Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Plagerizin' Joe, when are you gonna do your patriotic duty?Follow

#1 Sep 18 2008 at 7:01 PM Rating: Default
*****
16,160 posts
Ol' Joe told us today he believes it's our patriotic duty to pay more taxes. Or rather, more specifically, he believes it's wealthy American's duty to pay higher taxes than they are paying now.

The trouble is, considering he thinks it is a duty, this is something which should not require a change in the tax law, but should come from the patriotic American's heart-- someone, I assume, like Plagerizin' Joe. I wonder if he has begun doing his duty and started giving a higher percentage of his considerable earnings to the US Treasury yet?

Of course, we need to define what wealthy is, right? Would his two to three million in assets or his Congressional salary be considered wealthy?

And how much more does one such patriotic American pay more than what is required? Does this mean he should forego tax shelters like the Black Neo uses extensively? Or should such a patriotic American just lop off, say, 50% off the top and hand it over to the gubmint?

I'm curious, because he wasn't very clear on the specifics, just that he holds this opinion. Perhaps I need to have a discussion with Joe on what "duty" means. As a non-military man, I don't think he quite understands what all that entails. I'd be happy to enlighten him.

Totem
#2 Sep 18 2008 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Totem wrote:
I wonder if he has begun doing his duty and started giving a higher percentage of his considerable earnings to the US Treasury yet?


I believe that according to the $250,000/year middle class threshold agreed upon by both candidates--correct me if I am wrong--he isn't rich. Unless of course you wish to dig into his taxes and show me any huge investments he may/may not have.
#3 Sep 18 2008 at 7:17 PM Rating: Default
*****
16,160 posts
Ahhh, convenient of the Black Neo'a campaign to stick it others before they themselves spread their a$$ cheeks for the same treatment. Funny how it's always the other guys who are due for some pain and never the ones who dream this **** up...

Totem
#4 Sep 18 2008 at 7:17 PM Rating: Good
Didn't Biden and his wife make a combined total of $320K last year?

Which isn't a bad deal at all, but for the DC area, and for a Senator, he's a pauper. 2nd poorest dude in the Senate. (And the only reason Obama is ahead of him is cuz of two successful books.)

Even Jesus said to pay your damn taxes. They liked road improvement projects back in ancient Israel, too, even when they were occupied by Roman forces.
#5 Sep 18 2008 at 7:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Totem wrote:
Perhaps I need to have a discussion with Joe on what "duty" means. As a non-military man, I don't think he quite understands what all that entails. I'd be happy to enlighten him.

Is it part of your military "duty" to weild your veteran status like an infallible club, with which you admonish anyone who hasn't served?

Seems like if serving was truly patriotic duty, it would be its own reward rather than a talking point, and you'd exercise a humble modesty about it.


#6 Sep 18 2008 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

At any rate, wealthy people already pay a higher tax rate. So it's already their duty, if you use the "by law" or "by social obligation" definition of duty.

#7 Sep 18 2008 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
Even Jesus said to pay your damn taxes. They liked road improvement projects back in ancient Israel, too, even when they were occupied by Roman forces.


The funny thing about that is that before Judea was conquered and turned into a Roman province, all Jews paid an annual tributary tax to the Temple as a form of religious observance. When the Romans took they kept the tax, they just renamed it and took the money for themselves to put towards building infrastructure in the province.

It meant that the Jewish religious system got less money, the Romans got more money, and the poor people paid the exact same amount of money they'd been paying every year for ages and ages, meaning they weren't about to complain considering it could have been way worse.
#8 Sep 18 2008 at 7:40 PM Rating: Default
***
1,784 posts
#9 Sep 18 2008 at 8:40 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Quote:
I wonder if he has begun doing his duty and started giving a higher percentage of his considerable earnings to the US Treasury yet?

Your financial duty to your country is as the law defines it. One shouldn't be expected to go beyond this duty.
#10 Sep 18 2008 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
*****
16,160 posts
Duty, as Biden used the term, denotes an obligation that must attended to and carried out regardless the cost, inconvenience, or responsibilities. "Patriotic duty" is something that supercedes any other concerns, including one's own ties to a party, religion, or creed.

I am not wielding my veteren status as a club, trick, but rather, pointing out that the casual banding about of the word "duty" isn't something to be undertaken lightly. Duty is just that: Something that must be done. There is no shirking of duty; it compels one to action.

By that measure Biden cannot just say it is other's duty to sack up and give, he himself must act by his own words. However, I'd take issue with even placing taxes in the same sentence with duty. Duty implies a higher calling than the transfer of mere money.

For such a person with an auspicious and august pedigree, he certainly is careless with his words. And this is someone you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Diplomacy and statesmanship require careful utilization of language. Judging by his inept use of important words like duty, I don't think Biden encompasses those qualities you Dems seem to see in him.

Totem
#11 Sep 18 2008 at 9:56 PM Rating: Good
Totem wrote:
Ol' Joe told us today he believes it's our patriotic duty to pay more taxes. Or rather, more specifically, he believes it's wealthy American's duty to pay higher taxes than they are paying now.

The trouble is, considering he thinks it is a duty, this is something which should not require a change in the tax law, but should come from the patriotic American's heart-- someone, I assume, like Plagerizin' Joe. I wonder if he has begun doing his duty and started giving a higher percentage of his considerable earnings to the US Treasury yet?

Of course, we need to define what wealthy is, right? Would his two to three million in assets or his Congressional salary be considered wealthy?

And how much more does one such patriotic American pay more than what is required? Does this mean he should forego tax shelters like the Black Neo uses extensively? Or should such a patriotic American just lop off, say, 50% off the top and hand it over to the gubmint?

I'm curious, because he wasn't very clear on the specifics, just that he holds this opinion. Perhaps I need to have a discussion with Joe on what "duty" means. As a non-military man, I don't think he quite understands what all that entails. I'd be happy to enlighten him.

Totem

------------------------------------------------------------------------

you want to know where your tirade falls apart?

at the line between tax RATE and EFFECTIVE tax.

tax rate is the rate you are charged on your earnings. EFFECTIVE rats is the rate you pay....after deductions.

you see, the more money you have, the more deductions are written into the tax code just for you high income earners. poor people dont have deductions other than the standard. you see, they cant afford a home so they rent. they cant afford to list their second home as rental property so they can write off ALL the home expenses......like mccain does with all 8 of his homes.

i own a single home. by the time i get done deducting interest on both my home loan and equity loan, property taxes, itemizing my sales tax because it ussually is over the standard deduction, and various other deductions like the old computer and other things i "donate" top charity....when they stop working....

my tax rate is a little over 30 percent.

my EFFECTIVE rate this year was....12 percent.

the schmuck working at mcdonalds? he is paying the full 28 percent PLUS the full 8 and a half percent because he NEVER reaches the SS deduction cap. something i hit a half way through the year effectively reducing my 8 and a half percent to somewhere close to 5 percent.

so, the low income earner with a 28 percent tax rate is paying 36 percent after you add in SS.

an upper middle income person like me is paying 17 percent inclusing SS.

and the more you make the LESS you pay.

i really dont want to hear a single person cry when they talk about raising the taxes on upper income earners. just to get them to pay their FAIR share with this POS tax code, you would have to jack it up around 70 percent or so if you ever wanted to see 30 percent.

the poor dont get tax breaks, they pay the FULL bill. the rich NEVER pay their share and probably never will.

thats right. the more you have, the LESS you have to pay.
#12 Sep 19 2008 at 12:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Duty was used correctly. Duty is an expectation out of moral or legal obligation. Since hoping people will pay what they morally feel is the correct amount is ridiculous we are left with a purely legal definition. What is sought here is a change in the limits of one's financial duty through legislation, which fits the definition. Whatever extra connotative compulsion you attach to it is purely your own doing. Duty is a requirement, not a higher calling, though it is certainly often romanticized as one.
#13 Sep 19 2008 at 4:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This sounds like the sort of screed one makes when their candidate is suddenly behind in the polls again and is back to losing some of the western states Palin was supposed to lock up tight.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Sep 19 2008 at 5:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Duty wasn't used correctly. Duty wasn't used incorrectly. "Duty" wasn't used at all:
Quote:
"It's time to be patriotic... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut," Biden said on ABC's "Good Morning America."
I wonder if it's a duty to wear a flag pin on the campaign trail...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#16 Sep 25 2008 at 3:31 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
Totem wrote:
For such a person with an auspicious and august pedigree, he certainly is careless with his words. And this is someone you want to be a heartbeat away from the presidency? Diplomacy and statesmanship require careful utilization of language.
HHHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHooooooooo boy.

No you didn't.


Really.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 156 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (156)