34Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteIf your father in-law tells you he'd only pay 4% on an extra $100k of earned income, he's as ignorant as you and your pay stub.Originally Posted by UncleBuck
Tell us all more of how a business runs Bucky! ROTFLMAO
Tetris Champion!
lol, you are such a douche.Is that all you want to comment on?You got PWNED!
all you did was call one anecdote out of my analysis a lie, which it is not.
do you want me to post a tape of my pa in law saying it, just like i posted my pay stub to prove you 100% unequivocally wrong?
get to work on the rest of what i wrote, douche.
If your father in-law tells you he'd only pay 4% on an extra $100k of earned income, he's as ignorant as you and your pay stub.
Tell us all more of how a business runs Bucky! ROTFLMAO
Tetris Champion!
as ignorant as fact? like clinton era tax levels being 4.6% higher?If your father in-law tells you he'd only pay 4% on an extra $100k of earned income, he's as ignorant as you and your pay stub.
Tell us all more of how a business runs Bucky! ROTFLMAO
if i were you, i would try debating a tater tot. you'd have way more success.
Clinton era tax levels? Are you wanting to change the subject Bucky? LMAO
Tetris Champion!
change the subject?
use your big brain and check my first post in this thread to see if i mention clinton era tax levels.
better yet, go cook some tater tots, and debate them. that's more your level.
Is the debate more "heated" if you cook them first?
Last I checked taxes were part of the cost of doing business. These fucking corporations have states giving up the farm for minimum wage jobs. Many times when business is discussed it is on a larger public scale, not a mom and pop.With all due respect Bucky, it sounds like your father in-law is as ignorant as you when it comes to taxes.
Look at the figures he uses, an extra 100k in income only nets him $4k in more tax liability? Are you friggin serious, Hell, just a week ago you were trying to convince us all you were paying an effective rate of 25% on only $28k a year, now your father in-law tells you you'd pay 4% on an extra $100k, you're either the dumbest resident know it all on RIU, or a straight up liar.
Get your fact straight Bucky, a business owner with an average taxable income of $200,000 annually that makes an extra $100k the following year, his tax liability will go up approximately $25,000. That would make his effective rate on that extra income around 25%, the same effective rate you paid on 1/4 of the income. LOL
Only a retard would do a ten minute Wikipedia search on how to run a business, then turn around and give critique.
Before you tell another poster he has no idea how a business runs, you may want to know yourself.
Yes, bain created jobs with staples, but I can name at least three mom and pops that went tits up when they came to town.
So UB is correct, under clinton the wealthy did extrodinarily well. their piece of the pie was smaller but the pie got way bigger as was the net. they're just used to having the whole pie so that's the fight. greedy fucks.....
Check out:
Budleydorights Big sealed Box Bursting with Big Beautiful BlueBerry Buds! http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journal...erry-coco.html
Last I checked I wasn't debating income disparity, I was making the a case that Bucky was full of shit on how much taxes a business owner pays on an extra $100K, and BTW, he wasn't even close! LOL
It's admirable for you to come to Bucky's defense, but you're defending something that was not argued.
Hey, if you or anyone else wants an honest debate about the OP, by all means I'm in.
I'll start of by saying, Bucky was even wrong about why the economy prospered during the Clinton years!
Annnd back to the main point of this thread. Which everyone keeps tiptoeing around. If the tax breaks for the rich and the trickle down economic platform was so successful, where are all the jobs?
Where are all the jobs, I'll start by saying that 97 % of all US businesses are "small businesses" and small businesses are suffering just as much. While higher taxes are a definite deterrent, they're not the only determining factor of whether small businesses expand and hire. Take my line of business (residential construction) as an example, from 1998-2007 I averaged about 22 employees, the economy was booming and everyone was happy. The biggest reason I and most people were doing so well, was because of the housing bubble.
Everyone and their brother were refinancing their homes and reaping the benefits of crazy high rising home equities.
Well, we all know what happened to the housing bubble, it burst and that in itself is up for another debate as to why.
The brunt of my work came from wealthy people, people I know that were making $300K - $500k a year and up.
I have no idea what their tax rates were, but I do know that these people were not affected by a couple of points up or down on the tax rates of their wages, it was their capital gains from investments. The extra money they accumulated by these capital gains was the disposable income they used to build these expensive houses.
There is no argument that the disposable income of these rich people created jobs and stimulated small business, my employees and I are testament to this fact.
Fast forward to 2012, that 22 employee company of mine is now shrunken down to me and 4 workers!
Keep in mind that this boom took place while taxes on wages were 39.6% (Clinton era) and 35% (Bush tax cut era)
What no one talks about or realizes is, during the touted "Clinton Boom", Bill Clinton actually [cut] the capital gains tax from 28% down to 20% and also gave tax [cuts] to over 90% of American small businesses. Why is this inconvenient fact always ignored?
So if you are claiming the money made by the investments of the rich didn't trickle down to my employees and I (the middle class) , you are sadly mistaken. BTW, my debate is not targeted to make the left look wrong and the right look right, and they're not something I read from an article or a right wing blog, they're real life facts.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks