List of Flip Flops from Romney

[UncleBuck]

Everyone on this forum knows you are lying, I said effective tax rate from the get, problem is, you had no clue what it was!

I'm sure you were talking about Mitt's withholding not his effective tax rate, right! LMAO

no, you didn't.

check post #11. that's where this all starts. you said nothing of effective tax rates.

in post #51, you ask me about my tax rate, mentioning nothing of effective tax rates.

post #60, once again, no mention of effective tax rate.

in post #71, i refer to my effective tax rate of about 22% without mentioning the word 'effective'.

in post #72, you challenge this without mentioning effective tax rate.

post #88, you challenge me again, never mentioning effective tax rate.

post #99, is your first mention of effective tax rates.

post #109, i reassert my effective tax rate of about 22% without mentioning effective tax rate.

post #119, you challenge me again, never mentioning effective tax rate.

some time later, i produce proof of my withholding, at 25%.

i'm not sure if i mention it, but it should be pretty clear to any yapping halfwit that the 22% effective rate i paid that year was AFTER i got my return.

the main point of contention was whether or not i paid a higher rate than the 13.9% rate that romney paid.

well, you can clearly see that's true by reading the thread.

have at it.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/527132-tax-analogy-whos-really-paying.html

 

[UncleBuck]

and with that, i am off to trim now.

don't commit suicide, clayton. you yapping halfwit.

 

[AndrewDeeKing]

Not even informed on the debate but withholding is far different from effective tax rate.

Gee, it went from effective to withholding did it!
It's alright Buckie, it's exposing you that delights me, I report, they decide. LOL

you're quite correct.

clayton the yapping halfwit tried to claim he said effective tax rate, even going so far as to dig up the thread and post a few instances where he did use the term 'effective tax rate'.

however, he chose to omit earlier replies (the original challenge) where he said nothing about effective tax rate.

i'll be happy to have this discussion for the Nth time, but we are just going round in circles with clayton falling prey to the treadmill, as illustrated so beautifully below.

please proceed, yapping halfwit.

Everyone on this forum knows you are lying, I said effective tax rate from the get, problem is, you had no clue what it was!

I'm sure you were talking about Mitt's withholding not his effective tax rate, right! LMAO

Wow...I thought you were kidding at first about him STILL trying to weasel his way out...you weren't...this guy is obviously a narssasitic personality of some sorts. When one can't admit to being wrong, twists logic, lies for no apparent reason in an effort to use people or gain their admiration in showing how educated he is (when he's not)...that is traits of a Sociopath. Or Anti Social Personailty Disorder (the new term for socios)...I just kinda give up. Some people are like this...it's just sad and annoying.

Sacremento is NORTHERN CALIFORNIA...it is NOT AN OPINION it is a FACT...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sacramento_County_California_Incorporated_and_Unincorporated_areas_Sacramento_Highlighted.svg&page=1 this is a MAP of California...see the dot? The dot is ABOVE the middle border! How can we prove this? Well just on a small scale...this map on a 1240 pc resolution is 5.5inches. The border of Sacramento END at 2 inches! Now I know using grade school math is tough...but 2.75 is half way. It isn't. It's 2. Meaning it's on the north side of the border. It doesn't matter if you do this in miles...it will still be north just with different numbers and I am too stoned and tired to do that.

I don't fucking get it....are you going to curl up and die? Do you think you will lose internet respect? Just admit you were incorrect and HELL! I'll give you a +rep personally!

BTW you can test this FACT not OPINION out with a ruler, or look up the miles of the legnth of cali and the end border of Sac or JUST HAVE A FUCKING PAIR OF EYES .....holy shit!

And I'm not even starting on you little tax hissy fit. Go ahead...let me hear how it's STILL opinion decide numbers, logic, fact, and the governor of California calling it Norcal his GODDAMN SELF!

I needa joint after reading your comments....

 

[AndrewDeeKing]

WAIT...let me make your post for you

"dude its an opinion! some people say that! your using WIKIPEDIA a site that can be edited by anyone as if it's fact! and wiki answers! Those sites (and the others) are jsut stating their opnion! As for the Governor...I mean I guess it's just HIS opinion!"

Did I get it?

 

[beenthere]

Post #8

romney is not even in the top 1%, he is in the top 0.006% of earners. yet if we put him in you analogy, he would be paying at a lesser rate than the 5th poorest person there. i mean, the guys pays 13% in taxes on his 20 million. canna sylvan and me (when i'm working those desk jobs) pay closer 25% in taxes on our $30k.

so your analogy in not analogous, and to call it an analogy is an insult to analogies.

Post #14

Just as I said, you are full of shit and have no frigging clue what you are talking about.
Your handy dandy chart is nothing but a progressive tax table! LMFAO

If your agi is $35k, your taxable income is about 24k so the effective tax rate on that income is around 9%, and that's filing single with no child tax credit or no deductions.
You're nothing but a big mouth progressive with no life experience. But what a big game you talk on the forums. You got busted lying about taxes you do not pay, so I'll assume you lie about everything else.

You're a proven liar Bucky, you even went to all the trouble to list posts that did not mean a thing other than your own futile attempt to deceive.
That's why I consider progressives like you the ilk of society, it's all about what lies you can get away with.
Most people would consider themselves painted in a small corner but I highly doubt you have the moxy to admit you were pwned!

 

[fb360]

If you're a member of a MARIJUANA site and VOTE ROMNEY...you're a hypocrite....

Same with Obama, but true in regards towards marijuana. Unfortunately, there are many more aspects of society and well being which must be taken into consideration

 

[AndrewDeeKing]

Same with Obama, but true in regards towards marijuana. Unfortunately, there are many more aspects of society and well being which must be taken into consideration

Before Marijuana? Impossible I'm sorry I just would not vote for him...he is a liar...

 

[fb360]

Before Marijuana? Impossible I'm sorry I just would not vote for him...he is a liar...

haha I respect the first part of your post, as well as the second, however if you continued with your own logic (being a liar), then surely Obama would be out as well, correct?

 

[UncleBuck]

You're a proven liar Bucky

if the federal withholding tax is $1,140 on $4,560 earned, what percentage of federal withholding taxes were deducted, clayton?

answer: the federal withholding tax was deducted at a rate of 25%.

25% > 15% (taxes on middle wage earners versus taxes on capital gains).

21.9% > 13.9% (effective tax rates on my wages that year versus romney's effective tax rates on his solitary release of tax returns).

romney has argued that his 15% rate on capital gains is fair while someone who earns $35-$40k or so pays 25% (top rates for clayton the yapping halfwit).

now tell me: did i lie when i said that i paid a higher tax rate (both marginal and effective) than romney?

 

[NLXSK1]

no, you didn't.

check post #11. that's where this all starts. you said nothing of effective tax rates.

in post #51, you ask me about my tax rate, mentioning nothing of effective tax rates.

post #60, once again, no mention of effective tax rate.

in post #71, i refer to my effective tax rate of about 22% without mentioning the word 'effective'.

in post #72, you challenge this without mentioning effective tax rate.

post #88, you challenge me again, never mentioning effective tax rate.

post #99, is your first mention of effective tax rates.

post #109, i reassert my effective tax rate of about 22% without mentioning effective tax rate.

post #119, you challenge me again, never mentioning effective tax rate.

some time later, i produce proof of my withholding, at 25%.

i'm not sure if i mention it, but it should be pretty clear to any yapping halfwit that the 22% effective rate i paid that year was AFTER i got my return.

the main point of contention was whether or not i paid a higher rate than the 13.9% rate that romney paid.

well, you can clearly see that's true by reading the thread.

have at it.

https://www.rollitup.org/politics/527132-tax-analogy-whos-really-paying.html

Medicare and Social security are plans that you pay into for future benefits. People who get capital gains are not taxed on those categories and in the future receive no additional benefits.

Therefore, you are lumping apples with oranges and saying you pay a higher effective rate although you are paying into several programs that eventually pay back to you multiple times over what you put in....

So your whole premise is fucked....

Since you are supposedly getting the federal witholding tax back and the other taxes are for future BENEFITS!!! It appears your effective tax rate is about 8.9% or much lower than Romney's 13% or so.... Dickhead...

 

[nitro harley]

if the federal withholding tax is $1,140 on $4,560 earned, what percentage of federal withholding taxes were deducted, clayton?

answer: the federal withholding tax was deducted at a rate of 25%.

25% > 15% (taxes on middle wage earners versus taxes on capital gains).

21.9% > 13.9% (effective tax rates on my wages that year versus romney's effective tax rates on his solitary release of tax returns).

romney has argued that his 15% rate on capital gains is fair while someone who earns $35-$40k or so pays 25% (top rates for clayton the yapping halfwit).

now tell me: did i lie when i said that i paid a higher tax rate (both marginal and effective) than romney?

Hey uncle buck....

The last time I looked the stock market was for everybody....I am not a day trader but I have bought and sold stocks....I have paid 28/15% on my stock gains....It's a gamble, you can only right off 3k in loses......My real job I pay around 28% and I live in oregon.....

Three years ago I put 7500 into the market and a year later my account was over 100k....thank god I only had to pay 15% tax on my long term gains, because I already paid tax's on the money I started with.....see where this is going?.....Lets give romney some credit for being good at investing...alot of people arn't that good at it.....That chance is the same for all of us.....try it you might be a winner....nitro..

 

[Dr Kynes]

if the federal withholding tax is $1,140 on $4,560 earned, what percentage of federal withholding taxes were deducted, clayton?

answer: the federal withholding tax was deducted at a rate of 25%.

25% > 15% (taxes on middle wage earners versus taxes on capital gains).

21.9% > 13.9% (effective tax rates on my wages that year versus romney's effective tax rates on his solitary release of tax returns).

romney has argued that his 15% rate on capital gains is fair while someone who earns $35-$40k or so pays 25% (top rates for clayton the yapping halfwit).

now tell me: did i lie when i said that i paid a higher tax rate (both marginal and effective) than romney?

the "withholding tax" shown on that stub is more accurately described as a "Tax Withholding". it is designed to take more than the tax demanded so that you will voluntarily file the tax return form to get some of your money back.

withholding is not a tax at 25%, in fact signing up for voluntary withholding at a 25% rate is poor planning on your part. my withholding is around 10%, and come tax time ill get some back still. if i withheld at 25% i would still pay the same tax of around 8% of my gross pay every year but i would get a fat return check for the balance which would be basically an interest free loan to washington.

25% withholding IS NOT a 25% tax rate, its being deliberately overcharged so the tax man can create a fat check for you. at your income, between the payroll taxes and your state taxes and federal, you would pay like 12% tax total between them all.

 

[FreedomWorks]

Obama and Frank Marshall Davis may as well be the same exact person. Same ideas, same rhetoric, SAME WORDS. Not Obama when he was a kid. Dr. Kynes, your bullshit meter is through roof

[video=youtube;IQJsi-kB7_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUpUIs4d1U4zVNuswhW44sNA&feature=player _detailpage&v=IQJsi-kB7_8[/video]

 

[AndrewDeeKing]

Lmao Buckley didnt even respond to what I wrote and stfu now XDDDDDDDDDD he mad and @ fb360

HEY..don't get me wrong...all politics arel iars...OBama as well...but Romney is like trying to get the world record or something. OBama is the lesser of two evils unfortunatley so ya.

 

[kelly4]

OBama is the lesser of two evils unfortunatley so ya.

You do know there are more than 2 demons running, correct?

 

[AndrewDeeKing]

You do know there are more than 2 demons running, correct?

If you think ANY of those other guys have a chance you're either really high or delusional.

You know that Romney and Obama lead by OVERWHELMING numbers, correct?

Voting for anyone of those other guys is equivalent to just taking your vote, and wiping your ass with it. And voting is already meaningless enough.

 

[cannabineer]

Sacramento is NORTHERN CALIFORNIA...it is NOT AN OPINION it is a FACT...

As far as I know, it is neither. Instead it is a convention. This has more weight than opinion but not as much as fact.

So while UB is perfectly justified in choosing a convention that works for him, he isn't (and hasn't committed that transgression, for all his peripheral bluster) dismissing the other conventions, the most extreme of which is the division of Ca into "the Southland" and, beyond the Tehachapis, "all else ~grumble~ buncha unbathed commies". ~grin~ cn

 

[kelly4]

If you think ANY of those other guys have a chance you're either really high or delusional.

You know that Romney and Obama lead by OVERWHELMING numbers, correct?

I don't vote for someone because they are in the top two. I also don't limit my voting choices because someone won't garner enough support to win. I vote for the person who comes closest to standing for what I beleive in.

 

[beenthere]

if the federal withholding tax is $1,140 on $4,560 earned, what percentage of federal withholding taxes were deducted, clayton?

answer: the federal withholding tax was deducted at a rate of 25%.

25% > 15% (taxes on middle wage earners versus taxes on capital gains).

21.9% > 13.9% (effective tax rates on my wages that year versus romney's effective tax rates on his solitary release of tax returns).

romney has argued that his 15% rate on capital gains is fair while someone who earns $35-$40k or so pays 25% (top rates for clayton the yapping halfwit).

now tell me: did i lie when i said that i paid a higher tax rate (both marginal and effective) than romney?

You lied when you made the claim I never mentioned "effective rate" from the beginning, post #8 is proof of your lie. There's no way you didn't see it because you went through all the trouble to research the thread!

Now you're trying to deflect from that by wanting to engage in idiotic arguments on effective tax rates.
The fact is Bucky, It was crystal clear from the beginning you did not know the difference between marginal rates, effective rates and payroll withholdings or you would have never made such a ridiculous claim.

You or anyone on this forum could plug your $28k earnings into an online tax calculator and see that your effective rate would be between 6%-9% depending on your exceptions and credits. In fact, I think you already have and can't bear the fact you were proven wrong in front of everyone.

Just like you arguing with Californians that Sacramento is not in N. California, you just can't bring yourself to admitting when you're wrong.
But make no mistake Bucky, everyone else see's it and that's good enough for me!

 

[Harrekin]

You lied when you made the claim I never mentioned "effective rate" from the beginning, post #8 is proof of your lie. There's no way you didn't see it because you went through all the trouble to research the thread!

Now you're trying to deflect from that by wanting to engage in idiotic arguments on effective tax rates.
The fact is Bucky, It was crystal clear from the beginning you did not know the difference between marginal rates, effective rates and payroll withholdings or you would have never made such a ridiculous claim.

You or anyone on this forum could plug your $28k earnings into an online tax calculator and see that your effective rate would be between 6%-9% depending on your exceptions and credits. In fact, I think you already have and can't bear the fact you were proven wrong in front of everyone.

Just like you arguing with Californians that Sacramento is not in N. California, you just can't bring yourself to admitting when you're wrong.
But make no mistake Bucky, everyone else see's it and that's good enough for me!

Get over it, how long have yous been whinging about this?

God damn.