"Fair Share"?

So the folks that call for this police force all over the world (Conseratives) and fiscial responsibility want to pay for that with the others sides savings (Liberals). Is that fair? Originally Posted by WTF

Doofus, you're a hypocrite. You already went off on this tangent Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No shit. Learn to keep up.

Sorry if nuance is over your head. I didn't answer it with a number. But i answered it. If you can't see that, that's your problem, not mine. Originally Posted by Doove

You didn't offer anything involving nuance, only obfuscation and hard-headed stubbornness. Everyone else who read this thread could easlily see that you dodged the question while repeatedly claiming to have answered it. (I doubt that very many people would consider your vague generality an "answer.")

Funny, all this complaining about whether or not i answered the question, and you keep refusing to answer my question. Originally Posted by Doove

Why should I? It didn't deal with the thread topic, remember? Nevertheless, thread drift or not, if I had been in the mood to discuss those particular spending issues with you at the time, I would have done so. It just so happens that I wasn't.

Besides, I didn't continually claim that I answered the question while failing to do so, which is what you did.

The thread's topic is taxation -- but more particularly, what share of the tax burden should be loaded onto top-bracket taxpayers.

So the folks that call for this police force all over the world (Conseratives) and fiscial responsibility want to pay for that with the others sides savings (Liberals). Is that fair? Originally Posted by WTF

Originally Posted by Doove

Once again for the Constitutionally illiterate: "defense" is a Constitutionally mandated expense; whereas, expenses incurred to provide cell phones and Internet service to those who are without are not Constitutionally mandated!

You didn't offer anything involving nuance, only obfuscation and hard-headed stubbornness. Everyone else who read this thread could easlily see that you dodged the question while repeatedly claiming to have answered it. (I doubt that very many people would consider your vague generality an "answer.") Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Which is what you always say when you have no response.

You're the biggest broken record on this board.

Which is what you always say when you have no response. Originally Posted by Doove

Doove is the one who continually posted, but offered no substantive response to the question a couple of us posed to him, and followed up by repeatedly claiming that he had "answered" the question. But everyone who read the thread could easily see that he had not!

Anyone curious as to why I regard this dim-witted buffoon with open contempt can easily understand after taking a quick glance at this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840

Amazing!

After opening the thread by linking to an article that he didn't understand, Doove responded to posts challenging its truthfulness by claiming that he had "debunked its debunking" with a statement made in a concurrent thread covering the same topic -- but which he posted prior to the post that he claimed to have "debunked!"

And then he tried to throw around some numbers in a way that didn't make any sense at all, and appeared to have left him completely bamboozled!

When Doove begins to fear that a discussion isn't going well for him and might involve some embarrassment to himself, he tends to start deflecting or lashing out. He's been doing that to me and a couple of others, going back to discussions in "Diamonds and Tuxedos" a couple of years ago.

If he's going to continue offering little more than snarky behavior, he should not be surprised if I ridicule his befuddled cluelessness!

Anyone curious as to why I regard this dim-witted buffoon with open contempt can easily understand after taking a quick glance at this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=455840

Amazing!

When Doove begins to fear that a discussion isn't going well for him and might involve some embarrassment to himself, he tends to start deflecting or lashing out. He's been doing that to me and a couple of others, going back to discussions in "Diamonds and Tuxedos" a couple of years ago.

If he's going to continue offering little more than snarky behavior, he should not be surprised if I ridicule his befuddled cluelessness! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

How sad for you.



I mean, really.

How sad for you.



I mean, really. Originally Posted by Doove

No, all this is actually pretty sad for you, you ignorant, annoying asshole. I'm perfectly happy and content!

Earlier this year, you spent countless posts attacking me and calling me a narcissist, and otherwise being a general pain in the ass. Maybe your behavior was triggered simply by insecurity, since it should be obvious even to you that everyone can see that you're not exactly one of the brighter porch lights on the block.

Fuck off.

I would like to know where you get your facts! The middle class has taken the burden for the "Bush Tax Cuts" for as long as the government allows it! I know, because I used to make around $60,000 per year and paid about 25 percent in taxes. Do you think Mitt Romney paid that in taxes? Please don't make me laugh at you. I used to work for a tax attorney. The rich have several loop holes and they do not pay their fair share of taxes. The American people are getting smart. Sorry for you! Originally Posted by HoustonMilfDebbie

Debbie, on the first 8700 you make, it is 10 percent. You pay 15 percent up to about 35,000, then on your remaining you paid 25 percent. So your total tax percentage of gross income was actually about 18 percent.

Keep in mind, the code is not graduated after 330,000, you pay that 35 percent all the way up after you reach that point.

My effective tax rate, single and no dependents, no deductions, short 1040 form, is about 32, give or take a little percent.

You gave the government about 10,500, I gave the government about 120,000. Is that fair?

If Congress does nothing, my final 1/3 will increase to almost 40 percent, and my middle portion to 35. That will put my affective rate at over 35 percent. And, if I am fortunate enough to make more , that 35 will keep rising as it approaces 40 percent.

Once again, does that sound fair.

Once again for the Constitutionally illiterate: "defense" is a Constitutionally mandated expense; whereas, expenses incurred to provide cell phones and Internet service to those who are without are not Constitutionally mandated! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

I never read anywhere in the Constitution where Defense was allotted 4% of GDP. IB the discussion was one of fairness, not the constitution but i can go that route too

No, all this is actually pretty sad for you, you ignorant, annoying asshole. I'm perfectly happy and content! Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

You sound it!

Earlier this year, you spent countless posts attacking me and calling me a narcissist, and otherwise being a general pain in the ass. Maybe your behavior was triggered simply by insecurity, since it should be obvious even to you that everyone can see that you're not exactly one of the brighter porch lights on the block.

Fuck off.

Or maybe you're just a narcissist.

Life ain't F A I R

...and we can't agree on what is fair!

I never read anywhere in the Constitution where Defense was allotted 4% of GDP. IB the discussion was one of fairness, not the constitution but i can go that route too Originally Posted by WTF

You equivocate, WTF. "Defense" is a Constitutionally “mandated” expenditure for the government, WTF, and you proffer a straw man argument otherwise. Expenditures for defense have exceeded 4% of the GDP multiple times in the past; whereas, you and Doofus have yet to cite verbatim from the Constitution where the government can subsidize Internet service and cell phones for those without.

No shit. Learn to keep up. Originally Posted by Doove

Was keeping up, Doofus; notice how your blatant hypocrisy didn't slide by without mocking scorn and derision.

you are full of shit on this one IB, i never said there was anything in the Constitution about everyone having a cell phone but under your logic if Defense mandated cell phones for the defense of this country like the interstate highway system you'd think that it was in the Constitution! Oh what twisted logic you have spun! Im off to play me some golf, you boys have this fairness problem fixed when i get back please

Im off to play me some golf, you boys have this fairness problem fixed when i get back please Originally Posted by WTF

Are you playing golf today with the Prez and the former Prez?