"By God, I've lost me leg." ". . So you have."

[Guest ratchethack]

Pardon me, Dave. But you seem to be jumping around like the proverbial bucket o' catawba worms after a refreshing rinse o' high-octane gasoline. . . .

Nobody is saying the tables are not progressive.

Eh? Who used y'er logon to post this:

. . . .I like progressive taxes and despise the regressive taxatiion in the USA.

Can you point me to the CBO numbers that show the regressive taxation that you despise?

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[Guest ratchethack]

It's pretty simple. If you're talking about "assigning" tax revenue to various categories (as the cited report does), then you're talking about taking the tax revenue pie and divvying it up. Has zero to do with who PAYS what percentage of their own income to the government. Yet you offer those numbers to make that point.

OK, I'll bite. Have you ever seen the Fed tax tables? How about y'er state tax tables?? Ever experience what happens to y'er taxes when y'er income jumps brackets in the positive direction? Y'know, I guess I always thought pretty much everybody who pays taxes understood these pedestrian-level basics??

What you have in that report you cite is further evidence of what IS very true. The gap between the rich and the poor widens - and has widened at an unprecedented rate during this administration.

Uh, Pierre - if you had actually looked at the data and read the link, you'd have noticed that the current administration was not yet in office when the CBO numbers cited therein were generated.

So now I've parsed the damn thing for you - and frankly I have better things to do. So I go back to my original post. When you talk who pays what as a percentage of income, focus on schedule C and corporate returns and you'll see that the guy who only earns a wage pays the highest percentage of what he earns in taxes. The smaller the wage, the higher the percentage. If you factor in across the board taxes like fuel and sales - it's off the chart.

Well thank you Pierre, for y'er most generous, insightful, and scrupulous analysis. If you could provide something credible - a non-partisan source like the CBO for example - to back up y'er entirely backwards point of view, which won't square with any facts anywhere, I'd like to see it. Maybe there's an Intergalactic IRS report somewhere from Remulac?

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[dlaing]

Pardon me, Dave. But you seem to be jumping around like the proverbial bucket o' catawba worms after a splach o' high-octane gasoline. . . .

 

Eh? Who used y'er logon to post this:

 

Can you point me to the CBO numbers that show the regressive taxation that you despise?

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

Go back and read again....if you care.

 

What do yah think?!?

Should we make taxes more regressive, or more progressive?!?

 

OK, I'll bite. Have you ever seen the Fed tax tables? How about y'er state tax tables?? Ever experience what happens to y'er taxes when y'er income jumps brackets in the positive direction? Y'know, I guess I always thought pretty much everybody who pays taxes understood these pedestrian-level basics??

No, the rich look only at the tables and bitch about the progressivity of the tables, and then they hire the accountant, who finds the write offs to actually make it regressive.

If you were rich, you'd know that. (joking, but you do seem to be ignoring the whole concept of write offs)

[Guest ratchethack]

Go back and read again....if you care.

 

What do yah think?!?

Should we make taxes more regressive, or more progressive?!?

Uhhhhh, Dave - this chart is irrelevant. In this Nation, whether you like it or not, to get an improvement in incomes at the low end, you have to achieve a more significant improvement at the high end as a percentage change in after-tax income. You should free y'erself from the poison and mental imprisonment mentality of the "haves vs. the have-nots" dictated by the Leftist propagandists. It's a dead-end, plantation mentality, and no one's buying it anymore.

 

The economic opportunity represented by our economy has been and still is the basis of what every Real American understands and finds unique about the opportunity available to everyone here. It also explains why people make reasonable decisions to risk their lives to get here any way they can from all over the planet - it's a destination for people seeking economic opportunity the likes of which there are few rivals (again, that's on this planet, Earth).

 

Do you consider that people at the bottom income levels don't tend to STAY at those levels, but those with ambition and the will to succeed tend to move through them relatively quickly into the upper levels? I did. I suspect that most everyone in the US on this Forum has also - including you.

 

Look at y'er Fed and State tax tables. They are true progressive tables. If taxes were ever to go regressive, there'd be an economic boom the likes of which this planet - Earth - has never seen. Sure I'd like to see it. But being a bit of a realist, I'd settle for less progressive, the way Reagan did. (see previous post #63, where this is fully explained in the article from the WSJ "Reaganomics at 25" and its results). Flat taxes would also be more my style, but that's never gonna happen here either. Only emerging economies smart enough to understand how powerful a flat tax is to a growing economy will ever have it. Or on Remulac, where y'er regressive taxes (and I guess Pierre's) seem to've come from.

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[Pierre]

OK, I'll bite. Have you ever seen the Fed tax tables? How about y'er state tax tables?? Ever experience what happens to y'er taxes when y'er income jumps brackets in the positive direction? Y'know, I guess I always thought pretty much everybody who pays taxes understood these pedestrian-level basics??

 

If I'm solely a wage earner my tax rate jumps. If however I'm schedule C or corporate I get lots of tax relief for the bulk of my income - only a small percentage of which is taxed as wages. It's only pedestrian level if one is trying to skew a point. High wage earners pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. High income earners for the most part get extraordinary tax relief within schedule C and corporate tax schedules. Just what is your point BTW? If you let one man earn all the money earned in America he'd pretty much be over represented for puposes of federal tax revenue. Given the tax code however, he'd be paying a very very low percentage of that income in taxes. Government gets a much higher percentage of earned income paid as taxes from low and middle income (who are primarily) wage earners than it does from high income self employed and corporate types.

 

 

 

Uh, Pierre - if you had actually looked at the data and read the link, you'd have noticed that the current administration was not yet in office when the CBO numbers cited therein were generated.

 

Your point? Of course high earners are over represented in the tax revenue pie. It's getting more so. Nothing in those numbers you cite, regardless the time frame, disputes that. Recent data indicate the trend has accelerated at an unprecedented pace under this administration. Not that we'll get there, mind you, but we're moving in the direction of a single earner (mega-corp) making all the income and paying all the taxes. That the rest of us starve under this scenario would be irrelevant in your argument. Wouldn[t change the trend of your cited numbers one iota. Would enhance it in fact. So again, just what is your point?

 

Well thank you Pierre, for y'er most generous, insightful, and scrupulous analysis. If you could provide something credible - a non-partisan source like the CBO for example - to back up y'er entirely backwards point of view, which won't square with any facts anywhere, I'd like to see it. Maybe there's an Intergalactic IRS report somewhere from Remulac?

 

You're welcome. Don't mention it. Your numbers are fine. Your spin was bad. Fixed now. Go forth and sin no more. Remulac out.

[Guest ratchethack]

. . . . . you do seem to be ignoring the whole concept of write offs. . . . .

Dave, If you were a child, I'd hafta give you a spanking. Screw the stupid time-out thing. The embarrassment of having y'er steady stream of folly exposed here doesn't seem to have much of a deterrent effect. You don't even seem to've minded the many rapid and repeated progressions into rank humiliation. This entire scenario barely seems to make an impression, even when you've brought it entirely upon yerself by seemingly inviting - nay, provoking - opposition and exposure of y'erself on a public Forum.

 

The clay pigeons seem to come ten to a dozen at a time. If I addressed everything you said that needs correcting, I'd be posting non-stop in full-auto mode.

 

Write-offs are deductions from taxable income. Income tax revenues are derived from taxable income.

 

Is there any part of this that's unclear to you. For that matter, is there any US taxpayer on this planet - again, that's Earth - who's capable of both feeding and wiping himself who doesn't understand this?

 

I'm begging you again (Part IV) Please, please, PLEASE gain some kind of basic understanding of the way you're taxed - here, in the US, with progressive taxes on planet Earth - before you vote next time. Again, most everything required for a solid grasp of the concepts may be found here:

 

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-0.htm

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[dlaing]

Uhhhhh, Dave - this chart is irrelevant. In this Nation, whether you like it or not, to get an improvement in incomes at the low end, you have to achieve a more significant improvement at the high end as a percentage change in after-tax income. You should free y'erself from the poison and mental imprisonment mentality of the "haves vs. the have-nots" dictated by the Leftist propagandists. It's a dead-end, plantation mentality, and no one's buying it anymore.

completely non-partisan and objective???????

 

The economic opportunity represented by our economy has been and still is the basis of what every Real American understands and finds unique about the opportunity available to everyone here. It also explains why people make reasonable decisions to risk their lives to get here any way they can from all over the planet - it's a destination for people seeking economic opportunity the likes of which there are few rivals (again, that's on this planet, Earth).

So, the Sun revolves around the USA, not Remulac????

Your nationalism is about as swollen as your head.

How do you ever find a helmet that fits?

We could go on for years about why people want to come here...and why they leave.

Don't get me wrong, I am not about to leave unless I get a job as a spoiled rich kid in some other country with nice paved curvy roads.

 

Do you consider that people at the bottom income levels don't tend to STAY at those levels, but those with ambition and the will to succeed tend to move through them relatively quickly into the upper levels? I did. I suspect that most everyone in the US on this Forum has also - including you.

It would be a better world if the honest and those at the bottom had a fair chance.

 

 

Look at y'er Fed and State tax tables. They are true progressive tables. If taxes were ever to go regressive, there'd be an economic boom the likes of which this planet - Earth - has never seen. Sure I'd like to see it. But being a bit of a realist, I'd settle for less progressive, the way Reagan did. (see previous post #63, where this is fully explained in the article from the WSJ "Reaganomics at 25" and its results). Flat taxes would also be more my style, but that's never gonna happen here either. Only emerging economies smart enough to understand how powerful a flat tax is to a growing economy will ever have it. Or on Remulac, where y'er regressive taxes (and I guess Pierre's) seem to've come from.

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

And you say you are not a partisan right winger

 

 

Dave, If you were a child, I'd hafta give you a spanking.

Sorry, I am not that way.

And I don't give guys spankings either

 

 

 

Write-offs are deductions from taxable income. Income tax revenues are derived from taxable income.

 

 

Great! So, you also understand how the wealthy use them to offset the taxable income.

Or do we have to go back to addition and subtraction lessons?

When you get rich I'll show you how to avoid taxes...for a fee.

[Guest ratchethack]

And you say you are not a partisan right winger

[sigh]

Haven't we seen this movie before?

 

Dave, once again - please do y'erself a favor. Look up the word 'partisan' in an English language dictionary (not a Remulacian language dictionary please).

 

Now if you can, please make some connection between the English definition of 'partisan' and some kind of evidence for labeling me as such. Concentrate really hard and put the actual words in the definition together the way you find them there. Use y'er imagination to connect the concepts and principles that the words create with anything you've seen in my posts. Write something down and post it here. If you cannot do any better than y'er last attempt with the irrelevant raving that has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition, y'er just spewing nonsense. You might as well call me a turnip, it's got the same degree of relevance. Your continued misuse of the word is beyond ignorant. It's just silly.

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[dlaing]

From Google

Definitions of partisan on the Web:

 

* a fervent and even militant proponent of something

* devoted to a cause or party

* enthusiast: an ardent and enthusiastic supporter of some person or activity

* a pike with a long tapering double-edged blade with lateral projections; 16th and 17th centuries

* denominational: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party; "denominational prejudice"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

* A partisan (also partizan) is a type of polearm that was used in Europe during medieval times. It consisted of a spear or lance head that was constructed as a small double headed axe built into the lower blade. Time showed this to not be the most effective design for war; however, the partisan stayed in 'use' for many years as a ceremonial weapon after it had become obsolete. Its design quickly changed from the practical to the foppish. ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partisan_(weapon)

 

* A member of a resistance group operating within enemy lines using hit-and-run guerrilla tactics against occupying Germans. Some partisan brigades (like Faye's) were affiliated with the Soviet Union.

www.pbs.org/daringtoresist/tgglossary.html

 

* A person who supports a political party or cause over other parties or causes.

www.assembly.ab.ca/pub/gdbook/glossary.htm

 

* partial to a particular party or person, often political in nature. One criticism of federal politics, especially regarding Congress, is that some politicians spend more time and effort trying to promote their party's platform than trying to develop laws and policies which serve the American people.

www.historycentral.com/Civics/P.html

 

* another guisarme-type of polearm, this variant had a broad, sword-like blade ranging from 2 - 2 1/2 feet in length. This blade was double-edged and had lugs of various designs at the bottom.

www.historicalweapons.com/otherweapons.html

 

* A staff weapon with a symmetrical double-edged central blade, often highly decorated. Carried as a ceremonial arm by officers and bodyguards in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

www.clemusart.com/museum/collect/armrglos.html

The most relevant being:

"* denominational: adhering or confined to a particular sect or denomination or party; "denominational prejudice""

and

"* partial to a particular party or person, often political in nature. One criticism of federal politics, especially regarding Congress, is that some politicians spend more time and effort trying to promote their party's platform than trying to develop laws and policies which serve the American people."

So, I say that you are partial to, and you tend to adhere with great regularity to the views of the right wing.

The definition does not indicate that you must be a member of the Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, or cetera party.

I have mentioned previously the positions of yours that coincide with the right wing, and the one exception of seen is you not liking Bush(but disliking Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and probably other Democratic Presidential hopefuls even more)

Heck, despite your position on Guns, Metrosexual and Liberal BASHING, Global Warming, Economics and more, you could be a registered Democrat...heck it is a more or less free country, still

[Guest ratchethack]

Nice stretch, Dave. Throwing it all against the wall again in the hopes that something will stick? I'm afraid that not a single one of y'er listed permutations of the word may correctly be used in y'er attempt to label me - even with a substantial stretch to fit. . . .

 

The first (primary) definition in any English dictionary will suffice.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Partisan:

 

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

 

Dave, the reason y'er having such a tough time here is because not only do I not belong to a political party, I have nothing resembling blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance to any faction, cause, or GROUPTHINK, save the merit of ideas, principles, logic, and facts.

 

So you see, despite y'er burning desire to find a "handle" with which to demonize me into the same demon bucket with all y'er favorite white authoritarian male American heterosexual Bushbot right wing Republican demons, without a TARGET GROUP to attach me to as an object of y'er carefully GROUPTHINK-cultivated seething hatred, you're forced to deal with ME on the merit (or lack thereof) of my ideas, principles, logic, and facts - all alone, raw, and unconnected to any of y'er pet propagandists' GROUPTHINK targets.

 

This puts you in a very difficult predicament.

 

Being self-identified first - and always first - by GROUPTHINK, a helium-filled party balloon of an illusion at it's core if there ever was one, and lacking anything resembling a solid foundation of ideas, principles, logic or fact-based methodology, you lack the very ideas and principles that y'er idiotic, propaganda-drenched GROUPTHINK lacks. Y'er hamstrung at every turn on ideas and principles because the ideas and principles y'er left with when the wholly fabricated, false illusion of GROUPTHINK is stripped away by the light of truth - like a hatpin to a party balloon - are merely figments of y'er own imagination. There ain't nothin' there but fleeting traces of helium and the shadows of dreams of fools, Dave. And that ain't much. ZERO. Nada.

 

At the core of y'er false reliance on GROUPTHINK, when anything resembling logical, fact-based analysis is brought to bear, y'er suddenly left out there in the balmy nitrous oxide breeze on Remulac, all by y'er lonesome with nothing but what your propagandists made sure you always dreamed could be, should be, must be -- and yet in the final analysis, isn't backed by logic and fact.

 

As evidenced again here in this thread by y'er thuddingly ignorant insistence that the US tax system is regressive, and that the CBO numbers and graphical analysis are "a bunch of crap", it's become increasingly and abundantly clear that you've developed no individual capacity or frame of reference whatsoever for understanding - or even recognizing, let alone seeking - truth. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass, and I'll wager it happens every day, all day long, without as much as a glimmer across y'er GROUPTHINK-loaded brain pan. You've been professionally dumbed-down into a perfect state of childlike idiocy, dependence, and denial, and conditioned to believe that GROUPTHINK transcends truth. Face it, Dave. Y'er a classic victim of political propaganda, manipulation, hate-mongering, and blind, empty-headed wishful thinking. Hitlery will be so pleased to discover that there seem to be so many in your captive GROUPTHINK voting bloc. She's counting on you.

 

So keep y'er eco-friendly windmill-powered backhoe in fine fettle out there on y'er purply little planet of Remulac, Dave. Y'er gonna get lots of use out of it diggin' yer sorry butt out of every hole you dig y'erself and y'er brainwashed GROUPTHINK into, fighting against the grain of logic and fact-based ideas and principles everywhere you tread. I'll be right here to make sure of it every time you broadcast y'er little provocative absurdities, which I recognize as cries for help.

 

You see, unlike y'erself, as an individual thoroughly practiced in self-directed, principle-based thinking, and well-armed with access to facts and objective analysis, I believe that it's only by the effort of facing the truth - one way or another - that you will eventually come to know it. It's never too late, and I'm here to help.

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[dlaing]

Nice stretch, Dave. Did you have to use hydraulics to expand and twist it into such far-fetched contortions?

 

The first (primary) definition in any English dictionary will suffice.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

Partisan:

 

1 : a firm adherent to a party , faction, cause, or person; especially : one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.

 

Dave, the reason y'er having such a tough time here is because not only do I not belong to a political party, I have nothing resembling blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance to any faction, cause, or GROUPTHINK, save the merit of ideas, principles, logic, and facts.

 

So you see, despite y'er burning desire to have a "handle" with which to demonize me into the same demon bucket with all y'er other favorite white authoritarian male American Bushbot right wing Republican demons, without a TARGET GROUP to attach me to as an object of y'er carefully group-cultivated seething hatred, you're forced to deal with ME on the merit (or lack thereof) of my ideas, principles, logic, and facts - all alone, raw, and unconnected to any of y'er pet propagandists' GROUPTHINK targets.

 

This puts you in a very difficult predicament.

 

Being self-identified first - and always first - by GROUPTHINK, a helium-filled party balloon of a concept at it's core if there ever was one, and lacking anything resembling a valid foundation of ideas, principles, logic and facts, you lack the very ideas and principles that y'er idiotic, propaganda-drenched GROUPTHINK lacks. Y'er hamstrung at every turn on ideas and principles because the ideas and principles y'er left with when the wholly fabricated, false illusion of GROUPTHINK is stripped away are merely figments of y'er own imagination. There ain't nothin' there but the shadows of dreams of fools, Dave. And that ain't much. ZERO. Nada.

 

At the core of y'er false reliance on GROUPTHINK, when anything resembling logical analysis is applied, y'er left out there in the balmy nitrous oxide breeze on Remulac, all by y'er lonesome with what you always dreamed could be, should be, must be, and yet in the final analysis, isn't backed by logic and fact. You've developed no individual capacity or frame of reference whatsoever for understanding - or even recognizing - truth. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the ass, and I'll wager it happens every day, all day long without as much as a glimmer across y'er brain pan. You've been conditioned to be impervious. Face it, Dave. Y'er a classic victim of political propaganda, manipulation, hate-mongering, and empty-headed wishful thinking.

 

So keep y'er eco-friendly windmill-powered backhoe in fine fettle out there on y'er purply little planet of Remulac, Dave. Y'er gonna get lots of use out of it diggin' yer sorry butt out of every hole you dig y'erself into fighting logic and fact-based ideas and principles everywhere you tread. I'll be right here to make sure of it every time you broadcast y'er cries for help. You see, I believe that it's only by the effort of dealing with the truth - one way or another - that you will eventually come to know it. It's never too late, and I'm here to help.

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

 

You can't even lose gracefully...good night JohnBoy!

[Guest ratchethack]

You can't even lose gracefully...

Heh, heh. . . . Now THAT'S funny!

 

Yes, indeed. . . . LOSE GRACEFULLY!

 

Y'er sense of humor is more'n a bit odd, Dave - but y'sure can make me laugh.

 

The nitrous index must be particularly high out there on Remulac today.

 

Y'er perpetual state of advanced denial seems to've become terribly overpowering under the influence of y'er rarified nitrous oxide atmosphere.

 

Lose what?!?!

 

LET'S HAVE A LITTLE REVIEW, SHALL WE?

 

1.) You just had y'er ass handed to you on a platter over y'er idiotically naive insistence that deductions make US taxes regressive.

 

2.) You threw an 11-point pile of nonsense against the wall on y'er claim that I'm a partisan, and nothing came even remotely close to sticking.

 

Both y'er claims were exposed as abject folly and delusion. So now you claim VICTORY!!

You can't even lose gracefully...

Stop it! Y'er killin' me. . . . . . My sides 'r splittin'. . . .

 

Give me some time to recover, please. I think my laffer's broke. . . .

 

The dark, purply world of Remulac from outer galactic high orbit approach:

[dlaing]

PTL Americans can cry too.

Even with their regressive tax write-offs