• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Based on the latest tax data, no Administration in modern history has done more to pry tax revenue from the wealthy

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
Originally posted by: Vic

LK has pretty finished up the thread. I was in a sarcastic mood earlier and was just being a smartass to PJ's usual crowd of reactionaries. Occasionally, I get a little fed up at the simplistic worldviews that the loudest screamers on the internet would have us believe are real.



Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
Can`t understand why so many people stuck on one side of the equation. (Well, actually I can but let`s move on)

It`s not just what you get taxed on, but also what you spend it on.

Once again for your viewing pleasure.

Does anyone here understand how much of our tax money goes to paying interest on debt?

If we pay off the national debt, we also eliminate the interest payments, which would be beneficial to EVERYONE.



Jun 3, 2002
Nice posts heyheybooboo. The OP may not have the first clue about dollars, cents, or economics, but he tries hard, I'll give him that!


Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
I wonder why the rich are paying more?

They are making more...period. The rest of us slobs are making less REAL wages period. Spin that crap any way you want it.

Oh, and for the record, I don't give a shit if the rich pay an increasing amount of taxes and I also don't give a shit if they pack up and leave. They and the companies they control don't give a shit about me, so fuck them.

Also, I'm for another tax cut for ME. If the government don't give a shit about spending money, they should spend MY money back to me.

PS: I pay a lot more taxes today than I did 10 years ago. I guess my rates went up dramatically under Bush, eh? (you figure it out).


Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'll admit that I singled you out for criticism over others who met the same criteria, but when you bumped up your post looking for a response, I was compelled to answer.

I guess my point is that forming a coherent and logical argument is only half the battle. The transmission is the other half. I'm sure you'd agree that if Bush and FDR had the same speech prepared for them, FDR would probably come across in a more inspiring performance. What I mean is that, in my experience, I've noticed that people won't listen to you at all, regardless of how good your argument is, if you're insulting their intelligence in the transmission.
There's a big assumption there that you have. I'll leave it up to you to think about it. Honestly, I think your assumption is incorrect, at least from what is portrayed on here.
I, personally, found your posts to be well-reasoned and cogent. Unfortunately, they were also rather abstruse, which is a reflection of the complexity of the issue. And I'd be willing to bet that neither Pabster nor ProfJohn was able to understand what you wrote. They see the world in extremely superficial terms, and they reflexively embrace any piece of information which seems to support their preconceptions. But try to feed them the complex truth and their eyes glaze over.


Senior member
Jun 14, 2003
How did we go from income share to taxes and debt?
ProfJohn, I think it is lop-sided to see who gets taxed what percentage WITHOUT looking at who benefits from the spending of those tax dollars.

Would you agree?


Nov 3, 2000
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
How did we go from income share to taxes and debt?
Probably when you started talking about tax revenue in the OP? :laugh: