lols...is there any way to get a reasonable R response on this without causing offense? No, no there isn't. One might almost draw the conclusion that there is no reasonable response. I await being told to fuck off and die for my comment.
I can tell you to go fuck yourself if you'd like??
I honestly think (with the exception of Y4M) that the Cons aren't responding to this because they agree its ridiculous. But why cant they just say, "ok, this is ridiculous". I disagree with the Dems all the time on things, and the Liberal party up here. I'm pretty damn vocal about my criticisms of both parties.
And now, to be all philosophical, THAT is why things don't get accomplished in politics. People are unwilling to criticize their own political party when they should.
Post by cookiemdough on Aug 13, 2012 8:58:17 GMT -5
Omg this so happens on both sides, but I do have to say I will have to remember all these snappy comebacks the next time libs don't come in quickly enough to a con post.
Here's my short response. I don't believe the article's math. But, I feel like I would need to look into Mitt Romney's tax records, through all 203 pages of them, which I'm not about to do, to figure out his taxes under Ryan. I would be looking for the breakdown of his income which the article doesn't explain at all and I think is necessary. Shoddy math basically.
Why don't you believe the math? Is there anything that suggests it might be wrong?
When the bulk of "your" income is capital gains, dividends, etc. and the economic plan calls to eliminate those taxes, then yes, that income would be correct.
Here's my short response. I don't believe the article's math. But, I feel like I would need to look into Mitt Romney's tax records, through all 203 pages of them, which I'm not about to do, to figure out his taxes under Ryan. I would be looking for the breakdown of his income which the article doesn't explain at all and I think is necessary. Shoddy math basically.
Why don't you believe the math? Is there anything that suggests it might be wrong?
When the bulk of "your" income is capital gains, dividends, etc. and the economic plan calls to eliminate those taxes, then yes, that income would be correct.
What makes you think it's right?
Do you really not understand how writing anything to refute this piece would take substantial effort reviewing pages of tax returns etc.?
Even if the math here is correct, and I do think that's a substantial IF, I personally don't support taking capital gains to 0. I can see why people on the right advocate that, since it is one way of making up for our messed up corporate tax, but I'd much rather see a lower corporate tax and capital gains taxed as ordinary income.
There--everyone happy that we danced on command now?
Thank you for dancing on command, oh revered one. Your humble servants are most blessed by your response. Oh how mighty you are, how you shine like the dreams of a thousand planets, breaking our hearts as you twist through the cosmos. We, such small creatures of the night, such pitiful beings who understand so little, can hardly bear to see such glory. Your willingness to bestow upon us even the most minor fragment of your attention will remain the highlight of our small pathetic lives for the rest of our paltry time on this planet. While there is no way to adequately thank you for the kindness you have gifted upon us, let me be one of the many who bows to your higher learning, your deep providence, and the wisdom that only a goddess such as yourself could ever deign to impart to a base and lowly creature as I. No future event or happening will ever compare to this time, right here and now. I weep for my future, for now it is bereft of any hope. Now I know that mine ears will never again rejoice in the sound of such mighty words spilled so poetically from such beautiful lips. I die inside, even while I am exalted above all others, for what is the value of any life once the benevolent wisdom you have shown passes? Why breathe when every exhalation is of ever decreasing value? What words remain to be spoken, oh alpha and omega? There are none, none. And so, even as I write this humble reply, I fall to my knees and I weep in my happiness. I raise my arms and smile into the night sky as all things become clear in an epiphany of beauty, ecstasy and understanding. Such rare benevolence shown to such a lowly being as myself is beyond comprehension...yet I thank you, I thank you.
Even if the math here is correct, and I do think that's a substantial IF, I personally don't support taking capital gains to 0. I can see why people on the right advocate that, since it is one way of making up for our messed up corporate tax, but I'd much rather see a lower corporate tax and capital gains taxed as ordinary income.
There--everyone happy that we danced on command now?
Thank you for dancing on command, oh revered one. Your humble servants are most blessed by your response. Oh how mighty you are, how you shine like the dreams of a thousand planets, breaking our hearts as you twist through the cosmos. We, such small creatures of the night, such pitiful beings who understand so little, can hardly bear to see such glory. Your willingness to bestow upon us even the most minor fragment of your attention will remain the highlight of our small pathetic lives for the rest of our paltry time on this planet. While there is no way to adequately thank you for the kindness you have gifted upon us, let me be one of the many who bows to your higher learning, your deep providence, and the wisdom that only a goddess such as yourself could ever deign to impart to a base and lowly creature as I. No future event or happening will ever compare to this time, right here and now. I weep for my future, for now it is bereft of any hope. Now I know that mine ears will never again rejoice in the sound of such mighty words spilled so poetically from such beautiful lips. I die inside, even while I am exalted above all others, for what is the value of any life once the benevolent wisdom you have shown passes? Why breathe when every exhalation is of ever decreasing value? What words remain to be spoken, oh alpha and omega? There are none, none. And so, even as I write this humble reply, I fall to my knees and I weep in my happiness. I raise my arms and smile into the night sky as all things become clear in an epiphany of beauty, ecstasy and understanding. Such rare benevolence shown to such a lowly being as myself is beyond comprehension...yet I thank you, I thank you.
Omg this so happens on both sides, but I do have to say I will have to remember all these snappy comebacks the next time libs don't come in quickly enough to a con post.
Dance monkey dance!
I mentioned this in another, but not all libs, just those that made mention. It has happened a few times over the weekend. But, carry on with your bad selves! (*)
Even if the math here is correct, and I do think that's a substantial IF, I personally don't support taking capital gains to 0. I can see why people on the right advocate that, since it is one way of making up for our messed up corporate tax, but I'd much rather see a lower corporate tax and capital gains taxed as ordinary income.
There--everyone happy that we danced on command now?
What is the accepted response...LOL? Bollucks? I must know!!
Thank you for dancing on command, oh revered one. Your humble servants are most blessed by your response. Oh how mighty you are, how you shine like the dreams of a thousand planets, breaking our hearts as you twist through the cosmos. We, such small creatures of the night, such pitiful beings who understand so little, can hardly bear to see such glory. Your willingness to bestow upon us even the most minor fragment of your attention will remain the highlight of our small pathetic lives for the rest of our paltry time on this planet. While there is no way to adequately thank you for the kindness you have gifted upon us, let me be one of the many who bows to your higher learning, your deep providence, and the wisdom that only a goddess such as yourself could ever deign to impart to a base and lowly creature as I. No future event or happening will ever compare to this time, right here and now. I weep for my future, for now it is bereft of any hope. Now I know that mine ears will never again rejoice in the sound of such mighty words spilled so poetically from such beautiful lips. I die inside, even while I am exalted above all others, for what is the value of any life once the benevolent wisdom you have shown passes? Why breathe when every exhalation is of ever decreasing value? What words remain to be spoken, oh alpha and omega? There are none, none. And so, even as I write this humble reply, I fall to my knees and I weep in my happiness. I raise my arms and smile into the night sky as all things become clear in an epiphany of beauty, ecstasy and understanding. Such rare benevolence shown to such a lowly being as myself is beyond comprehension...yet I thank you, I thank you.
Here's my short response. I don't believe the article's math. But, I feel like I would need to look into Mitt Romney's tax records, through all 203 pages of them, which I'm not about to do, to figure out his taxes under Ryan. I would be looking for the breakdown of his income which the article doesn't explain at all and I think is necessary. Shoddy math basically.
Why don't you believe the math? Is there anything that suggests it might be wrong?
When the bulk of "your" income is capital gains, dividends, etc. and the economic plan calls to eliminate those taxes, then yes, that income would be correct.
We are talking about over $21 million of income and the article only talks about $500k of it. So yes, I would like to see how the bulk of his income is broken down before I make any judgements.
Why don't you believe the math? Is there anything that suggests it might be wrong?
When the bulk of "your" income is capital gains, dividends, etc. and the economic plan calls to eliminate those taxes, then yes, that income would be correct.
What makes you think it's right?
Do you really not understand how writing anything to refute this piece would take substantial effort reviewing pages of tax returns etc.?
Putting Romney's specific tax rate and income breakdown aside for a minute, the facts of Ryan's plan as outlined in the article are correct though, right? Which means that, as a generalization, his plan feasibly could do basically what the article says, not only for Romney, but for other high-income Americans as well? I have trouble swallowing that, to be honest. I'd like to see a better budget discussion from Ryan and Romney about cuts and modifications to Medicare, SS, etc. that does not include these kinds of things.
Omg this so happens on both sides, but I do have to say I will have to remember all these snappy comebacks the next time libs don't come in quickly enough to a con post.
Dance monkey dance!
I mentioned this in another, but not all libs, just those that made mention. It has happened a few times over the weekend. But, carry on with your bad selves!
Are you on hallucinogens?
YOU ask this shit of libs ALL THE DAMN TIME on the little editorial pieces you post. And I don't see libs crying about having to dance for you.
Do you really not understand how writing anything to refute this piece would take substantial effort reviewing pages of tax returns etc.?
Putting Romney's specific tax rate and income breakdown aside for a minute, the facts of Ryan's plan as outlined in the article are correct though, right? Which means that, as a generalization, his plan feasibly could do basically what the article says, not only for Romney, but for other high-income Americans as well? I have trouble swallowing that, to be honest. I'd like to see a better budget discussion from Ryan and Romney about cuts and modifications to Medicare, SS, etc. that does not include these kinds of things.
Isnt this percentage solely for capital gains? We know this is a problem (cue Warren Buffet)...I waiver on capital gains taxes as, to me, it seems like a double tax (investment income...we don't tax Roth IRA earnings either, something for the middle class...so it gives me pause, though my comparison may not be apples to apples)
Here's my short response. I don't believe the article's math. But, I feel like I would need to look into Mitt Romney's tax records, through all 203 pages of them, which I'm not about to do, to figure out his taxes under Ryan. I would be looking for the breakdown of his income which the article doesn't explain at all and I think is necessary. Shoddy math basically.
Why don't you believe the math? Is there anything that suggests it might be wrong?
When the bulk of "your" income is capital gains, dividends, etc. and the economic plan calls to eliminate those taxes, then yes, that income would be correct.
I'm guessing that you have looked at Romney's tax return to back that up. It's not like a writer for The Atlantic would have an agenda or anything!
I mentioned this in another, but not all libs, just those that made mention. It has happened a few times over the weekend. But, carry on with your bad selves!
Are you on hallucinogens?
YOU ask this shit of libs ALL THE DAMN TIME on the little editorial pieces you post. And I don't see libs crying about having to dance for you.
I ask "where are the libs" ALL THE DAMN TIME? I think you are tripping as well. If, by posting an article about Obama = your theory then GUILTY ohEMMY. I am guilty!!!!
YOU ask this shit of libs ALL THE DAMN TIME on the little editorial pieces you post. And I don't see libs crying about having to dance for you.
I ask "where are the libs" ALL THE DAMN TIME? I think you are tripping as well. If, by posting an article about Obama = your theory then GUILTY ohEMMY. I am guilty!!!!
No dude. You did it a couple weeks ago at the very most. I remember thinking it was weird because it was a slow time on the board and stupid to be asking such a thing.
I ask "where are the libs" ALL THE DAMN TIME? I think you are tripping as well. If, by posting an article about Obama = your theory then GUILTY ohEMMY. I am guilty!!!!
No dude. You did it a couple weeks ago at the very most. I remember thinking it was weird because it was a slow time on the board and stupid to be asking such a thing.
I just copped to this above. I asked it once and it was last week regarding the VP not mattering. Sheesh at least get the facts right. So, then, it is not all Op/Eds or is it? I just need to know how often I break this rule and offend you? Or other libs? Maybe I need to post a liberal leaning article as well to balance out??
Putting Romney's specific tax rate and income breakdown aside for a minute, the facts of Ryan's plan as outlined in the article are correct though, right? Which means that, as a generalization, his plan feasibly could do basically what the article says, not only for Romney, but for other high-income Americans as well? I have trouble swallowing that, to be honest. I'd like to see a better budget discussion from Ryan and Romney about cuts and modifications to Medicare, SS, etc. that does not include these kinds of things.
Isnt this percentage solely for capital gains? We know this is a problem (cue Warren Buffet)...I waiver on capital gains taxes as, to me, it seems like a double tax (investment income...we don't tax Roth IRA earnings either, something for the middle class...so it gives me pause, though my comparison may not be apples to apples)
No, but the $5K cap per year isn't going to yield multi-millions in return.
I'm pretty sure telling to go fuck themselves is a bit uncalled for.
yeah, Hab kinda went from zero to gofuckyourself with a quickness there, but seriously - am I the only non-con here who sees that the tone used here might be kinda annoying? Not just by you LG. But the phrase crawled out the woodwork kinda implies people lurking around the edges of things, hiding out. Rather than...you know...working, eating, doing stuff other than responding to posts on GBCN.
But I don't think it would have been read so badly if it weren't from the "crickets" from heyjude. As if a lack of response to something that was posted at 6PM is because they have no reasonable response. It's assy to essentially demand their presence whenever it suits you and assume that if they aren't here, well then they must not have a good rebuttal because the OP is so unassailable. Maybe that's now how it was intended, but that's obviously how it read to y4m and hab - and to me.
Putting Romney's specific tax rate and income breakdown aside for a minute, the facts of Ryan's plan as outlined in the article are correct though, right? Which means that, as a generalization, his plan feasibly could do basically what the article says, not only for Romney, but for other high-income Americans as well? I have trouble swallowing that, to be honest. I'd like to see a better budget discussion from Ryan and Romney about cuts and modifications to Medicare, SS, etc. that does not include these kinds of things.
Isnt this percentage solely for capital gains? We know this is a problem (cue Warren Buffet)...I waiver on capital gains taxes as, to me, it seems like a double tax (investment income...we don't tax Roth IRA earnings either, something for the middle class...so it gives me pause, though my comparison may not be apples to apples)
Isn't which percentage solely for capital gains? Not sure what you are asking.
I don't know, I *think* I am OK with capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, but I have trouble with the current low rate of 15%. But I don't see it as a double tax. Tell me if this is wrong:
If (which, in my mind, is a big IF, but that is for another post) you initially contributed or used ordinary income to purchase the asset, you would be taxed on the initial amount of ordinary income at your regular tax rate. When you realize your capital gain, you pay the capital gain tax rate on the actual gain, which is the amount over and above your initial outlay. That's new income. This may be a simplistic view of it, but it is similar to interest income. If I contribute $10,000 to my savings account and it earns $100 in interest this year, I pay tax on that $100. But your investments still can grow tax free in a manner similar to tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s, but they are limited in that yes, you pay on the gain when you actually realize it. The flip side to that, though, is that you can carryover losses from year to year to offset the gain.
I don't think an IRA is an apt comparison either. Though I don't know what would be.
I'm pretty sure telling to go fuck themselves is a bit uncalled for.
yeah, Hab kinda went from zero to gofuckyourself with a quickness there, but seriously - am I the only non-con here who sees that the tone used here might be kinda annoying? Not just by you LG. But the phrase crawled out the woodwork kinda implies people lurking around the edges of things, hiding out. Rather than...you know...working, eating, doing stuff other than responding to posts on GBCN.
But I don't think it would have been read so badly if it weren't from the "crickets" from heyjude. As if a lack of response to something that was posted at 6PM is because they have no reasonable response. It's assy to essentially demand their presence whenever it suits you and assume that if they aren't here, well then they must not have a good rebuttal because the OP is so unassailable. Maybe that's now how it was intended, but that's obviously how it read to y4m and hab - and to me.
Careful wawa, we are turning you to the darkside...the crying side
Isnt this percentage solely for capital gains? We know this is a problem (cue Warren Buffet)...I waiver on capital gains taxes as, to me, it seems like a double tax (investment income...we don't tax Roth IRA earnings either, something for the middle class...so it gives me pause, though my comparison may not be apples to apples)
No, but the $5K cap per year isn't going to yield multi-millions in return.
It could, though, given the current tax code structure. Cue Romney's $100m IRA...
Isnt this percentage solely for capital gains? We know this is a problem (cue Warren Buffet)...I waiver on capital gains taxes as, to me, it seems like a double tax (investment income...we don't tax Roth IRA earnings either, something for the middle class...so it gives me pause, though my comparison may not be apples to apples)
Isn't which percentage solely for capital gains? Not sure what you are asking.
I don't know, I *think* I am OK with capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, but I have trouble with the current low rate of 15%. But I don't see it as a double tax. Tell me if this is wrong:
If (which, in my mind, is a big IF, but that is for another post) you initially contributed or used ordinary income to purchase the asset, you would be taxed on the initial amount of ordinary income at your regular tax rate. When you realize your capital gain, you pay the capital gain tax rate on the actual gain, which is the amount over and above your initial outlay. That's new income. This may be a simplistic view of it, but it is similar to interest income. If I contribute $10,000 to my savings account and it earns $100 in interest this year, I pay tax on that $100. But your investments still can grow tax free in a manner similar to tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s, but they are limited in that yes, you pay on the gain when you actually realize it. The flip side to that, though, is that you can carryover losses from year to year to offset the gain.
I don't think an IRA is an apt comparison either. Though I don't know what would be.
The 0.82%. I thought that all of his income in 2010, as referenced in the article, came from capital gains (off to look)
Isn't which percentage solely for capital gains? Not sure what you are asking.
I don't know, I *think* I am OK with capital gains being taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income, but I have trouble with the current low rate of 15%. But I don't see it as a double tax. Tell me if this is wrong:
If (which, in my mind, is a big IF, but that is for another post) you initially contributed or used ordinary income to purchase the asset, you would be taxed on the initial amount of ordinary income at your regular tax rate. When you realize your capital gain, you pay the capital gain tax rate on the actual gain, which is the amount over and above your initial outlay. That's new income. This may be a simplistic view of it, but it is similar to interest income. If I contribute $10,000 to my savings account and it earns $100 in interest this year, I pay tax on that $100. But your investments still can grow tax free in a manner similar to tax-advantaged accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s, but they are limited in that yes, you pay on the gain when you actually realize it. The flip side to that, though, is that you can carryover losses from year to year to offset the gain.
I don't think an IRA is an apt comparison either. Though I don't know what would be.
The 0.82%. I thought that all of his income in 2010, as referenced in the article, came from capital gains (off to look)
Maybe I misread, I thought they classified at least a small portion, several hundred thousand, as ordinary income, and then self-employment income?
No dude. You did it a couple weeks ago at the very most. I remember thinking it was weird because it was a slow time on the board and stupid to be asking such a thing.
I just copped to this above. I asked it once and it was last week regarding the VP not mattering. Sheesh at least get the facts right. So, then, it is not all Op/Eds or is it? I just need to know how often I break this rule and offend you? Or other libs? Maybe I need to post a liberal leaning article as well to balance out??
Actually I was thinking of DruidP when I wrote my post. She calls out libs constantly about not responding to stuff. And Druid I am not trying to be snarky, just trying to avoid a misunderstanding. : )
More than 1/2 was capital gains, then some income was from interest and then blind trust income (I have no clue how that is taxed, though it appears to be at a higher rate than capital gains?).