU have said, at various times. I've strung them together for you:

HOORAY!! Bush lowered tax rates .... which really weren't that high to begin with... and as a result the rich are now paying more taxes than ever before!

Like I said: Do you even listen to yourself????

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's a joke.

---

Darn. Sorry. The trace is complete and the hitters are already on the way.

---

So you're threatening people's lives now. Guess that puts you in the same boat as Andrew Breitbart. As if I didn't already know that.

---

Quote:

---

So you hereby vow to NEVER change someone else's words again, and put "Fixed that for ya" below? Really? Promise? Because you do this shit on a regular basis. Funny that you'd whine about someone doing it back to you

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
rappy, I am repeating this so it doesn't get missed.

This is what YOU have said, at various times. I've strung them together for you:

HOORAY!! Bush lowered tax rates .... which really weren't that high to begin with... and as a result the rich are now paying more taxes than ever before!

Like I said: Do you even listen to yourself????

---

Quote:

---

I've never said that the rich are " paying more taxes than ever before

---

Quote:

---

The "rich" have been paying more and more in taxes

---

Quote:

---

The rich are paying FAR more than their fair share. That's a fact.

---

Quote:

---

A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9% in federal income taxes for 2010, while the Obamas paid more than twice that rate — 25.3% (and higher rates than that in 2009 and 2008). And if the $50,000-a-year teacher were in Obama's tax situation — supporting a spouse and two children — he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.
The outcome is the same whether we count payroll taxes or not, and even if we look at what the $50,000 earner will pay on 2011 income. Whatever the assumption, the rates Obama paid were higher — and usually much higher.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-09-28/factcheck-oba
ma-teacher-tax/50589814/1?csp=34news&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+usatoday-NewsTopStories+%28News+-+Top+Stories%29

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:I have no doubt that less than 50% of Americans pay into the system much less than what they take back, given that I was well over poverty and I've barely paid any taxes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The top 1% make about 18% of the income, yet pay 38+ % of the taxes.

They're paying more than their fair share.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Define fair share.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But since you asked me, I'll not dodge the question -
23%

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
It's a joke.

---

Darn. Sorry. The trace is complete and the hitters are already on the way.

---

So you're threatening people's lives now. Guess that puts you in the same boat as Andrew Breitbart. As if I didn't already know that.

---

So posting snippets of a full post is apparently okay if you do it? Why am I not surprised?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But since you asked me, I'll not dodge the question -
23%

---

23% if calculated as an inclusive tax, 30% if calculated as triditional sale tax is, or 34% if you want it to be deficit neutral, but I got it.

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html

I disagree, to me the fair share would be the greatest amount a person could afford while still able to maintain a reasonable good lifestyle. That would mean that I would not have a problem taxing someone making $10 million as year at 50% or more.

---

Quote:

---

The 23 percent FairTax rate set out in HR 25/S 1025 is a tax-inclusive rate, as is the current personal income tax, whereas most state-level sales taxes are quoted on a tax-exclusive basis. For ease of comparison, FairTax.org gives the tax rate both ways. Both rates are relevant, since the FairTax is replacing an income tax system, and 23 percent correctly represents the tax burden compared to the current system. http://www.fairtax.org/site/News2?news_iv_ctrl=1541&page=NewsArticle&i
d=8248

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
The FAIR tax is calculated as inclusive, the same way as taxes are calculated now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Now, you've shifted one arbitrary term 'fair share' to another, a " reasonable good lifestyle ". Based on whose criteria ? Yours ? Mine ? The governments ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
You see, this is what freedom is suppose to be about. I go out , earn what I can / want, what ever. What business is it of the govt if I make 1 million or 50 million ? Why should I be taxed more if I do ok, if I do well, or if I do really kick ass awesome ! I'm still paying taxes, and no matter how much money I have, if I spend it, that creates a need for goods and services, which employs people to provide those things, or if I put it in a bank, they can loan it out to others who need to borrow to build houses , buy cars or start up businesses. ( Didn't you see IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE? )

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I shudder at your suggesting that citizens be forced to pay " the greatest amount they can afford " to the govt. That's just simply horrific, and Orwellian.

That you think we owe that much of our lives to the imperial federal govt.

That's just sad.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Not lives, but money. No one get rich or makes a living on their own. We are all part of society.

No man is an island.

Oh and Orwellian is used to describes something that George Orwell would disagree with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Time = money. The time you spend working to acquire money is a portion of your life. When the govt takes some of YOUR money, it's taking some of YOUR life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:This crap that no one gets rich alone is just that. Crap. By suggesting that ' no man is an island ', you're basically saying that society, govt , has some sort of right to the fruits of his labor. And if you have a 'right' to my labor, my money, you're saying you have a right to a portion of MY life.

I do not hold to that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:And as for Orwellian, form your favorite source, Wikipedia...

"Orwellian" describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being destructive to the welfare of a FREE society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orwellian

Which is exactly why I used that term. Your concept of ownership by the govt over a FREE people is exactly what Orwell was trying to warn us about.

---

Quote:

---

Posted by Rappy:


This crap that no one gets rich alone is just that. Crap. By suggesting that ' no man is an island ', you're basically saying that society, govt , has some sort of right to the fruits of his labor. And if you have a 'right' to my labor, my money, you're saying you have a right to a portion of MY life.

---

Quote:

---

They do have some right to that. Without society there would be no way for a person to get rich. Everyone uses that things that society has provided, roads, laws, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

They do have some right to that. Without society there would be no way for a person to get rich. Everyone uses that things that society has provided, roads, laws, etc.

---

Who is talking 'with out society' ? You don't think we have the right in a free society to succeed and live as we wish ? So long as we don't interfere with the rights of others. And whether anyone is making money " to survive " or what ever, the same rules apply. It's THEIR money, not the govt's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Who is talking 'with out society' ? You don't think we have the right in a free society to succeed and live as we wish ? So long as we don't interfere with the rights of others. And whether anyone is making money " to survive " or what ever, the same rules apply. It's THEIR money, not the govt's.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But I'm wasting my time w/ you. You clearly have taken the blue pill, and can't be told otherwise.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Never did read Animal Farm, did ya ?

I'm guessing not, and if you did, you clearly have forgotten Orwell's message.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Have I complained about you doing this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa, you're doing so in order to show your bias?

---

Quote:

---

Your post would make some sense if I'd complained that you were posting snippets of a full post, and then did the same thing.

---

Quote:

---

And that is a joke

---

Quote:

---

Just because a person gets rich while living in society, doesn't mean he owes anyone any damn thing more than what he's already giving

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Just because a person gets rich while living in society, doesn't mean he owes anyone any damn thing more than what he's already giving.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
To live IN a society, to interact with others, there is a mutual exchange. I make something, you buy it, I take that money, and go buy something else.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
But that's not what you're talking about. YOU think that, in addition to the natural exchange of goods / services, 'society' has the right to then come back and take MORE from me, if I'm doing very well, than they would otherwise. THAT is 'crap'. You're misconstruing the very nature of what it means to live in a FREE society. The 'rich' already pay taxes for roads, fire, police, defense, etc... that's not the issue. YOU'RE talking about penalizing others for doing TOO well.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Have I complained about you doing this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
So when you keep using the out-of-context snippet from Hoffa, you're doing so in order to show your bias?

---

http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=49723

Looks like it.

Quote:

---

Your post would make some sense if I'd complained that you were posting snippets of a full post, and then did the same thing.

---

Guess my post does make sense then, considering that you did complain I was posting snippets and then you left this out of your copy of my post:

Quote:

---

And that is a joke

---

Thanks for conceding the point.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

Just because a person gets rich while living in society, doesn't mean he owes anyone any damn thing more than what he's already giving

---

Huh?

Now here we go again... why do you draw the line at "what he's already giving?" What makes that such a sacred amount? Maybe the current amount isn't enough to cover the actual monetary benefits that person is receiving. Maybe the current amount it's too little. So why not give more? Maybe it's too much. So why not give less?

Also, I'll have to get back to that philosophical point about not owing society anything later. It's too big a topic for my weekday mornings.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I made that perfectly clear, that due taxes for public services are perfectly reasonable. But to then come back , and take MORE from the rich, just because...that's nonsensical.

---

Quote:

---

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it." -- Benjamin Franklin
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise. Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation." -- Thomas Jefferson
"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all. 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches. 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort." -- James Madison
"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came." -- Thomas Paine
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." -- Adam Smith

---

Quote:

---

Everyone who says that they they don't owe the government anything is ignoring one thing even beyond the expenditures for police, fire, roads, schools, et cetera: Your "basic" right to property is absolutely something made up by government and enforced by government. Your contracts are governed by laws that protect both parties. The laws of this country are what enable you to do very basic things with your business that you probably take for granted. Without 'em, you get completely fucked over -- anyone stronger could take your property and you'd have no recourse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Really, you don't pay sales taxes. Do you have a drivers lisence? Did you pay for that? What about the gas tax.

Once again taxes are more then just the federal income tax.

---