Jump to content

Gehringer_2

Political Pot-pourri

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

If people of means can avoid paying taxes should the rates raise, then why do you care if they raise on them?

Why don't they just avoid taxes all the time?  Why didn't they avoid them more in the past, when the rate was higher?

And how does it bite [me] in the butt, should some get out of paying, exactly?

1. Treasury should care, because revenue will decline.

2. They did...you obviously haven't read up on the 86 tax act and its impact on passive investments. Happy to revisit this discussion when you do.

3. You are just the internet guy advancing the wealth redistribution policy argument. It bites the policy maker in the butt because absolute dollars will decline. And, more directly, it bites all of us in the butt because there is a shortfall in revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

I was going to suggest that you become familiar with the term "Wealth Redistribution" but I see you've already got it...

You're learning.

Maybe go do something productive and someone can threaten to redistribute your wealth some day. It's fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 84 Lives!!! said:

PS: I'm perfectly fine with you paying more in taxes.

Doesn't bother me in the least.

Good. because where we're inevitably going next is an increase in payroll taxes on every poor working schmuck. There are structural ways I can avoid those, however. Best of luck. 

See how this works? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good. because where we're inevitably going next is an increase in payroll taxes on every poor working schmuck. There are structural ways I can avoid those, however. Best of luck. 

See how this works? :) 

You are a cartoon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stanpapi said:

Good.

1) because where we're inevitably going next is an increase in payroll taxes on every poor working schmuck.

2) There are structural ways I can avoid those, however....

3) See how this works? :) 

1) incorrect answer. Try again.

2) Best of luck on that.

3) I'll take my chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yoda said:

You are a cartoon. 

Says the guy in the darth vader mask....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

1. Treasury should care, because revenue will decline.

2. They did...you obviously haven't read up on the 86 tax act and its impact on passive investments. Happy to revisit this discussion when you do.

3. You are just the internet guy advancing the wealth redistribution policy argument. It bites the policy maker in the butt because absolute dollars will decline. And, more directly, it bites all of us in the butt because there is a shortfall in revenue. 

1. Speculative at best

2. Gross overgeneralization, and doesn't address why people pay taxes now.

3. Ad hominem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 84 Lives!!! said:

1) incorrect answer. Try again.

2) Best of luck on that.

3) I'll take my chances.

I don't need luck, those structural ways already exist. It proves the point I made earlier though- go too far and you won't get your desired result. You'll get the equivalent of a sack of burning **** on your porch. And the treasury can't pay the bills with a sack of burning **** on the porch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good. because where we're inevitably going next is an increase in payroll taxes on every poor working schmuck. There are structural ways I can avoid those, however. Best of luck. 

See how this works? :) 

Which seems to be exactly what the Mitch McConnell’s and Trumpublicans desire. 

Pretty much what one would expect from a screen name of someone with a -1.2 WAR.

Does the REAL Stan Papi know you are disparaging his name? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

1. Speculative at best

2. Gross overgeneralization, and doesn't address why people pay taxes now.

3. Ad hominem

No, it was quite real. Put 1M in a partnership, get 2M of losses, write them all off at the highest rate with no skin in the game. Rinse and repeat. Can't do that today, and if you jack the rate with the current regulatory regime, that's disaster. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ.

To invoke an ancient term - “what a waste of band width”!!

For crying out loud, enough already. 

Please. 

Let’s try and at least PRETEND to have adult conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CMRivdog said:

Which seems to be exactly what the Mitch McConnell’s and Trumpublicans desire. 

Pretty much what one would expect from a screen name of someone with a -1.2 WAR.

Does the REAL Stan Papi know you are disparaging his name? 

No one in Trump land has raised payroll taxes. But you betcha it's coming with a future administration. People won't even know what hit them because it will drib and drab at them through their checks throughout the year. Except they will wake up one day with less free cash flow. 

I don't know if stan papi the ball player is any good at math. He isn't here to defend himself so I'll have to pass on that one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's also redistributed taxpayer money to farmers to pay them to not sell to china.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Trump didn't mind redistributing wealth when he declared bankruptcy several times.

He never declared bankruptcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we should impeach trump for being pregnant and be done with this ****

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good. because where we're inevitably going next is an increase in payroll taxes on every poor working schmuck. There are structural ways I can avoid those, however. Best of luck. 

See how this works? :) 

A wealthy person can avoid taxes because the system is designed to benefit the wealthy.  So, that's another thing that needs to be changed.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

Semantics totally invalidates the point.

Oops, you got caught there, didn't you? And in the process, you confirmed I'm the only one that gets held to "semantics".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...