Obama Care Could Be Deadly

So did Knoell finally figure out what a marginal tax rate is?

Did anyone point that even though he gets taxed on his pittance of a yearly salary he gets a lot of back via tax return?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Slippery slopes?

If you've accepted how taxes work, then we can move past that. What the tax rates should be is a different question, but to say that it's at its maximum now is just making things up. The fact that taxes used to be much higher in the higher tax brackets and yet the country did quite well goes against your original point, so if you want to use a different argument then go ahead.[/QUOTE]

Ok so someone who makes 100K is taxed 22,000 dollars, not 28,000 sorry, but still 22,000 dollars? and you want to go higher?

Ok sticking with this "proof" thing you guys are so fond of telling everyone, what era were taxes "much" higher, and we were doing better?
 
[quote name='Msut77']So did Knoell finally figure out what a marginal tax rate is?

Did anyone point that even though he gets taxed on his pittance of a yearly salary he gets a lot of back via tax return?[/QUOTE]

actually I got back 400 dollars. whoopee, I really appreciate the government giving me back money I overpaid them....
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']You've been consistently wrong on every tangent you start out on. What proof on which topic unrelated to the thread are you waiting on?[/QUOTE]

in your small minded opinion I am wrong, this is a very liberal minded forum as you know, so you all will seem like you are right lol its groupthink.

The proof that Bush should be impeached. The torture was legal at the time it was done.
 
[quote name='Knoell']actually I got back 400 dollars. whoopee, I really appreciate the government giving me back money I overpaid them....[/QUOTE]

Why not show how ungrateful you are by not using roads, electricity, clean water, the radio, television, maintaining safety, or keeping official time? That'd really turn their heads.

The proof that Bush should be impeached. The torture was legal at the time it was done.
Click to expand...

Oh, but you said it wasn't torture, and we do it to our own guys, and it doesn't matter if it's just a bit terrible versus HUGELY terrible, etc etc, and then we all realized you're legit retarded.

Let's have ourselves a good 'ole fashioned forum wide ignoring. Anyone else?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok so someone who makes 100K is taxed 22,000 dollars, not 28,000 sorry, but still 22,000 dollars? and you want to go higher?

Ok sticking with this "proof" thing you guys are so fond of telling everyone, what era were taxes "much" higher, and we were doing better?[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Tax_rates_in_history

Is there something about ~22% that you especially find repugnant?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Ok so someone who makes 100K is taxed 22,000 dollars, not 28,000 sorry, but still 22,000 dollars? and you want to go higher?

Ok sticking with this "proof" thing you guys are so fond of telling everyone, what era were taxes "much" higher, and we were doing better?[/QUOTE]

Historical+top+tax+rates.jpg


If you can't identify the people (hint they are former presidents) on top or what years they represent I can help you with that also.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Do you guys read the links you post? both of you are particularly misleading.
You guys can do better come on.[/QUOTE]

Is that it? That disproves that tax rates used to be higher?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I can do better you aren't worth it but I certainly can do better.

What is there to read exactly in the "link" I posted?[/QUOTE]

doesn't seem like it. and again twisting my words to suit your criticisms. Where did I say that you posted a link?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I can do better you aren't worth it but I certainly can do better.

What is there to read exactly in the "link" I posted?[/QUOTE]

Perhaps wikipedia has a liberal spin.

The link before that was a link to the picture I posted and we're still playing the "What is this a picture of?" game. So, I won't say what it is a picture of.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Is that it? That disproves that tax rates used to be higher?[/QUOTE]

yes the tax rates used to be higher but the threshhold to get into that high tax bracket was also much much higher. So yes it was misleading.
 
OK. Be more specific. Which guys are you referring to?

[quote name='Knoell']doesn't seem like it. and again twisting my words to suit your criticisms. Where did I say that you posted a link?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Knoell
Do you guys read the links you post? both of you are particularly misleading.
You guys can do better come on.
 
[quote name='Msut77']How was what I posted misleading?[/QUOTE]
same situation, the threshhold to get into the 97 percent bracket was 16 million in todays dollars. The threshhold to get into the 35% bracket is 357,000.

edit 77 percent sorry
 
Higher in today's dollars, sure, but they've remained about the same....inflation...and the lower brackets were also higher.

I'm not against more brackets though, I wouldn't have a problem leaving it as it is, but having higher brackets starting at 300k or so and going up from there.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
And I'm pretty sure social security and medicare taxes are a flat percentage (somebody correct me if I'm wrong), so they also can't possibly act in the way you said.[/QUOTE]

Yes, those are flat. Everyone pays the same percentage into those regardless of what income tax bracket your in. Sorry if someone already answered, trying to catch up on what I missed while in a meeting and the thread going wild!
 
[quote name='Knoell']same situation, the threshhold to get into the 97 percent bracket was 16 million in todays dollars. The threshhold to get into the 35% bracket is 357,000.[/QUOTE]

So I would say we agree we should raise the threshold but you were arguing against raising it what an hour ago?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']OK. Be more specific. Which guys are you referring to?



Originally Posted by Knoell
Do you guys read the links you post? both of you are particularly misleading.
You guys can do better come on.
[/QUOTE]

Referring to prior links in the post that all of you have posted. I full realize that he posted a picture not a link, is this worth debating? childish
 
[quote name='SpazX']Higher in today's dollars, sure, but they've remained about the same....inflation...and the lower brackets were also higher.

I'm not against more brackets though, I wouldn't have a problem leaving it as it is, but having higher brackets starting at 300k or so and going up from there.[/QUOTE]

what are you talking about? the threshold back then was 1 million dollars, which is 16 million dollars today. How is that the same as 357 thousand in todays dollars.
 
[quote name='Strell']
Let's have ourselves a good 'ole fashioned forum wide ignoring. Anyone else?[/QUOTE]

Done on my end. Not worth the time and effort talking to a wall that can't see through rhetoric and biased opinion to grasp fact.

[quote name='SpazX']
Is there something about ~22% that you especially find repugnant?[/QUOTE]

22% in tax is pretty reasonable IMO for the size of the nation, necessary size of military, public education system, maintaining infrastructure, social services etc.


[quote name='SpazX']Higher in today's dollars, sure, but they've remained about the same....inflation...and the lower brackets were also higher.

I'm not against more brackets though, I wouldn't have a problem leaving it as it is, but having higher brackets starting at 300k or so and going up from there.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Just having more higher income brackets would be a huge help to get the deficit down.

There's not reason it should stop at 35% and someone making $1 million or $1billion should be paying the same % of each dollar earned in their top bracket as someone making $375K.

An added bonus would be that having more brackets might pull the absurd executive salaries down some and leave companies some more cash to invest in lower level employees, expanding their business and creating jobs etc. vs. just handing it all out to a few people at the top.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So I would say we agree we should raise the threshold but you were arguing against raising it what an hour ago?[/QUOTE]

How was I arguing against it? let's tell everyone who makes between 373,000 and 1 million, that they can pay the 33 percent tax bracket instead. Gasp that would be tax breaks for the rich, I think you are confused buddy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']thank you for giving them that link they definately need it.[/QUOTE]

Not a problem, good sir.

Do you have a link comparing the income required those higher tax rates in their dollars and adjusted after inflation?

You know, where did you get the $16 million figure from?
 
[quote name='Knoell']How was I arguing against it? let's tell everyone who makes between 373,000 and 1 million, that they can pay the 33 percent tax bracket instead. Gasp that would be tax breaks for the rich, I think you are confused buddy.[/QUOTE]

That's not what he/we are saying. We're saying the 35% bracket should be the top one. It should be say $350K-500K. Then you have a 37% bracket that's $500K-750K, and 39% bracket that's $750K-1 million and so forth.

That's what he meant by increasing the threshold and/or having more brackets.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Done on my end. Not worth the time and effort talking to a wall that can't see through rhetoric and biased opinion to grasp fact.



22% in tax is pretty reasonable IMO for the size of the nation, necessary size of military, public education system, maintaining infrastructure, social services etc.




Agreed. Just having more higher income brackets would be a huge help to get the deficit down.

There's not reason it should stop at 35% and someone making $1 million or $1billion should be paying the same % of each dollar earned in their top bracket as someone making $375K.

An added bonus would be that having more brackets might pull the absurd executive salaries down some and leave companies some more cash to invest in lower level employees, expanding their business and creating jobs etc. vs. just handing it all out to a few people at the top.[/QUOTE]

22% is not the average tax rate in the country FYI lets not get that rumor spreading.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's not what he/we are saying. We're saying the 35% bracket should be the top one. It should be say $350K-500K. Then you have a 37% bracket that's $500K-750K, and 39% bracket that's $750K-1 million and so forth.

That's what he meant by increasing the threshold and/or having more brackets.[/QUOTE]

Explain to him what a bracket is. He may be suffering from March Madness.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Not a problem, good sir.

Do you have a link comparing the income required those higher tax rates in their dollars and adjusted after inflation?

You know, where did you get the $16 million figure from?[/QUOTE]

Your own link, if you would have read it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's not what he/we are saying. We're saying the 35% bracket should be the top one. It should be say $350K-500K. Then you have a 37% bracket that's $500K-750K, and 39% bracket that's $750K-1 million and so forth.

That's what he meant by increasing the threshold and/or having more brackets.[/QUOTE]

Like I said groupthink, he did not say that, nor are you all saying the same thing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']22% is not the average tax rate in the country FYI lets not get that rumor spreading.[/QUOTE]

No one said . Just responding to your post acting like 22% was some huge burden in your post.

Who knows what the real average is when you factor all the money high income people are not paying taxes on through loopholes and tax evasion.
 
[quote name='Knoell']what are you talking about? the threshold back then was 1 million dollars, which is 16 million dollars today. How is that the same as 357 thousand in todays dollars.[/QUOTE]

The lower tax brackets then were also higher - around the middle of the percentage for people today. And the highest bracket in 1971-1981 was still 70% for $200,000 ($215k in 81), which today would be ~$1 million in today's dollars in 1971 down to ~$500k in today's dollars in 1981.

And again, make more brackets and expand from there, I'm not saying that people who make $357k should get taxed more, I'd like it if there were more brackets above that where it gradually increased to something closer to what it was before. If people making $1 million dollars were taxed 70% as they were in 1971, that would be ok, right?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Like I said groupthink, he did not say that, nor are you all saying the same thing.[/QUOTE]

No it just lack of reading comprehension on your part.

We're making different arguments throughout the thread but the main gist of the last few posts has been that $373K shouldn't be the highest tax bracket. That needs raised and/or we need a lot more brackets for high income folk.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Your own link, if you would have read it.[/QUOTE]

There was nothing in my link about Inflation about historical tax rates and incomes and comparing them to today's tax rates and incomes.

EDIT: Never mind. SpazX shot you down ... again.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So what about the people who make multi millions dollars a year, should they pay the same rate?[/QUOTE]

When you get up to the millions, every percent you are taxing an excessive amount of money from that person. Say they make 10 million a year and you want to tax them 40%. You are taking 4 million dollars from that person. Despite what you people may think, rich people are not swimming in their money vaults, they are supporting the economy, through investment, businesses, employment. Its a philosophical differance between us, you guys think the government can take that 4 million dollars and put it to good use. I believe that the person who earned it probably could put it to better use. In most cases these people are not just sitting on their money laughing at the poor people.

Edit, that also brings me back to the government waste point.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']There was nothing in my link about Inflation about historical tax rates and incomes and comparing them to today's tax rates and incomes.

EDIT: Never mind. SpazX shot you down ... again.[/QUOTE]
sorry I didn't realize spaz posted the link, theres so many of you.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yes, those are flat. Everyone pays the same percentage into those regardless of what income tax bracket your in. Sorry if someone already answered, trying to catch up on what I missed while in a meeting and the thread going wild![/QUOTE]

theoretically they're flat - the percentage necessarily diminishes for income earners whose yearly income exceeds the cap ($250K, right?).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']theoretically they're flat - the percentage necessarily diminishes for income earners whose yearly income exceeds the cap ($250K, right?).[/QUOTE]

In that case yes, I didn't know there was a cap on those. So thanks for the correction!
 
[quote name='Knoell']When you get up to the millions, every percent you are taxing an excessive amount of money from that person. Say they make 10 million a year and you want to tax them 40%. You are taking 4 million dollars from that person. Despite what you people may think, rich people are not swimming in their money vaults, they are supporting the economy, through investment, businesses, employment. Its a philosophical differance between us, you guys think the government can take that 4 million dollars and put it to good use. I believe that the person who earned it probably could put it to better use. In most cases these people are not just sitting on their money laughing at the poor people.

Edit, that also brings me back to the government waste point.[/QUOTE]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-do-the-very-wealthy-spend-money-on-you-may-not-want-to-know
 
[quote name='Knoell'] Say they make 10 million a year and you want to tax them 40%. You are taking 4 million dollars from that person. [/QUOTE]

Jesus-sunbaked-christ, you're still using examples that are assuming a flat tax rather than an incremental tax.

fuck it, making good on my post above. ignore +1.
 
Oh yeah, I do remember something about a cap. That is a regressive tax after that.

And Knoell, you're against government waste? So is Obama! Everybody's against government waste, it sounds good and it's nonspecific.

And to the point you're making about 40% on 10 million, obviously the more money you make the more you pay, that would happen even if the tax was flat. Do you think you should get taxed a lower percentage as you make more money?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Jesus-sunbaked-christ, you're still using examples that are assuming a flat tax rather than an incremental tax.

fuck it, making good on my post above. ignore +1.[/QUOTE]

You really want me to go through and see the difference? ok so its like 3.99 million instead.
 
[quote name='SpazX']
And Knoell, you're against government waste? So is Obama! Everybody's against government waste, it sounds good and it's nonspecific.[/QUOTE]

Hooray for talking points!
 
[quote name='SpazX']Oh yeah, I do remember something about a cap. That is a regressive tax after that.

And Knoell, you're against government waste? So is Obama! Everybody's against government waste, it sounds good and it's nonspecific.

And to the point you're making about 40% on 10 million, obviously the more money you make the more you pay, that would happen even if the tax was flat. Do you think you should get taxed a lower percentage as you make more money?[/QUOTE]

Obama is not against government waste, or else he would have made good on his campaign promises and went line by line through the bills, and took it out. The stimulus for example has situations in which cities are getting millions of dollars for studies on homeless people and why they smoke. Oh and my favorite millions of dollars to study why if you pay attention you can achieve better results. Why is this stuff necessary in the stimulus? There is a reason that the unemployment rate is at 10 percent still.

So there is no limit to the tax debt you owe the government? After all the money doesn't really belong to you, money is for the good of the nation. Slippery slope dont you think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top