Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I always say Fringey is the bellweather of LT. She f'ing loves me, and can't stand you. You have the option of aping me so that she will think better of you. As an aside I love you and most people other than Fringey do too. Still by morphing into me you will get Fringey to your side- instead you turn to the sidd Finch side of hate and vile personal attackes- can you outline your thought process in this regard? I mean you probsably are about 10th best loved, and you decide to copy the number 1 most hated- Sidd?

You sir, are often a buffoon. Even more so when you drink. Sometimes you are a lovable buffoon; sometimes you are a detestable buffoon. Virtually always, when you are a buffoon it is for the purpose of getting under someone's skin.

You are not going to get under my skin tonight. I have worked very hard today, and I have another hard day tomorrow. I'm going to bed.

Sebby, if you're still out there, tomorrow when you sober up, ask yourself if you honestly believe that if the federal government got less tax revenue from one source, it would simply stop spending as much, or it wouldjust look for another source of funds? I mean, really, Seb.

Goodnight gentlemen, and any ladies who happen to be around.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
wow!

can we have like an intelligence test for posting here?, i mean weed out the truly dense, it'll help the board overall.

You would like to argue that social security is a redistribution scheme that transfers from the rich to the poor? An intersting argument that it is payed for almost entirely by taxing working people (on their first $90K or whatever it is now).

And it is paying out an increasing percentage to rich baby boomers (although I will admit to being a bit over the top in suggest that they predominate).

ETA: Remember, the question was name a program that takes one dollar from a poor person and gives it to a rich person.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. You don't get it.

At the outset, I asked Ty to show me an example of the govt taking one dollar from a poor person - an actual dollar that poor person had - and giving it to a rich person. He couldn't.

Now, we've moved past that and you're trying to show how ths cap gains rate subsidizes people like Forbes at my expense.

I gave nothing to Forbes. He did not receive anything from me. No money was taken from me and given to him. You suggest that he received something from me because he paid less taxes and my higher taxes picked up the amount he'd otherwise have to pay. Discounting the taxation of capital gains is a double-taxation argument, which though it is very relevant here would drive us way off track, how do you know the increased money I paid above that which Forbes paid would otherwise be paid by Forbes?

So in order for Ty to win this argument, you seem to think that he needs to demonstrate that jackbooted thugs of the federal or state government knocked down the door of a low income family, rifled through the Dad's wallet, and said, "see this $5? We're taking this money -- this fucking $5 bill -- and we're gonna put it in a pot. And then we're taking the pot to Washington.

Once it gets to Washington, then we're gonna take that pot to a failed S&L that manages the Yacht Polishing Service, which gives free polishing and free head to the top 1/10,000th of the population. And it wouldn't be funded at ALL, except for our collection of these $5 bills. So thanks, dumbass citizen. So long, sucker!" and then they peel out of the driveway, knocking down the guy's trash can into the street.

Yeah, I think you're in good shape on this one, Sebby.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
This may be a bit wonk-like, but doesn't SOX create obligations that might require them to report other than internally?

There is an up the latter reporting requirement for attorneys. There is also typically a complaint procedure where employees can go to a designated board member, usually head of the audit committee.

[sgtclub]

Anyone catch Gore's testimony on Capital Hill this week? I have to say, he came off very relaxed, likable and reasonable. If he would have been like this during the election, it would have been a landslide.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Dividends taxed at 15%

Capital gains taxed at 15%

No estate tax.

There's three. Actual Dollars.

The dividend and cap gains cut ended up putting nearly a Trillion dollars of immediate liquidity back in the Capital Markets.

But sure, let's penalize that again, tie up investment, and raise the minimum wage. Good stuff.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
No you haven't. You've consistently argued against a tax on capital gains and the estate tax. Both are a subsidy for the wealthy, pure and simple.

He argued against the Dems raising taxes against same - yet again.

Penalizing capital gains by raising the tax rate is saying "American Way - Fuck you. And don't be too succesful"

Do you want to be wealthy - or do you want to be poor? Seriously.

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
No. You don't get it.

At the outset, I asked Ty to show me an example of the govt taking one dollar from a poor person - an actual dollar that poor person had - and giving it to a rich person. He couldn't.

Now, we've moved past that and you're trying to show how ths cap gains rate subsidizes people like Forbes at my expense.

I gave nothing to Forbes. He did not receive anything from me. No money was taken from me and given to him. You suggest that he received something from me because he paid less taxes and my higher taxes picked up the amount he'd otherwise have to pay. Discounting the taxation of capital gains is a double-taxation argument, which though it is very relevant here would drive us way off track, how do you know the increased money I paid above that which Forbes paid would otherwise be paid by Forbes?

FWIW, more taxpayers came off the rolls (for the idiot liberals here, this means that they paid ZERO dollars) as of the Bush cuts than under any recent POTUS in history.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Anyone catch Gore's testimony on Capital Hill this week? I have to say, he came off very relaxed, likable and reasonable. If he would have been like this during the election, it would have been a landslide.

Inhofe killed him.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
You would like to argue that social security is a redistribution scheme that transfers from the rich to the poor?

It sure fucking is.

Unless we start euthanizing the elderly, we need to seriously reform a system well past its prime.

Where is the market adjustment for age of retirement? When SS started, most folks died in their late fifties. Now these fuckers collect - and live on Medicaid - for 20-30 years.

Up the retirement age to 72.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Steve Forbes makes $100 in dividends; he pays $15 in tax.

You earn $100 in salary; you pay $36 in tax.

Your tax is $36 because the G can't afford to tax everybody at a 15% rate. Do you really not get it?

How would you propose taxing him, then?

BTW - his income tax is at the highest possible rate, and his companies, stock, dividends, etc. are taxed as well.

You're repeated point can be summed up thusly:

You succeeded too well and made too much money. The rest of us unsuccessful slobs resent it (while we nap), and thus you must pay us, dammit.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I cited a Supreme Court case. Now it's your turn to find one.

I didn't question whether the Senate has authority to issue a subpoena for an investigation. That's what that case is about. It happens to have been directed to a former attorney general. So it doesn't really address your current point, which is at root a separation of powers issue.

If you want my better response: The House objected strenuously to the FBI's searching Livingston's office, and they had extended negotiations over how to handle such situations in the future. Given that virtually everyone else in the House could not object to a search of a person whose refrigerator held lobbyist cash, they didn't push the issue. Can't imagine the WH would be simliarly constrained.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think you're on shaky ground if you are trying to suggest that the govt. has more poilicies that promote capitalism than policies that impede it.

Depends on what you mean by "promote" Given that we're about 90% of the way toward the free market end of the communism-capitalism spectrum, I'd say teh government does have more promote than impede policies.

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Anyone catch Gore's testimony on Capital Hill this week? I have to say, he came off very relaxed, likable and reasonable. If he would have been like this during the election, it would have been a landslide.

That is a irony of Gore. He was an android when it mattered, but likable when it didn't.

oh.. and he was afraid people would think he was going to get head in the oval office.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Unless we start euthanizing the elderly, we need to seriously reform a system well past its prime.

I want to reform the system, because I believe I can do better investing my own money, but I don't think the crisis is really there.

Raise the threshold of income subject to the tax, means test the payours, and raise the retirement age. Viola. No insolvency problem.