Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

McCain's last standFollow

#102REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 9:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophiel 33-40% of that 95% do not pay ANY TAXES. Do you understand? It's not a talking point, it is statistics.
#103 Oct 17 2008 at 9:49 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
So you want to eliminate all tax credits. Check. You know that since I'm a full-time student, I will receive net refund next year? That must really boil your bones.

Who do you think pays for your free college and other benefits you get for serving in the Coast Guard? What about your signing bonus and benefits for your children? I do. Don't tell me you earned it either, otherwise that flies in the face of any argument you make against tax credits.
#104REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 9:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) First off, I like how you ignored the statistics and had nothing to say after you told me to prove it, and I did.
#105 Oct 17 2008 at 10:01 PM Rating: Excellent
AmorTonight wrote:
Obviously neither of you know how to interpret statistics.
Obviously you're misintepreting them for your own ends.

Going back to the numbers they used, we have:

~11.8 million couples who get everything they paid back
~8.3 million couples who don't have to file

~30.7 million single filers who get everything they paid back
~6.7 million individuals who don't have to file

for a total of roughly 77.6 million potential taxpayers who have no net tax liability.

This is not 40% of the population. This is roughly 25.4% of the population, because the other 42.4 million people counted in your 40% figure are children.

According to the '00 Census, roughly 72 million people were under the age of 18. A safe assumption can be made that, while the population has grown since then, the change is roughly balanced out by "children" under the tax code who were college students that have since reached the age of 24 and no longer count as such.

So: "ZOMG THERE'S NEARLY HALF THE POPULATION THAT DOESN'T PAY TAXES!" (149.6 million out of 305.4 million, for 48.98%) is just as accurate as your 40% figure... which is to say, it's horribly misleading.
#106 Oct 17 2008 at 10:06 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Quote:
First off, I like how you ignored the statistics and had nothing to say after you told me to prove it, and I did.


How did I not respond. The vast majority of people that get money back from the government--they do pay taxes believe it or not, it's refunded--meet a certain criteria. Criteria that is supported by most in the U.S. Gee, imagine how well lobbying to cancel the child credit would go? THESE PEOPLE PAY TAXES. THEY MEET CRITERIA THAT GETS THEM A NET RETURN.

Quote:
now they want to take over our money and distribute it as they see fit?


The government already does this.

Quote:
My personal belief is that we should have a flat tax. Cut out the overcomplicated tax code we have now. Sure, it may not be "fair", but I think it's far better than what we have now.


You're supporting the wrong candidate. See: Mike Huckabee.

Quote:
Why do you think there is such thing as an "American Dream" that millions of people have achieved.


We both share the belief of the American dream. I just support helping people achieve it.
#107REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:12 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Denham, why are you putting "Children" into this.
#108REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Yes, I do support Huckabee when it comes to his tax views. However, he is not a presidential candidate is he? McCain is.
#109 Oct 17 2008 at 10:19 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Apparently, you are as dumb as you thought I thought you were. They have ZERO TAX LIABILITY because they meet criteria that nullifies any and all taxes they pay. Every week, same as you and I, their paychecks have deductions for state/federal/SS/medicare taxes. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY FILE THEIR TAXES--and this is the important bit--THEY HAVE KIDS which qualifies them for a tax credit per child. Some people that work minimum wage, this tax credit completely nullifies their taxes paid and they get a net return.

You're confusing the usage of liability. There isn't some magic wand poor people wave to waive their paycheck deductions. The tax liability figure you are using refers to the fact that they are liable for NO taxes once they complete their tax return. Thus they pay the taxes over the course of the year, and get all their money--plus more for some--back.

Edit: and quit throwing the stupid 95% blah blah blah bit in my face. YOU'RE TALKING TO SOMEONE THAT SUPPORTS LIMITED SOCIALISM. Good, tax the rich even more. Trickle up economics > trickle down.

Edited, Oct 18th 2008 2:14am by Paskil
#110REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:24 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Look paskil I'll lay this out to you again for the last time.
#111 Oct 17 2008 at 10:31 PM Rating: Excellent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Quote:
It is SOCIALISM.


So is social security, medicare, and many of the tax credits you seem to hate. It's funny how McCain is collecting his social security check still. You would think that with his wife's wealth, he would give that money back.

Also, I get free money? Excellent!

I don't suppose you sent your rebate check back to the treasury did you? Also, you'll have to link the voting numbers on the bailout you hate so much. I seem to recall it not being a straight ticket vote.
#112REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:35 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You pay into Social Security over the course of your life (It's not magically given to you for free once you hit 55 without you paying anything into it). And yes, I am against Social Security as it is now. It is going to bankrupt our country. Not like Obama's plan isn't going to do the same thing.
#113 Oct 17 2008 at 10:40 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Quote:
Also, finally thank you for conceding my point that Obama's plan is Socialism.


I did? Smiley: confused

All I wanted is free money. Tell me then oh wise one, how does McCain plan to pay for his multi-hundred billion dollar corporate tax cut? Tax the middle class? Gee lets dump socialism for the Oligarchy!

Edited, Oct 18th 2008 2:33am by Paskil
#114 Oct 17 2008 at 10:43 PM Rating: Decent
AmorTonight wrote:
Denham, why are you putting "Children" into this.

If you had read the title of the first thing you see on that page which is:

"Percentage of Tax Filers who owe Zero Tax Liability"

according to 2004 is 32.4% of all Tax filers owe ZERO Tax.

I would assume the trend has continued and as of 2008 is anyone in the region of 33-40%.

Are you disputing that at least 33% of all TAX FILERS have ZERO TAX LIABILITY?

That is a FACT. Where do you get children from?
From the 130 million figure of "people not paying taxes" later on on the page, which is how I had assumed you'd come up with "40% of all Americans".

AmorTonight wrote:
Also, I must add please do this math:

11.8
8.3
30.7
6.7
-----
57.5

Oh wait, what is that correlate to, oh that's right the chart on the page:

Distribution of Combined 57.5 Million Zero-Tax Population
Which is not what I was figuring.

I was figuring the number of actual people who were potential taxpayers, not the number of households, which is what that 57.5 million figure is. You'll notice that the figure of 77.6 million that I gave later on is people, not households.

No, I'm not about to dispute that (whatever the actual number is) tax filers end up with zero tax liability - but to then extrapolate that to "X% of Americans pay no taxes" requires a breakdown of what part of that X% are (or alternatively, would be, were they making enough money) tax filers, and which ones are dependents of those tax filers.

Here's a hint: about half of them are dependents. Don't include them because they wouldn't owe taxes anyway.

As far as current numbers... a safe figure is that there are probably in the neighborhood of 83 million people who either don't make enough money to have to file taxes, or end up with zero tax liability. This is off of a 135-million-households figure. Do you want to include their dependents again (which pushes it to something in the general vicinity of 155 million "non-taxpayers", for just over 50%) or not (27.1% of the population, or 35.5% of the "potential taxpayers" portion)?
#115REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:47 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) He's not increasing ANYONES tax. He is cutting EVERYONES tax. You don't have to pay for a tax cut.
#116 Oct 17 2008 at 10:50 PM Rating: Excellent
AmorTonight wrote:
You don't have to pay for a tax cut.
No, you just have to either cut programs (which raises a huge stink from someone) or borrow more money from other countries (which just keeps piling on the house of cards that is the national debt).

Yes, you have to pay for a goddamn tax cut in some fashion. It's just not directly, and so the sheeple don't notice that they are, in fact, paying for it.
#117 Oct 17 2008 at 10:53 PM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
Quote:
Not increase spending


So assuming he was able to get all of the pet projects he has been espousing forced through Congress, he's going to pay for it with a spending freeze? Have you examined the numbers on how much his health care plan will cost. Last I saw, it was estimated at over a trillion dollars. So while he has a spending freeze on everything except defense and VA, how is he going to pay all the governemtn employee's? Is he going to freeze his salary also?

BOTH candidates have made quite a few promises that will simply add to the deficit and debt. Across the board spending freeze + U.S government? Like that will actually work. At least with Obama, the people that will actually spend the money will get it.

Quote:
You don't have to pay for a tax cut.


Que?

Also, the bulk majority of money spent by government is Social Security, Medicare, and Defense. I'm sure all those dollars we save by not paying for peoples healthcare and salary will fix our budget right up.

Edited, Oct 18th 2008 2:48am by Paskil
#118REDACTED, Posted: Oct 17 2008 at 10:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Well im off to bed, I hope you get what you want so you can see what it will do to us. You won't have any republicans to blame after you run our country into the ground, since you will 60+ senators, majority of the house, and the presidency so you can push whatever the hell you want through.
#119 Oct 17 2008 at 11:00 PM Rating: Good
AmorTonight wrote:
Well im off to bed, I hope you get what you want so you can see what it will do to us. You won't have any republicans to blame after you run our country into the ground, since you will 60+ senators, majority of the house, and the presidency so you can push whatever the hell you want through.

I can almost guarentee that 2012 election will go to the republicans.
Oh, BTW:

I have no intention of voting for Obama or McCain.

Joph, DF, what are your real names so I can officially write you two in?
#120 Oct 18 2008 at 2:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:

I have no intention of voting for Obama or McCain.

Joph, DF, what are your real names so I can officially write you two in?


Last I heard, Jophiel was planning on running in 2016.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#121 Oct 18 2008 at 3:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Secondly, my personal beliefs aside, please respond to what is at hand, that Obama's plan is Socialist. I mean we can see how well government has been handling everything and their 10% approval rating, now they want to take over our money and distribute it as they see fit? Destroying the American Dream, gotcha.


This line of thinking makes me sick, and I've just got to rant for a second.

We live in a country that, for too long, has turned the other cheek while the working class people get suffocated by stagnant wages and steep inflation.

We live in a country where people shrugged off the accusations of "facism" when the party in power gave themselves and their rich friends a big, juicy tax break, while dropping a few crumbs to pacify the masses.

Now, here's a candidate who wants to slightly raise taxes for people who make more than enough money to live comfortably, in an attempt to keep the working class population from sinking into a real economic crisis... and people say this is socialist???

Personally, if this is socialist, then how is what the Republicans have done over the past eight years NOT facism? (I don't think it is, I'm just making my point.)

It saddens me that so many Americans are buying into McCain's BS. Really, it's sad. It reflects very poorly on us. Makes us look completely stupid in the eyes of the rest of the world. Not like that's anything new though, heh.

Really, there's no excuse for this kind of stupidity. Most people have access to the Internet, newspapers or other sources of information from which to educate themselves. I'm not saying it's stupid to be a Republican. I have some Repub tendencies myself, and there are valid arguments to be made behind the party's economic theories.

However, this "ZOMG OBAMA IZ A SOCIALIZT!!!" stuff is just BS. Complete. Total. BS. It's reckless and irresponsible. It's clearly a last-ditch effort by a desperate candidate who knows all too well that the collective IQ of his fanbase is far too low to grasp real, valid argument.

It's sad, because I used to have a lot of respect for McCain. I really used to think of him as a maverick. Now, the paper bag mask is off... and he's just another political crony.

He used to be a hero, and now he's a disgrace... and tragically, nearly half of the country is being deceived by his BS.

I guess I'll just take comfort in this one thought... if by some dark turn of events McPalin still wins this election, I'll know that whatever crap happens over the next four years will not be my fault.
____________________________
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 236 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (236)