Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Barry lying again, I'm not even surprised anymore.
How about you email them back and ask them who Barry's largest "donor" is.
Its starts with G and ends with Sachs...they're also one of Mittens largest donors too.
A tax analogy, who's really paying their fair share?
- Thread starter beenthere
- Start date
How about you email them back and ask them who Barry's largest "donor" is.
Its starts with G and ends with Sachs...they're also one of Mittens largest donors too.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Actually it's not.
When you noticed the filthy rich getting charged less money for entry, you were instantly satisfied with that analogy because you thought the rich were paying less, therefore supporting your argument. In contrast, the OP makes an analogy of the total taxes paid annually by the wealthy friends to the percentage of the dinner bill they paid, not their marginal tax rates, even though that would be parity in it's self.
Mellowfarmer is making the same mistake democrat politicians want people to make when they claim the 1% pay a less income tax rate than does the working class, when just the opposite is true. Look at the chart below from the IRS. it clearly demonstrates that the 1% pay an average (effective) tax rate of 24.1%, and people like Bucky, who are part of the 25%-50% pay an average of 5.58%.
There is no denying that the "rich" contribute far more in the form of income taxes than any other class of people in this country.
If you feel they should contribute even more, then that is your right as an American, and it's up for an ideological debate, but for anyone to claim they are not paying their fair share is either totally misinformed or being disingenuous. In fact, the top 10% of tax payers pay almost 70% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 47% pay almost zero, I'll challenge anyone on this forum to prove that wrong.
You making light of the fact Obama is a hypocrite didn't go unnoticed.
But the problem is not with the financiers, it's our politicians excepting money from them, especially Obama, who made being an anti-lobbyist the cornerstone of his campaign. "I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."
Are you saying that you agree that the federal government has the right to almost half the assets of family farms and ranches when the parents die?
And are you also saying that thousands of American families aren't forced to sell farms and businesses that have been in the family for years just to pay the government in taxes?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes, someone was finally stupid enough to fall for this trap. red realized he was falling into it and backed out.
please go ahead and cite 'thousands of family farms' that are forced to sell because of the estate tax. i know the real number, so this is just an exercise in trapping for me.
go ahead, back up your claim. i'm gonna grab some popcorn.
lifegoesonbrah
Well-Known Member
you are so cool with your internet traps.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
trapping and fapping are some of the best uses for the internet.
Antidisestablishmentarian
Well-Known Member
I thought it was masturbation. Eh what do I know. I got a neckbeard.
Trap? LMFAO Cmon Bucky, everyone on this thread witnessed you getting your ass handed to you about your own taxes, get fucking serious.
As far as the estate tax, the actual number of families that are forced to sell family businesses, farms and ranches is irreverent. The fact that out government is capable of confiscating half of their assets is atrocious. If this isn't a classic example of tyranny, I don't know what is, and this is what you stand for?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
lol, more like i handed you guys your asses by proving my tax rate.
anyhoo, i'm going to sit here and wait for your sorry ass to show me these "thousands" of family farms going under. waiting.
by the way, the word you want is "irrelevant", not "irreverent".
I see you spend a lot of time pointing out other peoples typos, you do understand what that tells us about you?
The purpose of me schooling you on your own taxes was not for you to admit your ignorance, it was merely for me to showcase it.
There's many people on this forum I have ideological differences with, but most are willing to engage in civil discussion, I may not agree with their arguments, but I do respect their right to voice them.
With that said, I'll save further keystrokes for someone that has the ability to truly debate.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
still waiting for those thousands of farms that went under due to the estate tax.
HINT: it's more like seven, not thousands.
Prefontaine
Well-Known Member
exactly and assuming that thousands of farms are going to go under immediately is idiotic. now realizing that vast amounts of money saved/invested for the benefit of our children are being stolen and redistributed to the governments needs is reality. keynesian economics is stupid.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
You still have not answered my questions.
Mr Neutron
Well-Known Member
SCOTUS
1894: Pollak vs Farmers Loan; Income tax is unconstitutional.
1913: "The 16th Amendment confers no new power of taxation."
"Your labor is your private property"
Eisner vs McCumber: The definition of income, "GAINS or PROFITS from some activity. (In other words, wages are NOT a gain, you are trading your time and labor for money, it's an equal trade, there is no gain or profit.)
1916: Breshaver vs Stanton
Peck vs Lowe
NY TIMES, 1/25/1916
"In substance, the court holds that the 16th Amendment did not empower the federal government to levy a new tax."
"Based on research... by the congressional research service, there is no provision which require an individual to pay an income tax."
Sen. Daniel Inoue's office
Wages are different than income. Wages are something received for time and labor. Income is something received because of capital investment.
Why do you think the IRS code has 7 times the amount of words than the Bible? To keep us from knowing they are full of shit. NOBODY understands the whole thing.
Look up Joe Bannister and Sherry Jackson. Former IRS agents that discovered the truth.
I can't imagine anyone that would condone the federal government having the right to demand half of the assets of family owned businesses because the mother and father died, it's beyond comprehension to me. Hell, back in the 1970s and 80s it was 70%.
Could you imagine a business that's been in your family before you were born getting confiscated by the federal government because you can't pay the taxes in cash, in 9 months!
I did a little research on this and found that most families are laying off employees and liquidating assets as they get in their twilight years to escape this fucking greedy government tax. If this isn't tyranny, what is?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
One is too many.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
care to cite the rest of the SCOTUS rulings surrounding income taxes?
cherry picker.