Here comes the greatest Internet landgrab in history

[ICIT2LOL]

Sorry but the rich give back more than lazy occupiers that want to sit around and have it handed to em. The rich pay taxes and employ people. Most rich people are rich because they made good decisions and showed initiative. The lazy socialists want the govt to make everyone equal so they can sit around on their lazy asses and contribute nothing back to society but bitching and whining about the rich.

I would like to know which planet you are currently occupying, fella!:sarc:

Here on Planet UK, we have the kind of Rich who avoid tax as much as possible.
The kind of Rich who were so good at managing our banking system, that we now have a national debt best described as (AAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!)
The kind of Rich who think that listening to private phone calls and using the result to sell media space, is perfectly OK.:devil:
The kind of Rich financial bosses, who are rewarded for being useless at their jobs, by using shareholder's profits to pump up their exorbitant bonuses.
The kind of Rich, whose attitude to business, is to sack more employees if the profits go south.

Socialists are lazy, are they? Tell that to my grandfather, a founder-member of the Independent Labour Party. He fought all his life to get a better deal for Pottery workers in Staffordshire, who were dying of pneumosilicosis due to china clay dust and no air filters in the factories. Or my big brother, who fought all his life for better wages for coal miners.

And before you ask, I am NOT a Socialist. Those battles have been fought and lost.

What is/was your work, bigcitycat?

I am with you Bert nor am I a socialist but also not the other persuasion either my Mum put handles on teapots in Stoke and her brothers (6) down those death camps they called coal mines plus my grandparents both expected to be servile so anyone who says they were lazy or otherwise are very very wrong. Good old days my foot.

As for what Muad says well I reckon that mob are just about as well I had better not say out loud but not strictly legit comes to mind.

Yes Gary same here too mate the mines are crying poor now they are going to be taxed and gold at $1600 an ounce well they have got to be doing it real tough eh? Plus the richest woman in the world must be heartbroken by it all.

We live in a world of have and have nots always have and history has that ability to repeat over and over again and always will.

My biggest gripe is the pay out that the politicians get when they retire - well the ones that are not given cushy embassy jobs or envoys to whatever heaven forsaken hell hole somewhere.

 

[Catswold]

Here on Planet UK, we have the kind of Rich who avoid tax as much as possible.
The kind of Rich who were so good at managing our banking system, that we now have a national debt best described as (AAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!)

Same as Planet USA too mate. and the Rich are complaining because they are being asked to pay their fair share.

1st, discussing politics is (or used to be) a very big no-no around here.

2nd, I've got news for you to "non-socialist" socialists, the rich pay way, way more than any so-called "fair share."

The top 1% in the USA now pay 30% of the entire tax revenues, problem is, they only earn 19% of total income. If you want "fair," they should only be paying 19%.

The top 10% pay over 2/3 of federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay less than 5%. You talk about "fair?" You are unhappy, because life isn't "fair." Grow up.

Of course what you mean by "fair," is "fair" solely according to YOUR definition--the socialist definition, the Marxist definition--"from each according to his ability."

A "progressive" tax system is inherently unfair. It demands that a few very successful people pay for the needs of many. In what way is that "fair?" Is it "fair" to demand that a person give the fruits of their hard labors to you just because they have been more successful than you? That's not "fairness," that's envy and jealousy.

What you are advocating is a society based on envy, in which anyone who works extra hard and by the sweat of their brow becomes successful, is punished for their success. . . . which, of course explains why socialism has never and will never succeed.

Oh yeah and just so you know, every time tax rates are cut, federal revenues increase, as does the percentage of overall tax revenues that those evil "rich" you so revile pay--did so under Hoover, did so under Kennedy, did so under Reagan, did so under Bush.

When you raise tax rates, the exact opposite happens.

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Here on Planet UK, we have the kind of Rich who avoid tax as much as possible.
The kind of Rich who were so good at managing our banking system, that we now have a national debt best described as (AAAAAAAAARGGGGGHHHHH!!!!)

Same as Planet USA too mate. and the Rich are complaining because they are being asked to pay their fair share.

1st, discussing politics is (or used to be) a very big no-no around here.

2nd, I've got news for you to "non-socialist" socialists, the rich pay way, way more than any so-called "fair share."

The top 1% in the USA now pay 30% of the entire tax revenues, problem is, they only earn 19% of total income. If you want "fair," they should only be paying 19%.

The top 10% pay over 2/3 of federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% pay less than 5%. You talk about "fair?" You are unhappy, because life isn't "fair." Grow up.

Of course what you mean by "fair," is "fair" solely according to YOUR definition--the socialist definition, the Marxist definition--"from each according to his ability."

A "progressive" tax system is inherently unfair. It demands that a few very successful people pay for the needs of many. In what way is that "fair?" Is it "fair" to demand that a person give the fruits of their hard labors to you just because they have been more successful than you? That's not "fairness," that's envy and jealousy.

What you are advocating is a society based on envy, in which anyone who works extra hard and by the sweat of their brow becomes successful, is punished for their success. . . . which, of course explains why socialism has never and will never succeed.

Oh yeah and just so you know, every time tax rates are cut, federal revenues increase, as does the percentage of overall tax revenues that those evil "rich" you so revile pay--did so under Hoover, did so under Kennedy, did so under Reagan, did so under Bush.

When you raise tax rates, the exact opposite happens.

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

Yeah mate which is what I was kinda hinting at as it got away form the original post I put in which I intended more to be looked at a confusing issue rather than one of economics for want of a better term.

However the bottom line is that taxes are out of hand everywhere because the bright sparks woke up a few years ago and suddenly had that eureka moment of realising how much life's little essentials like health were costing the state a great deal of money. But thats advancement for you eh?

Here endeth the lesson - hopefully.

 

[Muad Dib]

Oh yeah and just so you know, every time tax rates are cut, federal revenues increase, as does the percentage of overall tax revenues that those evil "rich" you so revile pay--did so under Hoover, did so under Kennedy, did so under Reagan, did so under Bush.

When you raise tax rates, the exact opposite happens.

Please provide source for and facts supporting statement. Try to make it a reputable one (FoxNews, The Drudge Report, etc - NOT acceptable).

You are using Hoover as an example of good fiscal policy in a depressed economy? Edit: Ever hear of The Great Depression? No regulations on banks or Wall Street, politicians and laws controlled by big money - sound familiar? Google it!

As for Reagan - he raised taxes did he not? 11 times I believe depending on who you ask? The truth is Reagan DID raise selected taxes and cut others. So blanket statements by either side are not sufficient. But try explaining that to idealogues.

The reason 50% of "people don't pay taxes" is that about 15% live below the poverty line, another group are retirees on minimal SS, another group are the disabled, another group are unemployed, etc, etc, etc...... it is not new or news.

I suppose that the Bush Tax Cuts balanced the budget too? That GOP straw you are grasping for is a wet noodle.

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

Could not agree with you more. Send your political comments to The Druge Report, The Huffington Post, etc. There are more than enough political forums, of all kind to vent through.

 

[Britton30]

I think someone needs to check facts. Most US residents in the top 10% income pay no taxes at all. that's not a fair share. IT is the lower 75% of people who pay 97% of taxes.

 

[indianacarnie]

 

[Dave76]

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

Good point.
C'mon guys, let's get back to topic.

Forum Rules and info- Please Read!

8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

Good point.
C'mon guys, let's get back to topic.

Forum Rules and info- Please Read!

8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

Yeah well I did put my two bobs worth in but agree like I did awhile ago I only started this thread cos I was just amazed at the complexity of what is happening I sort of missed just where it got side tracked.

My interest is still how come this method of making up the different dot - whatever was not thought out in the first place as I would have thought that some bright spark would seen years ago that the growth of the net would get to such proportions as it has. I am still coming to grips with what it is as is now and with that IVp6 just about upon us the said issue seemed to me to be making it very complicated indeed.

 

[Catswold]

Oh yeah and just so you know, every time tax rates are cut, federal revenues increase, as does the percentage of overall tax revenues that those evil "rich" you so revile pay--did so under Hoover, did so under Kennedy, did so under Reagan, did so under Bush.

When you raise tax rates, the exact opposite happens.

Please provide source for and facts supporting statement. Try to make it a reputable one (FoxNews, The Drudge Report, etc - NOT acceptable).

You are using Hoover as an example of good fiscal policy in a depressed economy? Edit: Ever hear of The Great Depression? No regulations on banks or Wall Street, politicians and laws controlled by big money - sound familiar? Google it!

As for Reagan - he raised taxes did he not? 11 times I believe depending on who you ask? The truth is Reagan DID raise selected taxes and cut others. So blanket statements by either side are not sufficient. But try explaining that to idealogues.

The reason 50% of "people don't pay taxes" is that about 15% live below the poverty line, another group are retirees on minimal SS, another group are the disabled, another group are unemployed, etc, etc, etc...... it is not new or news.

I suppose that the Bush Tax Cuts balanced the budget too? That GOP straw you are grasping for is a wet noodle.

Now I suggest we leave the politics to the political forums and restrict ourselves to discussing Windows and computers.

Could not agree with you more. Send your political comments to The Druge Report, The Huffington Post, etc. There are more than enough political forums, of all kind to vent through.

Umm . . . mentioned Hoover, because he RAISED taxes, as those on the left would have and gave us the great depression. Before him, Harding began and Coolidge continued tax cuts which led to an economic boom. Ever hear of the Roaring Twenties--Tax Cut.

As for JFK:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference

“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”

“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

“In short, it is a paradoxical truth that … the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

Nuf said.

Reagan?

Cut tax rates, federal revenues increase--these data come from the OMB.

In 1981 Congress enacted and Reagan implemented his Economic Recovery Tax Act, which slashed the top marginal rate to 50 percent from 70 percent.

Yes, in a way you can say "Reagan raised taxes 11 times," subsequently, however what he did was to raise revenues, not "taxes" (tax-rates). He raised revenues by increasing user fees on a number of national services that tax-payers have access to--such as National Park entry fees, reducing corporate tax breaks, raised taxes on items like gasoline and cigarettes and even with the later increases, he was a net tax-cutter.

He didn’t rescind the marginal cuts, and lowered the rates again in a 1986 overhaul that traded rate reductions for the elimination of individual tax preferences. By the end of his administration, the top marginal rate had been dropped to 28 percent.

It was the beginning of the longest peace-time expansion in our history and it only ended with the tech-bubble under Clinton.

 

[z3r010]

Rule 8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

 

[Bertison]

Rule 8) No discussions of religion, politics, or firearms.

I apologise for bringing so much heat into this Topic, but I cannot stand to read nonsense from people who have no real knowledge of life on the street.

My last word.