A big individual income tax hike is being pushed by Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, but New York Times economics reporter Edmund Andrews failed to capture the import in a slanted front-page business section story Thursday.
The Times manages not to spell out precisely where Rangel's tax-hike proposal would begin to bite on "the wealthy."
"The House's leading Democratic tax writer will propose a sweeping overhaul of the tax code on Thursday that would increase taxes on many people with incomes above $200,000 but cut them for most others.
"The bill, to be introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, would also overhaul corporate taxes by eliminating many major tax breaks and lowering overall tax rates.
"Mr. Rangel has acknowledged that he does not expect to enact such a bill this year, and President Bush would almost certainly veto legislation that raises taxes on the wealthy.
"The plan is probably most important as a preview of what Democrats are likely to pursue after the 2008 elections, especially in rolling back a good part of Mr. Bush's tax cuts for people at the top of the income ladder.
"On individual taxes, the heart of his plan calls for eliminating the alternative minimum tax -- which was originally created to prevent millionaires from taking too great advantage of tax breaks but now touches people with upper middle incomes and is poised to affect tens of millions of families with incomes as low as $50,000 a year."
Andrews was puzzlingly vague about the important specifics of Rangel's proposal -- such as, exactly where the tax hike would begin to bite.
"To offset the cost of those reductions, the bill would impose a new 'replacement tax' for the top 10 percent of income earners who would have otherwise had to pay the alternative minimum tax.
"The replacement tax would not apply to couples with incomes as low as $200,000, but aides to Mr. Rangel said many people with incomes as high as $500,000 would still end up with at least slightly lower taxes than under current law."
Huh?
By contrast, the Dow Jones newswire (H/t Drudge) got to the point:
"Upper-income families, however, would pay for that repeal [of the alternative minimum tax] with a 4% surtax on incomes above $150,000 for a single earner or incomes above $200,000 for a married couple. That surtax would grow to 4.6% for incomes above $500,000."
Was that so hard? Or is the Times trying to soften the blow of what a Republican Ways and Means Press Office claims is "the largest individual income tax increase in history"?
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.
Comments Policy
Maybe someone can rewrite
October 25, 2007 - 16:40 ET by vrwc13Maybe someone can rewrite the story below with the scenerio being a dinner tab increase...the result is the same...the wealthy one leaves....
v
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every
day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten
comes to $100. If
they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it
would go something like
this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay
nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate
dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the
arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said,
"I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group
still wanted to pay
their bill the way we pay our taxes.
So, the first four men were unaffected. They would
still eat for free.
But what about the other six, the paying customers?
How could they divvy up
the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
'fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is
$3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the
fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be
fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he
proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid
nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%
savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25%
savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22%
savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16%
savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to
eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare
their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the
sixth man. He pointed to
the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I
only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should
he get $10 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in
unison. "We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for
dinner, so the nine sat down
and ate without him. But when it came time to pay
the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for
even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college
professors, is how our tax
system works. The people who pay the highest taxes
get the most benefit from
a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they
just may not show up at the table anymore.
Not accusing you of stealing
October 25, 2007 - 16:45 ET by motherbeltNot accusing you of stealing it, but I remember reading that somewhere before, and just can't remember where. It sticks because I remember thinking "but when it comes to taxes, the rich can't just "not show up."
Could you refresh my memory?
motherbelt tax story...
October 25, 2007 - 17:38 ET by vrwc13..it's been out on the internet for awhile. I saved the copy I pasted, but a google search will find others.
As far as the actual numbers, it may be off, but the concept is real.
The rich look for ways to lessen their taxes, and eventually some "rich" individuals or companies go "off-shore". And we lose them altogether.
v
it's robinhood mentality = socialism = communism
vrwc...
October 25, 2007 - 17:59 ET by LionKingGreat story. I have friend that moved to the his family and business to the US Virgin Islands. He travels to Texas about once a quarter with his family, but while the cost of living for some things is higher, he says that he actually is saving a bunch of money, especially on taxes.
I am not sure if he meant income taxes or all taxes inclusive, but all I can say is that I know for sure that Texas lost a lot of tax revenue.
Nice one
October 25, 2007 - 16:52 ET byGreat analogy! I don't know what world you're living in where 40% of the people pay no taxes. I make $35,000 a year and pay 28% in taxes.
That's a higher percentage than the president, and I'm sure higher than most people who earn $150,000.
Which means I take home $25,000 a year. A person making $150,000 who payes 25% taxes brings home $112,500.
Somehow I think they can afford paying a little more than me.................but they don't!
Next time try an analogy that represents real life.
Oh, and I work damn hard too!
Why isn't it fair for
October 25, 2007 - 17:33 ET by MightyMouthWhy isn't it fair for everyone to pay the same percentage? And just because someone can "afford" to pay a little more than you doesn't mean they should. The tax code sucks and needs to be simplified.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You one of two things:
October 25, 2007 - 17:40 ET by tnculpA liar or an idiot. My guess is the former. Unless you're a self-employed, taking no business deductions whatsoever and have no knowledge of the tax code and screwed up your tax return, you're a liar.
tnculp, I thought the same
October 25, 2007 - 17:45 ET by bassndudetnculp, I thought the same thing. No way anybody making 35000 ayear pays that much income tax. He is a lier an idiot or both, but what really gets me, is he thinks were all dumb enough to buy his story.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Well, I can give you some numbers...
October 25, 2007 - 23:13 ET by tnculpLet's say he was single, not self employed. At 35K/yr, with the standard deduction, he would pay approximately $3,500 or 10%.
If married, he would pay approximately $1,800 or about 5%.
Obviously it changes if you're self-employed...you're looking at $8,100 or $6,400, single or married repectively. Maximum of 23% Mix in your State/Local, and maybe, just maybe you'll get to 28%, but you've got to be the world's biggest dolt, with absolutely no knowledge of deductions and credits for your State & Fed. returns.
Which is why we pay CPA's or spend 30 bucks on tax preparation software.
BTW, am I the only person here who thinks that it's rediculous that self-employed people are killed with the self-employment tax? If you're not properly structed, you're basically paying more than double your taxes because of it. You would think that the government would want to encourage folks to work for themselves. But they make it much too complex for most people to do so themselves.
fushone or is it flush-one?
October 25, 2007 - 17:46 ET by vrwc13You don't pay 28% in Federal taxes.
You must live in the Republic of California and included state, local, and sales taxes.
v
"…you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts." -the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan.
a liberal should be happy
October 26, 2007 - 15:45 ET by TruthMongera liberal should be happy to:)
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
I think you are confused
October 25, 2007 - 18:03 ET by ArcherBGreat analogy! I don't know what world you're living in where 40% of
the people pay no taxes. I make $35,000 a year and pay 28% in taxes.
I think you are confusing what gets taken from your check and what is actually considered "income tax".
When you deduct you health insurance, 401k and any other pre-tax deductions, those don't count toward your your federal income taxes at all. Also, those are not tax, although you won't see them in your check.
Next, look at what goes into Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These are also not considered "income tax" so you can take that off of what we are talking about here.
Finally, remove any state and local taxes.
What is left should be your is Federal Income Tax. Devide your "gross pay" by this number to get your percentage. For example, my gross pay was $1958.34 for two weeks. My Federal Income Tax was $92.64 or 4.7%.
My Net Pay was $1604.56. So my total payments for all the stuff I listed above $353.78 or 18.1%. I am also a single income earner for a family that makes up me, my wife and a child. Either way, it feels like I'm paying 18%, when I'm only really paying just under 5% in Federal Income Tax.(wow! That's a bit low. Maybe I should rework my W4 as well!)
So redo your math and if you still find that you paying 28% in Federal Income Taxes, then you need to redo you W4! We both should be paying around 13%.
Just as a comparison, those who are in the top 1% are paying about 35%.
If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. --George Orwell
increase taxes on many
October 25, 2007 - 16:42 ET by motherbeltincrease taxes on many people with incomes above $200,000 but cut them for most others.
So, what do you think? Is Rangel goint to spin this as a "middle class tax cut?" My bet is: Yep!
This sounds like step 1 in what Neal Boortz calls "The Democrats' Secret Plan for America." I know I'm preaching to the choir, but reading this will frighten you, because when you see what's happening, you will realize that he has hit the nail on the head.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
oh no!
October 25, 2007 - 16:43 ET byOh my God! A person making $150,000 is going to have to pay a little more in taxes? You mean he won't be able to get the all leather seating in his new car? Those bastards! Now I know why everybody hates those stinking democrats. Yuk
an approximate $6000 in
October 25, 2007 - 17:05 ET by Sick-n-Tiredan approximate $6000 in taxes, on top of what is already paid.... well, how about you pay that for me?
I didn't work my ass off to get where I am today to pay for the lesser achievers on the food chain. This DNC, Robin Hood -rob from the rich give to the poor-, pure socialism has to go!
So what is the "tax rate"
October 25, 2007 - 18:06 ET by motherbeltSo what is the "tax rate" for a person making $150,000? Something tells me it's not the same as fushone is paying. Although that would be fair.
Something like 97% of taxes are paid by the top 50% of earners in this country. That means the other 3% pay the other half, with a good chunk of them paying nothing at all.
So why should those top 50% get a break? Just make them pay the other 3 % too, right?
flush-one pays 13% on the
October 25, 2007 - 18:06 ET by vrwc13flush-one pays 13% on the first 30,000 and 25% on the rest
highest pays 29% on first 336,000 and 35% on the rest
from here.
v
Thanks , v.....I knew it
October 25, 2007 - 20:06 ET by motherbeltThanks , v.....I knew it wasn't a flat rate across the board, but wasn't sure about the progression.
mother, Correction the
October 25, 2007 - 18:23 ET by Sick-n-Tiredmother,
Correction the top 50% pay only 96.7% of the taxes. :)
And to answer your last question---they SHOULD get a break in a welfare/socialistic government---which we are on a fast deadly course with. To rephrase what you said, I will put it this way "The top 50% of earners in this country will work our aces off so 'you' don't have too!" Damn near sounds like a campaign slogan huh?! In fact wasn't that a slogan of Fed Ex? "We try harder so you don't have too" or something along those lines?
And to answer your last
October 25, 2007 - 20:08 ET by motherbeltAnd to answer your last question--they SHOULD get a break in a welfare/socialistic government---which we are on a fast deadly course with.
I gather you missed the sarcasm....didn't notice that after I said that I said "make them pay the other 3 % as well"?
About that percentage....I did say something like 97%. So give me a break ;-)
<sarc off> I got that from a website, but I guess there could be more current figures.
mother, i think our
October 26, 2007 - 09:49 ET by Sick-n-Tiredmother,
i think our sarcasms got so thick they became mutually exclusive! nonetheless, it sounds if we both agree that rangles and the dems plan is pure crap!
I went to ol' maha rushies site for the "96.7%".
Our systems essentially
October 26, 2007 - 15:46 ET by TruthMongerOur systems essentially punishes you for being successful and making more money:) It's great...
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
Don't forget the rewards
October 26, 2007 - 15:49 ET by MightyMouthDon't forget the rewards for being shiftless and lazy... those are great too!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
F'n brilliant right?!
October 26, 2007 - 16:46 ET by Sick-n-TiredF'n brilliant right?! jeesh, our tax system is a joke!
In other words, since "the
October 25, 2007 - 17:19 ET by I-BurnIn other words, since "the rich" make more income that you, they should happily pay their own share, and part of yours as well? WHY? Please explain why *you* should receive special treatment. What exactly are "the rich" getting for their taxes that is worth so much more than what you get, that they should pay more?
Morally, there is no acceptable answer. Classically, those on the left think that all income in the country/world belong to one finite 'pie' and therefore if I get more of the pie, then you must be getting less. Do I really need to explain why that is nonsense?
-Alan
There is no "Sensible gun control". There is freedom, or there is not, period!
Solid Point
October 26, 2007 - 14:58 ET byCall me crazy, but it would seem to me to be the Christian thing to do to help people who are less fortunate. And if you're not Christian, it would seem the nice thing to do.
We all like to yell and scream 'we're americans and we stand up for one an other.' I know that's what the people in the military are doing. Why don't you ask them why they are doing what they're doing. If this country was filled with people like you, we would have no military.
If we want to make this country great, we need to help each other out. And if that means paying a little more when you make a little more, then so be it.
I guess you really only care about the rich america.
Look up this word
October 26, 2007 - 15:05 ET by JimboLook up this word -
Capitalism.
Then look up this word -
Socialism.
Then come back here and explain what you have learned to the rest of us.
And to answer your question, out troops arent fighting and dying to preserve socialism.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Christians donate money
October 26, 2007 - 15:50 ET by TruthMongerChristians donate money directly (AND MORE IMPORTANTLY A TON OF TIME, CARE AND IN-PERSON HELP AND COMFORT - I'LL BE SPOON FEEDING SOME SHUT-INS IN A FEW WEEKS FOR THANKSGIVING)
We don't go through the wasteful government - we only render unto Ceasar what is his...
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
check this!
October 26, 2007 - 16:06 ET bywhat about when the big, bad terrorist or immigrant is around. Then we want to go through our government cause they're so scary......................right?
ummm, what:)? Military is
October 26, 2007 - 16:43 ET by TruthMongerummm, what:)?
Military is the government's job bro
But regarding terrorist sympathizers I dive in directly and confront them - but that's a lonely business on this site right now - very few around here seem willing to face Muslims in person much, I will grant you that...
Hard to find any terrorists in my town - but I'm looking
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
government
October 26, 2007 - 16:51 ET byis also the governments job to take care of its people. Not with regards to everything, but with regards to improving our overall society. we dont pay taxes just for the military
Oh ok
October 26, 2007 - 15:57 ET byyeah i guess you're right. let's just get rid of every program that the government pays for that helps people out. That's a good idea. America will look great then.
Oh and the troops are trying to preserve a better life for all americans.
Man, you can't be this selfish, can you?
That would be great - let
October 26, 2007 - 16:03 ET by TruthMongerThat would be great - let the churches do it
way better ROI - more people would be helped
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
The problem is not
October 26, 2007 - 15:13 ET by Airforce_5_OThe problem is not “helping each other out” it is giving hand outs to;
The system should not be a net to catch and hold. It should be temporary to help get back on their feet. Supporting someone who does not want to work or do better by getting educated to change that problem, is a parasite.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
huh??
October 26, 2007 - 15:59 ET byWho's talking about handouts? There are plenty of people in this country who work very hard for a living but are poor. You don't want to help them out??
The US goverment gives lots
October 26, 2007 - 16:01 ET by bassndudeThe US goverment gives lots of handouts. The welfare program is nothing but one big handout. I help out the poor around my area, with regular donations. Sometimes I will try to employ a few of them, but I dont belive in giving something for nothing.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
You don't want to help them out??
October 26, 2007 - 16:06 ET by MightyMouthWhy can't they help themselves out? Like education, training, getting a better job? No way... it's much easier to get something for free right? There are PLENTY of ways for people to improve their situation but they REFUSE to do so because the state enambles them to be dependent rather than self reliant. There is NO reason to be poor in the US... NONE!!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
example
October 26, 2007 - 16:35 ET bylet's try this shall we:
a poor mother is trying to better herself through education (like you said) and is taking out loans to pay for school. She has a low-paying part-time job that offers no health insurance.
can you guess what happens next?
she's diagnosed with cancer that she can't pay for.
I'm sure she doesn't need any assistance. With hard work, her and her family will be fine in no time.
I could come up with thousands of examples like that.
You're very naive to think there is no excuse for being poor.
read the parable of the
October 26, 2007 - 16:38 ET by TruthMongerread the parable of the good Samaritan
What would you do for her personally?
http://www.twopaths.com/greatest.htm
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
Of course there are short
October 26, 2007 - 17:23 ET by MightyMouthOf course there are short term exceptions. That's what public assistance is for but there is no reason to grow up in poverty other than the fact that your guardian has been taught and has taught you that you deserve a handout. The VAST majority of welfare reciepents are in that situation, not the extreme case you cite. You are being very naive if you think the welfare system doesn't breed generations of welfare recipients.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Helping people is one thing
October 26, 2007 - 16:32 ET by Airforce_5_OHelping people is one thing but when you allow people to suck from the Government tit without holding them accountable by trying to do better then I guess I'm just cold hearted.
Fush, I have been there. Hit the bottom but I did something about it. I did not stay there. I got up. I brushed myself off. I rolled up my sleeves and got to work.
Please do not preach to me about not helping the poor. I do more for the poor and unfortunate then you will ever know because I don't brag about it. I don't need the government in my pocket anymore than they are now.
You want to pay for government programs then you have to cut some place. How about starting with the illegal’s I am paying for right now? How about those feel good grants to some University to study the sex life of some South American Frog?
Please spare me the bleeding heart liberal race baiting pity party. Don’t try the old “you don’t care” crap.
Deaf ears.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
deaf ears
October 26, 2007 - 16:41 ET bygood thing this is email, otherwise i wouldnt be able to converse with you.............unless of course you know sign language.
anyway im not lecturing anyone and im not saying that the folks here don't give money or help out the poor. what i am saying is that for some ridiculous reason you all think that every person that receives money doesn't do anything to better themselves when they get it. that's not true. many people have changed their lives because of the financial help they received.
its staggering to think that we are ok spending $500 billion dollars on a war in some country that poises no threat to us, as opposed to spending that money helping people with no health insurance (amongst other things).
it's really sad.
by the way im not a liberal. i think for myself and refrain from using someone else's quote at the bottom of all my posts.
If you're not a liberal, fushone,
October 26, 2007 - 16:53 ET by RJ...then what, politically, do you consider yourself to be?
whatever i want to be
October 26, 2007 - 16:56 ET bywho says i have to be anything. i may fall under democrat on one issue and republican on another.
i guess independent is the best term, but i choose to call it a free-thinker.
you guys should try it sometime.
Ok, fushone, then tell me
October 26, 2007 - 16:59 ET by RJsome "issues" where you agree with Republicans...better yet, since you said you're not a "liberal", tell me where you agree with conservatives.
pro-choice
October 26, 2007 - 17:14 ET byim not pro-choice
Sorry, fushone, not good enough to make you "independent"
October 26, 2007 - 17:27 ET by RJ...at least not by what you've been posting here.
You probably think it sounds "intellectual" to call yourself Independent, but I seriously doubt you are. I'm guessing you have an issue or two that leans conservative, but that your "liberal rating" is at least 90%.
If you read this site for awhile, you'll find that we're not in lockstep at all. In fact, most of us have areas where we disagree, and there are regular arguments. For example, I'm against capital punishment and I'm a STRONG environmentalist (and an AGW skeptic), but I'm honest enough to still know that I'm PRIMARILY conservative and not wishy-washy Independent.
Now, how about you? Wanna try again, this time with some honest insight?
Interesting that you did
October 26, 2007 - 17:28 ET by MightyMouthInteresting that you did not say "I am anti-abortion". Can't quite spit that out can ya?
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Not a liberal?
October 27, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Karmahuh?
October 26, 2007 - 14:22 ET by fushone
I'm a liberal and a christian....................which means I don't
despise Christianity. Seems you're gossiping right now. Or lying.
either way it looks like you're a sinner too.
Do you recall posting that fushone?
Nice work, Karma.
October 27, 2007 - 10:26 ET by RJYou've proven once again that Trolls will say whatever strikes them at the moment....
I'd be ok having to pay more
October 25, 2007 - 17:25 ET by Free ThinkerI'd be ok having to pay more than someone else as long as I also get more votes in an election than someone paying a smaller percentage rate than me. Sounds fair to me. Something about taxes and representation comes to mind.
Excuse me flushone? I
October 25, 2007 - 17:34 ET by bassndudeExcuse me flushone? I already pay some 17000 a year. And you dont think thats enough? How much do you pay? And I dont make 150000 a year. Thats 66000 a year for the guy making 150 grand.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Do the math
October 26, 2007 - 14:47 ET byThat's 25.8%.
Less than me.
Thanks for proving my point
flushone, 25.8% of 150000
October 26, 2007 - 15:54 ET by bassndudeflushone, 25.8% of 150000 is 38700. 66000 is 44% of 150000. You need new math skills. I bet you dont work with numbers do you? But you do spin like a top.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
spin like a top
October 26, 2007 - 16:59 ET byoh man that's a good one. pretty original too.
I'm sorry if your initial email confused me. where exactly did this $66,000 who came with come from?
please list for me so i know youre not making it up
Hey, tax freedom day is
October 25, 2007 - 17:45 ET by MightyMouthHey, tax freedom day is coming later every year. With the dems about to take power its's going to get a lot worse, so stop crying like a frigin little baby!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
You really don't know where
October 26, 2007 - 15:56 ET by Airforce_5_OYou really don't know where the backbone of the country is, do you?
Break the middle class and watch the social agenda roll right in.
Completely clueless.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
"Don't tax you. Don't tax
October 26, 2007 - 10:14 ET by moonjohn"Don't tax you.
Don't tax me.
Tax the man behind the tree!"
Wow
October 26, 2007 - 14:45 ET byman you guys really seem to know your stuff.
Oh wait a minute, let me pull out my last pay stub and take a look.
Taxable wages - $1263.03
social security tax - 82.61
Medicare tax - 19.32
Fed income tax - 150.19
State tax - 62.88
Local Tax - 32.57
Toatal tax = 327.57
Which is 27.5% of my taxable wages. Seems like you all owe someone an apology.....Feel free to take your time.
I noticed you all like to claim that liberals always resort to name-calling..............Sound familiar? If not read some of the previous posts.
Man it feels good to bust all of you.
and like my immigrant neighbor says, adios
Let's see, 150.19/1263.03 =
October 26, 2007 - 14:52 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsLet's see, 150.19/1263.03 = 12% (roughly).
That is your Federal tax rate for that pay period.
Please take up a field that has nothing to do with numbers.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Please Read
October 26, 2007 - 15:06 ET byBefore you try and contradict what I am saying, please actually READ my initial post. I said 28% in TAXES not just FEDERAL TAXES.
Oh and please don't challenge me with numbers. That's like trying to challenge a liberal to a tre-hugging contest.
HA HA
Amazing
October 26, 2007 - 15:13 ET by KarmaSo your earlier post refering to those who make $150,000.00 only pay 25% was also "Taxes", not just "FEDERAL TAXES"?
bingo
October 26, 2007 - 15:18 ET byyou catch on quick
Oh my aching gut..
October 26, 2007 - 15:25 ET by KarmaYou REALLY think you pay a higher percentage than those who make more than you? You're hopeless.
Sounds like we just need to
October 26, 2007 - 15:54 ET by TruthMongerSounds like we just need to lower his rate
vote Republican:)
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
Your legal immigrant
October 26, 2007 - 14:54 ET by bigtimerYour legal immigrant neighbor I presume fushone?
If not... your taxes are paying for them.
I don't mind
October 26, 2007 - 15:10 ET byYou see I follow the Christian belief of love my neighbor. You should try it sometime.
Which makes me realize, Mexico is all of our neighbors. Now don't you want more immigrants?
If you have a
October 26, 2007 - 15:13 ET by JimboIf you have a Federal Prison near your home, will you be inviting them to dinner too?
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Sure
October 26, 2007 - 15:15 ET byI would love to have them over. I've got all sorts of recipes ready to go.
You guys sure love to quote stuff.
Be sure to seat the rapist
October 26, 2007 - 15:17 ET by JimboBe sure to seat the rapist next to your wife.
Leon says "By the way, I'm not afraid of fat people, I'm repulsed"
Truth Monger Says - "Both are religions [Christianity & Islam], yes - with the same percentage of terrorists."
Jimbo
October 26, 2007 - 15:20 ET by Airforce_5_OROTFLMAO....
Now thats funny!
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
hmm
October 26, 2007 - 15:22 ET byI don't have a wife so I don't have to worry about that.
You know there are plenty of rapists that aren't illegal immigrants/ I just want to make sure you're aware of that
Then your Girl/Boy
October 26, 2007 - 15:57 ET by Airforce_5_OThen your Girl/Boy Friend. Take your pick.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
fushbone, unfortunately
October 26, 2007 - 16:00 ET by TruthMongerfushbone, unfortunately we're still dealing with a lot of embarrasingly ignorant and hostile Christians here - but I'm not that type anymore myself - so I say good for you in terms of intentions:)
But the government is a really terrible Christian right now - Dems have basically banned church and state working together
So it's better to go direct on charity
Shouldn't we lower your taxes - instead of raising others?
Dems won't allow that either - vote Republican:)
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
TM, You have got to be
October 26, 2007 - 16:09 ET by Airforce_5_OTM,
You have got to be pulling my leg? Are you being serious? I have pretty much played this whole hug everybody attitude of yours as a sarcastic play at libs.
I don’t know if I’ve been kissed, pinched, screwed, or snake bit with you anymore.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
It isn't easy being
October 26, 2007 - 16:30 ET by TruthMongerIt isn't easy being Christian - much less explaining it to others - but I'll give it yet another shot
"One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (NIV, Mark 12:28-31).
Christians are supposed to "hug" everybody - as you put it
http://www.twopaths.com/greatest.htm
Jimbo says "Truth IS a Muslim" and Blonde says "truth, take your Christian evangelism to the forums," and TM is quite amused:)
Well TM I'm not going to
October 26, 2007 - 16:37 ET by Airforce_5_OWell TM I'm not going to stand here and discuss your definition of what you deem as Christian. Good luck my friend and please do not look down your nose at me again.
I wash my hands.
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
no need to discuss
October 26, 2007 - 17:04 ET byit's one of the ten commandments. what's there to discuss? Just admit God is probably a little pissed at you right now.
It's alright though, he'll forgive
fush... Tumbler I
October 26, 2007 - 15:21 ET by bigtimerfush...
Tumbler I presume?
LMAO!