Personal property taxes on my business due by September 14th and

[sandorski]

True fact: The last Poster Wins...unless a previous Poster has written a wall of text > 50% of all Thread posts combined.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't you understand? Specifically quoting the words of the dear leader is "twisting his words", but correctly interpreting them to mean something completely different is smart and honest. Ah yes, dimlib logic at its finest.

Hey guys, I was just reading an essay by my good friend Jonathan Swift and I came across this line:

A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends; and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter.

He must want to eat children! I'm just specifically quoting his words.

 

[sixone]

I know what tax I would target, the progressive one.

You are guilty of sticking to that talking point as well. Ck keeps trying to point that its not all income tax, despite Repubs talking points( framing the tax discussion around income taxes, not all taxes), but everytime he does, you counter with.....income tax.

Payroll taxes? Try that one.

Here's the FULL picture, for you. There's also a link to the CBO report, so that you can verify the "talking points" as actual facts.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/07/progressivity-of-taxes-and-transfers.html

Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.

The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.

Which "progressive one" would you like to target, specifically?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

From the Romney, "I like being able to fire people" thread. Hypocrite much?

Thanks for saving me the trouble. And another example of how right-wingers are either stupid or dishonest (or both).

 

[Matt1970]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MooseNSquirrel
I know what tax I would target, the progressive one.

You are guilty of sticking to that talking point as well. Ck keeps trying to point that its not all income tax, despite Repubs talking points( framing the tax discussion around income taxes, not all taxes), but everytime he does, you counter with.....income tax.

Payroll taxes? Try that one.

Here's the FULL picture, for you. There's also a link to the CBO report, so that you can verify the "talking points" as actual facts.

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2012/...transfers.html


Quote:
Because transfer payments are, in effect, the opposite of taxes, it makes sense to look not just at taxes paid, but at taxes paid minus transfers received. For 2009, the most recent year available, here are taxes less transfers as a percentage of market income (income that households earned from their work and savings):

Bottom quintile: -301 percent
Second quintile: -42 percent
Middle quintile: -5 percent
Fourth quintile: 10 percent
Highest quintile: 22 percent

Top one percent: 28 percent

The negative 301 percent means that a typical family in the bottom quintile receives about $3 in transfer payments for every dollar earned.

The most surprising fact to me was that the effective tax rate is negative for the middle quintile. According to the CBO data, this number was +14 percent in 1979 (when the data begin) and remained positive through 2007. It was negative 0.5 percent in 2008, and negative 5 percent in 2009. That is, the middle class, having long been a net contributor to the funding of government, is now a net recipient of government largess.

Which "progressive one" would you like to target, specifically?

Well now aint that a hoot. Seems like Reaganomics has taken the burden off of the middle and lower classes. Who would have thunk it ??

 

[Matt1970]

Thanks for saving me the trouble. And another example of how right-wingers are either stupid or dishonest (or both).

There ya go. Ignore facts, ignore common sense and just lob insults. Well played.

 

[Bowfinger]

Didn't your mom tell you not to be on the computer past 10 ?

There ya go. Ignore facts, ignore common sense and just lob insults. Well played.

You might want to consider offering more substance and less hypocritical whining. Just sayin'.

 

[Matt1970]

That's an insult?

 

[PokerGuy]

He must want to eat children! I'm just specifically quoting his words.

There is absolutely no twisting or interpretation required. These are complete full sentences and are self explanatory. No amount of spinning or damage control changes it: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

First he discredits the idea that successful people got there because they were smart. Then he proceeds to say that it's not because of hard work either since "there are a lot of hard working people out there". Then he graces us with the 'truth', that it's all thanks to the government. Don't forget, "you did not build that". Obviously you should be thankful to him for all his work to allow you to be successful.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There ya go. Ignore facts, ignore common sense and just lob insults. Well played.

The post to which I responded contained the facts and common sense.

When your opponents prove themselves to be either unable or unwilling to be logical, consistent and honest, there's not much left.

 

[sixone]

Well now aint that a hoot. Seems like Reaganomics has taken the burden off of the middle and lower classes. Who would have thunk it ??

No, it's not a hoot. It's a CRYING SHAME that the public education system in this country has so dismally failed us. Time and time again, it's been proven not to be an investment, but instead a vast money pit.

So I'll ask again, in hopes that someone has an educated and honest answer:

Who's this "WE" building our country together?

 

[werepossum]

Where did he "specifically deny that hard work and intelligence produce success"?

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Obama posits a reason successful people often give for their success - their intelligence - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many smart people (who presumably aren't successful.) Obama then posits another reason successful people often give for their success - their hard work - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many hardworking people (who presumably aren't successful.)

It was the theme of the whole speech - you aren't responsible for your success, government is responsible for your success. This not only ignores that all those other, unsuccessful people have the exact same infrastructure, it also ignores that government is funded by successful people's taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

No, it's not a hoot. It's a CRYING SHAME that the public education system in this country has so dismally failed us. Time and time again, it's been proven not to be an investment, but instead a vast money pit.

So I'll ask again, in hopes that someone has an educated and honest answer:

Who's this "WE" building our country together?

What's funny is that your own link acknowledges that such low rates for the lower rungs are abberational and the result of a catastrophic recession. They are not normal. Something you of course simply forgot to mention.

What's even better is that you posted it in a thread that relies upon lack of context.

 

[fskimospy]

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Obama posits a reason successful people often give for their success - their intelligence - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many smart people (who presumably aren't successful.) Obama then posits another reason successful people often give for their success - their hard work - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many hardworking people (who presumably aren't successful.)

It was the theme of the whole speech - you aren't responsible for your success, government is responsible for your success. This not only ignores that all those other, unsuccessful people have the exact same infrastructure, it also ignores that government is funded by successful people's taxes.

He says that they are not solely responsible for success, not that they aren't responsible at all, you lunatic.

 

[sixone]

What's funny is that your own link acknowledges that such low rates for the lower rungs are abberational and the result of a catastrophic recession. They are not normal. Something you of course simply forgot to mention.

What's even better is that you posted it in a thread that relies upon lack of context.

Talk about taking things out of context, and then you turn around and do the same.

From the link I posted:

I recognize that part of this change is attributable to temporary measures to deal with the deep recession. But it is noteworthy nonetheless, as other deep recessions, such as that in 1982, did not produce a similar policy response.

The ACA is NOT temporary. Do you want to claim that it will increase the tax burden on the lowest brackets? How about the proposed changes to the Obama tax cuts?

Please feel free to post links to statements from Obama or anyone else in government who are recommending giving less to "the less fortunate" or taking less from "the rich".

Your "not normal" is fast becoming normal.

And since you ducked the question, I'll ask you again: Who is this "WE" that are investing in our country?

 

[werepossum]

That analysis is good, and I won't say you're wrong, but I also won't say you're right. As someone who parses language for a living (statutory analysis) the paragraph in question is clearly ambiguous. Your interpretation is a possible one, but there are counterpoints as well.

For example, the statement in question is one sentence: "If you've got a business- you didn't build that." Given a plan-language reading it clearly implies that someone with a business didn't build the business.

However, we can't do just a plain-language reading of a statement out of context, we have to read it on the whole. "That" is a singular term which can't refer to "roads and bridges" since they're plural or "great teacher" since you can't build a teacher. It could refer to the "unbelievable American system" since that is both singular and buildable. There are two problems with that interpretation:
1) It's too far removed from the generic pronoun "that" to effectively communicate the idea that "that" is the "unbelievable American system"; and
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the "unbelievable American society" both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.
The conclusion then is that "that" likely doesn't refer to the "unbelievable American system".

You went on to contend that "that" referred to "infrastructure"; that contention also has problems:
1) Infrastructure was never explicitly mentioned, and certainly not in any context that would make the "that" statement readily apparent as the reference.
2) To say "you didn't build that" impliedly states that you had no hand at all in the construction, which is incorrect as businessowners have been monumental in crafting the American infrastructure both through their business actions and politically through lobbying efforts.

The President uses more imprecise language at the end of that same paragraph when he states "Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet." Again, there are two possible meanings:
1) Government research created the internet and allowed open access which is something that private research might/would not have done; or
2) Government created the internet for the sole purpose of creating an electronic vehicle by which all companies could profit.

#1 is much more likely the intended meaning than #2, but it doesn't counter the fact that both #1 and #2 are potential plausible interpretations of the statement.

It's the same with the "you didn't create that" statement; your analysis might be correct in his intention but given the imprecise language, atrocious grammar, and lack of good context the other interpretation is certainly plausible.

That's an excellent analysis of both sides of the argument.

While that one sentence in the quote sounds pretty bad, in context Obama is right. I went to public schools all through university. For the most part my parents did also.

My grandfather went to college on the GI bill, after serving the government in WWII. My other grandfather went to medical school at a public university, with public loans. Both of these things are responsible for me having been raised in the middle class, and having been afforded a good education.

It's hard to imagine, if "government" was a person, how that person wouldn't say they had a hand in my success if I were to go out and start a business. I'd likely also be asking that person for a loan (via SBA).

In that sense he is correct, but it's also irrelevant because success is relative. To the vast majority of the world's population, 2/3 or more of Americans are wildly successful. Obama is making his case for taking more wealth from those Americans who are particularly successful by the standards of all Americans, who enjoy the same infrastructure and yet are not successful by his standards (those earning over $250,000 annually.)

Put it this way. Bill Gates could not have created Microsoft and revolutionized computing without oxygen. Would you support Obama's speech had he said: "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Oxygen made that happen." It would be equally valid, and equally nonsensical. Both infrastructure and oxygen are necessary for the vast majority of American businesses; neither infrastructure nor oxygen make the vast majority of American businesses happen. That takes a driven individual with hard work, innovation, and sacrifice, and to denigrate that hard work, innovation, and sacrifice is nothing less than an attack on capitalism.

Or to take a more practical approach, taking more money from my neighbor who is a doctor and giving it to my two neighbors smoking weed and playing XBox may be great for the weed and XBox market, and it may yield a net gain of one vote for the Democrats, but it's not a recipe for building a successful nation.

 

[Bowfinger]

"I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

Obama posits a reason successful people often give for their success - their intelligence - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many smart people (who presumably aren't successful.) Obama then posits another reason successful people often give for their success - their hard work - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many hardworking people (who presumably aren't successful.)

It was the theme of the whole speech - you aren't responsible for your success, government is responsible for your success. This not only ignores that all those other, unsuccessful people have the exact same infrastructure, it also ignores that government is funded by successful people's taxes.

Why do you pull this crap? I know you're smarter than this. Do you really like being associated with the likes of PokerGuy and Spidey?

Obama did NOT refute either attribute. He simply points out they aren't enough for success, not by themselves. You can be the smartest, hardest-working guy on a deserted island, but without something like the "unbelievable American system" to draw on, your "success" will be measured by the number of leaks in your lean-to's roof.

Once again, for the reasoning-impaired: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." That's really not a hard sentence to grasp.

 

[werepossum]

He says that they are not solely responsible for success, not that they aren't responsible at all, you lunatic.

If your interpretation is correct, then Obama would just be nattering on without any point at all. Only if he is asserting that intelligence and hard work don't lead to success would there be any point in mentioning them.

My interpretation (AKA what Obama actually SAID) is in line with the progressive statement that the successful have "won life's lottery." It's also entirely consistent with Obama's drive to take more money from the successful since by denying that they had much if anything to do with their success, he removes the moral stigma attached to robbing them of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Obama posits a reason successful people often give for their success - their intelligence - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many smart people (who presumably aren't successful.) Obama then posits another reason successful people often give for their success - their hard work - then directly refutes it by asserting that there are many hardworking people (who presumably aren't successful.)

That's not a denial that intelligence and hard work produce success. It's a denial that intelligence and hard work necessarily produce success. Which is pretty obviously true.

It was the theme of the whole speech - you aren't responsible for your success, government is responsible for your success.

Bullshit. The theme of the speech is that success is a combination of individual and group efforts. As he said: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." If he really meant what you claim, he would never have said "we succeed because of our individual initiative" at all.

Are there any honest right-wingers left? Don't seem to be any around here.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not a denial that intelligence and hard work produce success. It's a denial that intelligence and hard work necessarily produce success. Which is pretty obviously true.



Bullshit. The theme of the speech is that success is a combination of individual and group efforts. As he said: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." If he really meant what you claim, he would never have said "we succeed because of our individual initiative" at all.

Are there any honest right-wingers left? Don't seem to be any around here.

This is frankly baffling to me. They are simply no longer communicating in English as it is commonly accepted. What do you do with people like that? I mean how do you engage with people that are this far gone?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Are there any honest right-wingers left at all? Don't seem to be any around here.

Nope...they're all dishonest Charles...

Thanks for saving me the trouble. And another example of how right-wingers are either stupid or dishonest (or both).

...and stupid as well. Everybody knows this.

 

[fskimospy]

Talk about taking things out of context, and then you turn around and do the same.

The 1982 recession was not nearly as significant as this one.

The ACA is NOT temporary. Do you want to claim that it will increase the tax burden on the lowest brackets? How about the proposed changes to the Obama tax cuts?

Please feel free to post links to statements from Obama or anyone else in government who are recommending giving less to "the less fortunate" or taking less from "the rich".

Your "not normal" is fast becoming normal.

And since you ducked the question, I'll ask you again: Who is this "WE" that are investing in our country?

Non sequitur and it doesn't address the issue. The ACA is not the driver of these issues going forward. Furthermore, I sincerely hope that no one in government would be talking about taxing the rich less, that would be extremely foolish.

As far as who 'we' are, it's everyone who works. The idea that investment in the country could only take place through tax receipts is not only baffling, but seems to run contrary to standard conservative ideology. It is no surprise that you would attempt to abandon it when convenient. By your logic if we abolished taxes we wouldn't have a country anymore, and the measure of how much country we have is the measure of tax receipts.

Good to know. lol.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope...they're all dishonest Charles...

...and stupid as well. Everybody knows this.

Finally someone is at least admitting the obvious.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Finally someone is at least admitting the obvious.

Interesting world view you have there my friend.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting world view you have there my friend.

As always my good friend DSF, I am appreciative of your flattery.