Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,552
President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs. Read more

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115002 May 13, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been over this before.
Flat tax, everybody over federal poverty level income pays, no deductions, how much did you make, take 17%, send it in. One-page tax return, no more tax lawyers, tax dodge artists, and legions of IRS agents - they all have to go get real jobs.
That was not the question, who do you think should pay more taxes? Everytime I mentioned the rich you poo-poo'd the idea. If more has to be collected it has to come from somewhere, so who do you suggest?

Now, the way you tax may answer that question indirectly, but I am looking for a direct response from you.

Your reliance on a method of taxation in order to answer the question is distorting because I may not agree with your method of taxation even if it taxes the rich more.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115003 May 13, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not the question, who do you think should pay more taxes? Everytime I mentioned the rich you poo-poo'd the idea. If more has to be collected it has to come from somewhere, so who do you suggest?
Now, the way you tax may answer that question indirectly, but I am looking for a direct response from you.
Your reliance on a method of taxation in order to answer the question is distorting because I may not agree with your method of taxation even if it taxes the rich more.
You have my clear and direct answer, as far as the federal Income tax is concerned, so quit waffling and make up your mind.

It doesn't get any more clear and direct that what I've posted.

The question of taxes is properly addressed as nothing more nor less than a matter of finding the fairest and most efficient way of raising the revenue necessary to run the federal government. Period.

A simple Flat Tax with a means-tested zero-tax threshold and no looholes, deductions, complicated Credits, etc. is a progressive, objectively fair, and efficient tax that clearly meets meets this requirement.

But for you and your fellow Progressive partisan political class warrior idealogues, taxes are just another scheme - a political fight you're desperate to pick, in which there must be winners and losers that can be played off against one another for partisan political profit. The question of how the NATION benefits or loses and how well the taxpayers' scarce money is being used to deliver maximum value back to them in public goods and services with minimum wastage on pointless bureaucracy and political machinations holds no importance for you and your ilk, does it?

So your question deserves no answer from serious patriotic Americans - because it's a destructive and stupid one, typical of the professional Political Class that needs to be run out of Washington on a rail.

My answer? GTFO, partisan hack.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115004 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You have my clear and direct answer, as far as the federal Income tax is concerned, so quit waffling and make up your mind.
It doesn't get any more clear and direct that what I've posted.
The question of taxes is properly addressed as nothing more nor less than a matter of finding the fairest and most efficient way of raising the revenue necessary to run the federal government. Period.
A simple Flat Tax with a means-tested zero-tax threshold and no looholes, deductions, complicated Credits, etc. is a progressive, objectively fair, and efficient tax that clearly meets meets this requirement.
But for you and your fellow Progressive partisan political class warrior idealogues, taxes are just another scheme - a political fight you're desperate to pick, in which there must be winners and losers that can be played off against one another for partisan political profit. The question of how the NATION benefits or loses and how well the taxpayers' scarce money is being used to deliver maximum value back to them in public goods and services with minimum wastage on pointless bureaucracy and political machinations holds no importance for you and your ilk, does it?
So your question deserves no answer from serious patriotic Americans - because it's a destructive and stupid one, typical of the professional Political Class that needs to be run out of Washington on a rail.
My answer? GTFO, partisan hack.
Your answer translate to "I don't want to answer your question so I will not answer your question. It might embarrass me."

A "Flat" tax imposed on 100% of all income regardless of source (work, investment, inheritence, etc...) which replaces ALL taxes applied equally to business and individuals with a threshold income of no taxation might be workable.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115005 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You have my clear and direct answer, as far as the federal Income tax is concerned, so quit waffling and make up your mind.
It doesn't get any more clear and direct that what I've posted.
The question of taxes is properly addressed as nothing more nor less than a matter of finding the fairest and most efficient way of raising the revenue necessary to run the federal government. Period.
A simple Flat Tax with a means-tested zero-tax threshold and no looholes, deductions, complicated Credits, etc. is a progressive, objectively fair, and efficient tax that clearly meets meets this requirement.
But for you and your fellow Progressive partisan political class warrior idealogues, taxes are just another scheme - a political fight you're desperate to pick, in which there must be winners and losers that can be played off against one another for partisan political profit. The question of how the NATION benefits or loses and how well the taxpayers' scarce money is being used to deliver maximum value back to them in public goods and services with minimum wastage on pointless bureaucracy and political machinations holds no importance for you and your ilk, does it?
So your question deserves no answer from serious patriotic Americans - because it's a destructive and stupid one, typical of the professional Political Class that needs to be run out of Washington on a rail.
My answer? GTFO, partisan hack.
If corporations have rights as American citizens have rights, then they should be taxed as American citizens are taxed.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115007 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Your answer translate to "I don't want to answer your question so I will not answer your question. It might embarrass me."
Only thru your surgically attached progressive class warrior idiological goggles, OKB.

The rest of the American People didn't require a translation of perfectly clear English.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>A "Flat" tax imposed on 100% of all income regardless of source (work, investment, inheritence, etc...) which replaces ALL taxes applied equally to business and individuals with a threshold income of no taxation might be workable.
Inheritance is not income (that "income" has already been taxed once when originally earned, so unfair and stupid to give the Federal Waste Monster two bites at the apple), but other than that, it appears you & I are in complete accord!

How scary is that, eh?

(OKB panics, calls the MediaMatters emergency call center for guidance, and scrambles to find some reason, however pointless, to disagree in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115009 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
If corporations have rights as American citizens have rights, then they should be taxed as American citizens are taxed.
I'm fine with that, PROVIDED YOU AGREE THAT INCOME ONLY GETS TAXED ONCE - NO DOUBLE-DIPPING!

If you think it's fair (let's put aside whether it's SMART or not for the moment) to tax success twice - once when it's earned by people working together (as a corporation) and then AGAIN when that same after-tax corporate income is distributed to the people whose shared work, industry, enterprise, and talent produced it, please explain why you think that's fair (and bonus points if you can explain why it's SMART for the Nation to piss away even more of that scarce National seed corn on Government consumption).

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115010 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Only thru your surgically attached progressive class warrior idiological goggles, OKB.
The rest of the American People didn't require a translation of perfectly clear English.
<quoted text>
Inheritance is not income (that "income" has already been taxed once when originally earned, so unfair and stupid to give the Federal Waste Monster two bites at the apple), but other than that, it appears you & I are in complete accord!
How scary is that, eh?
(OKB panics, calls the MediaMatters emergency call center for guidance, and scrambles to find some reason, however pointless, to disagree in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)
Inheritence, gifts, lotteries are all income and should be treated as such.

In the same sense that when we divest, give a gift or fail to win the lottery it is an outgo or even an expense to our net value.

First, you can not prove that the totality of an inheritence has ever been taxed. Capital gains are an excellent example.

Second, the purpose is to prevent and aristocracy from developing. Jeffersonian in its implementation.

You are much more politically aligned with the right than I am with left, but if your comparisons entertain you, by all means continue.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115011 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Only thru your surgically attached progressive class warrior idiological goggles, OKB.
The rest of the American People didn't require a translation of perfectly clear English.
<quoted text>
Inheritance is not income (that "income" has already been taxed once when originally earned, so unfair and stupid to give the Federal Waste Monster two bites at the apple), but other than that, it appears you & I are in complete accord!
How scary is that, eh?
(OKB panics, calls the MediaMatters emergency call center for guidance, and scrambles to find some reason, however pointless, to disagree in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)
So you agree that corporations should be taxed as individuals as I stated? That would put a lawyers out of business.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115012 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fine with that, PROVIDED YOU AGREE THAT INCOME ONLY GETS TAXED ONCE - NO DOUBLE-DIPPING!
If you think it's fair (let's put aside whether it's SMART or not for the moment) to tax success twice - once when it's earned by people working together (as a corporation) and then AGAIN when that same after-tax corporate income is distributed to the people whose shared work, industry, enterprise, and talent produced it, please explain why you think that's fair (and bonus points if you can explain why it's SMART for the Nation to piss away even more of that scarce National seed corn on Government consumption).
I agree that each entity that is taxed should pay tax on income only once. However, what you are referring to with inheritences is that the item, not the individual only get taxed once. That is a completely different context than what is normally inferred.

As an example, I make $1000.00. I pay taxes on it and invest $200 of what is left. Two years later I cash in the investment and get my original $200 back plus another $200. I pay capital gains on the additional $200 but not my original $200.

Now you stated that if my heirs were to inherit the $400 they should pay no taxes. First, they never paid one dime of tax on any of it. Second, no one has paid a dime on the $200 of capital gains.

Suppose we owned a business together. You earn money, pay taxes on it, and save some. Eventually you start your own business with the money you saved. 20 years later you sell it for a profit. You owe capital gains on what the value increased over what you paid.

Again, your worthless kids who never worked a day in their lives inherit it instead and you say they should owe no taxes.

Explain your inconsistencies.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115013 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm fine with that, PROVIDED YOU AGREE THAT INCOME ONLY GETS TAXED ONCE - NO DOUBLE-DIPPING!
If you think it's fair (let's put aside whether it's SMART or not for the moment) to tax success twice - once when it's earned by people working together (as a corporation) and then AGAIN when that same after-tax corporate income is distributed to the people whose shared work, industry, enterprise, and talent produced it, please explain why you think that's fair (and bonus points if you can explain why it's SMART for the Nation to piss away even more of that scarce National seed corn on Government consumption).
I see, so you think if I work for XYZ Corp, and they pay taxes on what they make then I should owe no taxes on what they pay me, right?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115014 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Inheritence, gifts, lotteries are all income and should be treated as such.
In the same sense that when we divest, give a gift or fail to win the lottery it is an outgo or even an expense to our net value.
First, you can not prove that the totality of an inheritence has ever been taxed. Capital gains are an excellent example.
Second, the purpose is to prevent and aristocracy from developing. Jeffersonian in its implementation.
You are much more politically aligned with the right than I am with left, but if your comparisons entertain you, by all means continue.
"Right" and "Left" are mere labels, much beloved of political hacks unable to muster arguments based upon facts and reason.

The Jeffersonian objection you refer to was against European primogeniture laws of inheritance of POLITICAL power, hereditary seats in Parliament, etc. Your twisted invocation of this to justify confiscation of private property is disingenuous.

You really need to get over your obsession with "inheritance" as "income." It's a moot point - as a practical matter, private wealth today never passes to individuals as what you erroneously call "income" anyway - it remains in Trusts, so as never to be subject to taxation. Give it up.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115015 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that corporations should be taxed as individuals as I stated? That would put a lawyers out of business.
They already are.

They already have to file corporate tax returns and pay taxes - just as individuals do.

So what's your problem?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115016 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that each entity that is taxed should pay tax on income only once. However, what you are referring to with inheritences is that the item, not the individual only get taxed once. That is a completely different context than what is normally inferred.
As an example, I make $1000.00. I pay taxes on it
OK stop. There you go. You paid taxes ON EVERY DOLLAR OF THE $1000. It's ALL been taxed.

HOW MUCH OF THE $1000 DO YOU HAVE LEFT AFTER the federal government took (and probably wasted on Solyndra) its bite of that $1000?

Let's say -$800. Because YOU didn't say.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115017 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that each entity that is taxed should pay tax on income only once. However, what you are referring to with inheritences is that the item, not the individual only get taxed once. That is a completely different context than what is normally inferred.
As an example, I make $1000.00. I pay taxes on it
OK stop. There you go. You paid taxes ON EVERY DOLLAR OF THE $1000. It's ALL been taxed.

HOW MUCH OF THE $1000 DO YOU HAVE LEFT AFTER the federal government took (and probably wasted on Solyndra) its bite of that $1000?

Let's say -$800. Because YOU didn't say.

OK - continue.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
... and invest $200 of what is left.


$200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Two years later I cash in the investment and get my original $200 ...
$200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... back plus another $200. I pay capital gains on the additional $200 ...
OK, now pumpkin - remember that you paid taxes on that $200 because you're about to go all Progressive Alzheimers on this point in just a second ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... but not my original $200.
That same original $200 of ALREADY TAXED money out of the $800 left AFTER TAXES. OK - continue -
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Now you stated that if my heirs were to inherit the $400 they should pay no taxes. First, they never paid one dime of tax on any of it.
Doesn't matter. It's already been taxed by the federal government.

That's all that matters.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Second, no one has paid a dime on the $200 of capital gains.
Poor, poor clueless OKB. Progressive Alzheimbers strikes again.

Re-read this post again from the top until you get it.
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> Suppose we owned a business together.
With your business acumen and tenuous grip on reality? Not likely ...
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> You earn money,...
Hold it, skip - I earn money? Or OUR BUSINESS earned money?

You have no idea which, do you?
okboston wrote:
<quoted text> ... pay taxes on it, and save some. Eventually you start your own business with the money you saved. 20 years later you sell it for a profit. You owe capital gains on what the value increased over what you paid.
Again, your worthless kids who never worked a day in their lives inherit it instead and you say they should owe no taxes.
Explain your inconsistencies.
OKB - that makes no sense at all.

Stop PWD. You have a hard enough time making sense when you're not drunk.
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115018 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so you think if I work for XYZ Corp, and they pay taxes on what they make then I should owe no taxes on what they pay me, right?
No, fool.

If you are a SHAREHOLDER in XYZ Corp, if you are taxed on your share of what XYZ Corp made AFTER TAXES, that's double taxation.
Say the Truth

Eatontown, NJ

#115020 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
We've been over this before.
Flat tax, everybody over federal poverty level income pays, no deductions, how much did you make, take 17%, send it in. One-page tax return, no more tax lawyers, tax dodge artists, and legions of IRS agents - they all have to go get real jobs.
Works for me.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115021 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Right" and "Left" are mere labels, much beloved of political hacks unable to muster arguments based upon facts and reason.
The Jeffersonian objection you refer to was against European primogeniture laws of inheritance of POLITICAL power, hereditary seats in Parliament, etc. Your twisted invocation of this to justify confiscation of private property is disingenuous.
You really need to get over your obsession with "inheritance" as "income." It's a moot point - as a practical matter, private wealth today never passes to individuals as what you erroneously call "income" anyway - it remains in Trusts, so as never to be subject to taxation. Give it up.
No, it was about money and its relationship to power. My justification is not misused at all; however, your knowledge of Jefferson and money and power is misused.

"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682

"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110

"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied.... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41

And a complete article on the Founding Fathers and the Estate Tax from "The Economist"

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...

It is evident that Jefferson had no problem making the wealthy, not the lower class pay taxes and a greater share of taxes.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115023 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
They already are.
They already have to file corporate tax returns and pay taxes - just as individuals do.
So what's your problem?
No, they are not. They are allowed exemptions and deducations which working tax payers are not allowed. When I say like inndividuals, I mean exactly like individuals. They get to right off their capital expenses, individuals should have the same right.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115024 May 14, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
No, fool.
If you are a SHAREHOLDER in XYZ Corp, if you are taxed on your share of what XYZ Corp made AFTER TAXES, that's double taxation.
But currently, XYZ gets to deduct their expenses to include wages so that does not happen. Further, if I hire someone to mow my lawn, and I pay them to do so, why shouldn't I be able to deduct that from my taxes?
Teddy R

Abu Dhabi, UAE

#115025 May 14, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it was about money and its relationship to power. My justification is not misused at all; however, your knowledge of Jefferson and money and power is misused.
"Taxes should be proportioned to what may be annually spared by the individual." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1784. FE 4:15, Papers 7:557
"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785. ME 19:18, Papers 8:682
"The collection of taxes... has been as yet only by duties on consumption. As these fall principally on the rich, it is a general desire to make them contribute the whole money we want, if possible. And we have a hope that they will furnish enough for the expenses of government and the interest of our whole public debt, foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to Comte de Moustier, 1790. ME 8:110
"The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied.... Our revenues liberated by the discharge of the public debt, and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his government supported, his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by the contributions of the rich alone, without his being called on to spend a cent from his earnings." --Thomas Jefferson to Thaddeus Kosciusko, 1811. ME 13:41
And a complete article on the Founding Fathers and the Estate Tax from "The Economist"
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010...
It is evident that Jefferson had no problem making the wealthy, not the lower class pay taxes and a greater share of taxes.
Jefferson's views did not prevail.

And we may thank God for it.

If Jefferson had his way, we'd still all be hoeing potatoes and shitting in a bucket.

Brilliant man - but absolutely clueless about money and finance.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

York Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Superior Court rules evidence in York murder ca... (Mar '11) Mar 15 fredos-cellie-in-YCP 13
Review: D & M Auto Sales (Jul '14) Mar 14 fuckoff 10
Girls looking to hook up in York? Mar 9 sexyfacencck 2
Watch Out! Robert R Howard out of jail and scam... Mar 8 Grandmother 2
News York-area residents recall moments of racism (Jan '10) Feb '15 colorblind 38
News Brian Williams suspended for it, but everybody ... Feb '15 Robot High School 13
Review: Complete Construction & Maint Inc Feb '15 Dan Brinkman 1
York Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

York People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]