not so golden arches

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I suspect the average person would not complain about paying income tax if they were among the top 1% of earners....oh me, I have to pay such a high rate of taxes that it's gonna take me forever to make my next billion! Really Dell, those poor rick cats!

yes. poor little rich people, we really should stop picking on them....

i remember when they said romney paid what...11-12% tax? i paid 25% effective rate.
yeah, that makes sense.
people clamor for a flat tax (probably because they haven't thought about it much or looked at what it meant) but those same people gripe at me when i say why should i pay a higher percentage? they invariably say 'but he paid a larger dollar amount'. yes, and ......? if a flat tax says romney should pay 25%, why do i get grief when i mention i pay that, and he pays half that?
ah, inconsistencies, gotta love them. i actually had that conversation most recently at the wellness center. ah, um, uh, you're just jealous of rich people is no explanation for why this is.
why this is, is that people who have money pay to get rules set to keep their money. i can't do that.

and just think, if the wages were corrected for everyone, how much more money would flow from all the non-rich who game the system...

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

yes. poor little rich people, we really should stop picking on them....

i remember when they said romney paid what...11-12% tax? i paid 25% effective rate.
yeah, that makes sense.
people clamor for a flat tax (probably because they haven't thought about it much or looked at what it meant) but those same people gripe at me when i say why should i pay a higher percentage? they invariably say 'but he paid a larger dollar amount'. yes, and ......? if a flat tax says romney should pay 25%, why do i get grief when i mention i pay that, and he pays half that?
ah, inconsistencies, gotta love them...

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year (2011) and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday.

He paid an effective rate of 14.1% because the vast majority of income made is investment income on money he has already been taxed on. He also was able to take a significant deduction for money he donated to charity ($4 million) or 29% of total income. So when you add taxes paid and money donated, it comes to a combined effective rate of 43.2% or 18.29% more than you paid.

BTW a person with an effective tax rate of 25% on a yearly income of $50K w/o any deductions including the personal exemption would pay $12,500 and would have to file over 155 years or three lifetimes of taxes to equal what Romney paid in a single year.

Hope that makes everyone crying 'unfair' feel a little bit better going into this Memorial Day weekend.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

He paid an effective rate of 14.1% because the vast majority of income made is investment income on money he has already been taxed on. He also was able to take a significant deduction for money he donated to charity ($4 million) or 29% of total income. So when you add taxes paid and money donated, it comes to a combined effective rate of 43.2% or 18.29% more than you paid.

BTW a person with an effective tax rate of 25% on a yearly income of $50K w/o any deductions including the personal exemption would pay $12,500 and would have to file over 155 years or three lifetimes of taxes to equal what Romney paid in a single year.

Hope that makes everyone crying 'unfair' feel a little bit better going into this Memorial Day weekend.

You realize these people you have such a raging boner for have made their money by breaking down businesses and cutting jobs and shipping jobs out of the country. The money lost from our economy in the way of purchasing power is in the trillions. The ball is being kept in the air by artificially low interest rates. Not much the fed can do if we hit another bad patch. Keep rooting for the scum that put us in this position cause this is America and you can be one of them. The fact that you are not one of them after 50 years notwithstanding.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

You realize these people you have such a raging boner for have made their money by breaking down businesses and cutting jobs and shipping jobs out of the country. The money lost from our economy in the way of purchasing power is in the trillions. The ball is being kept in the air by artificially low interest rates. Not much the fed can do if we hit another bad patch. Keep rooting for the scum that put us in this position cause this is America and you can be one of them. The fact that you are not one of them after 50 years notwithstanding.

it's the same mentality that had dirt poor southerners fighting a war for their rich neighbors to be able to keep slaves...while the plantation owners sat on their verandahs watching their world crumble.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's the same mentality that had dirt poor southerners fighting a war for their rich neighbors to be able to keep slaves...while the plantation owners sat on their verandahs watching their world crumble.

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights. Check out what Texas had to say in their declaration:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

And check out what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say. He, I would assume, had a clear idea of what the war was about:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

You sound like my father-in-law. Not only does he spout this "It was about States' Rights because few Southern whites owned slaves!" stuff, during our last visit he also earnestly explained to me how slaves "didn't have it all that bad."

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights.

I'm not saying slavery had nothing to do with it and unlike your father-in-law would never say or think African Americans had it better back then when they were for all practical purposes treated similar to modern day Pakistani/Iranian/Afghan etc. etc. wives and daughters.

No human will ever have it better being owned as opposed to being free.

But the numerous tariffs imposed by Washington a few decades before the war on things like cotton, meant solely to benefit the industrial north to the detriment of the south certainly played a part leading to the conflict as the tariffs all but ended the ability for the south to export to Britain, etc. and instead forced selling solely to the north at artificially low prices.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

If by "States' Rights" you mean the State's belief it in the right to legalize the ownership of another human being, then sure, it was about States' Rights. Check out what Texas had to say in their declaration:

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

And check out what the Vice President of the Confederacy had to say. He, I would assume, had a clear idea of what the war was about:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution […] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away […] Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

You sound like my father-in-law. Not only does he spout this "It was about States' Rights because few Southern whites owned slaves!" stuff, during our last visit he also earnestly explained to me how slaves "didn't have it all that bad."

the whole thing about states rights being the cause celebre' is bs. i've read a ton of history from a variety of sources about that whole war, and the various causes.
it was NOT about states rights. if they were so damned worried about state soveriegnty, why did they try so hard to alter californias decision to be a free state in their constitution??
oh, i know...because the south wanted to expand slavery. they'd already started making arrangements to hire their slaves out in the mines.
then there was texas, that was going to be divided into five states, in order to have five slaves states, instead of just the one. more senators you see.
the south as a slave holding entity was determined to keep their slavery, as well as their bloc of power.
matter of fact, they even starting broaching the subject of the southern states changing the u.s. constitution to give them permanent control of the house. no joke, that happened!
the house is based on population..so of course the north was outpacing them on seats; so they had to at least maintain an even keel in the senate. the only way to do that is to keep an even number of states slave and free, hence the trouble with california.

so, if they were fans of states doing their thing....why were they giving cali such a fit? and kansas?

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Yea it had nothing to do with State Rights v. Federal Rights.

Most of those poor southern dirt farmers loved D.C. telling them how to live.

The Civil War was no different from any other war throughout history, as Phil Ochs lamented, "its always the old who lead us to war, always the young who fall". The rich and powerful lead the rest of us by the nose, convincing us that sacrifice is necessary...as long as the young and poor do the sacrificing. How can Washington dare tell folks how to live when rich folks are already doing that?! The poor white person faces a life of working in unsafe conditions for low wages designed to stifle any advancement but the blame isn't placed on the rich landowners/business owners etc. but, in the case of the south (and today, throughout the land) on blacks (or illegals)...poor whites are force-fed this lie and it ultimately consumes their perception...and perception becomes reality. The rich control the world...but history shows that their rule cannot last forever, either their excess will rot the fabric of life (see the Roman empire) or one of the many movements started by disgruntled folks will finally take hold and change will come swiftly and probably violently.