A Picture is Worth 1,000 words...


By marquismark   Follow   Wed, 21 Mar 2012, 4:42pm   16,268 views   172 comments
Watch (2)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 93-132 of 172     Next »     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. AlfonsoM


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 comments

    93   9:49am Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

    Voting Democrat = Voting Replublican, there is no difference! both parties are corrupt, both parties will sell you out for personal gain! All our representatives have 1 thing in common! they are all rich, and people like pelosi, bush, obama uses insider information for personal gain! Our system will crash because people are more focused on pointing the finger @ Republicans or Democrats, rather than the main problem. Democrats (in CA) are puppets to the public sector unions! Republicans are more interested in saying anything to keep them in power, but doing nothing at all! Everyone in the wellfare system should be put to work in order to get paid! if they can't walk give them an office job, if they can give them a job with cal trans cleaning up the freeways! Put them to work! But no, they stay at home watching their big screens, using their cell phones while collecting their checks!
    Obama is killing this country, and the next president will do exactly the same! we are just voting on who we think will crash our system the slowest! Sad times we are living in, but it can and will get worse!

  2. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    94   10:34am Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    AlfonsoM says

    Republicans are more interested in saying anything to keep them in power, but doing nothing at all! Everyone in the wellfare system should be put to work in order to get paid! if they can't walk give them an office job, if they can give them a job with cal trans cleaning up the freeways! Put them to work!

    OK, I can see the point of making people work for unemployment checks, but only half time so they still have time to look for a job. So I created a thread about that idea:

    http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1210453

    Welfare is not the same though. I think it's technically called "Aid to families with dependent children" or something like that, and having those children around means the person getting the check would probably have to pay more for childcare than they would get from working. So in a sense, people on welfare are already working -- in child care for their own children.

  3. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    95   11:35am Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    So in a sense, people on welfare are already working -- in child care for their own children.

    Parenting is definitely a full-time job. That's why I have no problem paying higher taxes than people with children.

  4. RedStar


    Follow
    Befriend
    1 threads
    36 comments
    Fair Oaks, CA

    96   12:17pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    "March 21 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama’s largest campaign donors last month included employees of Wells Fargo & Co., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records."

    Bankers are equal opportunity

  5. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    97   12:20pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    God Bless America.

  6. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    98   2:32pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    100% of passive losses can be written off against passive gains. Patrick is correct. The $3000 limit is the NET loss allowed to be deducted after all your passive investments are taken into consideration.

    one again your mixing operating income and capital gains/losses.

  7. AlfonsoM


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 comments

    99   3:35pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (3)  

    Patrick says

    Welfare is not the same though. I think it's technically called "Aid to families with dependent children"

    That's Life long help! I know several illegal alien families who get wellfare, one of these families needed more money, so their 17 year old daughter got pregnant twice from 2 different men! just for the increase in government aid! I understand giving help when they need it, but life long help is breaking this state (CA). Every year more and more people get fanancial aid of some type! My wife was asked if she wanted to apply for (WIC)? she never asked for it? she never even knew what WIC was? They also told her that they can manipulate the numbers so she will qualify? Sad now they are trying to make people more dependant of the government! which means more tax money from all of us! SICK! SYSTEM!

  8. Nomograph


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    104 threads
    2,848 comments

    100   4:16pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    AlfonsoM says

    I know several illegal alien families who get wellfare, one of these families needed more money, so their 17 year old daughter got pregnant twice from 2 different men! just for the increase in government aid!

    Total bullshit.

    The crap people spew out here is nothing short of amazing.

  9. leo707


    Follow
    Befriend (12)
    11 threads
    4,088 comments
    Oakland, CA
    leo707's website

    101   4:22pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Nomograph says

    Total bullshit.

    The crap people spew out here is nothing short of amazing.

    Yeah, my guess is that this is entirely fabricated.

  10. simchaland


    Follow
    Befriend (6)
    10 threads
    1,234 comments
    Oakland, CA

    102   4:44pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

    Ha! This has image has been spreading around Facebook this week. I'm glad to see it made its way here. The truth hurts, doesn't it?

    And I'm not saying that the Democratic Party is without fault. They are also owned by the 1%.

    I just think this image nails the Republican Party.

  11. freak80


    Follow
    Befriend
    65 threads
    5,519 comments
    Corning, NY

    103   5:21pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    I think there's a lot of truth to that image.

    But to be fair, a lot of Democrats are saying to the guy on the left, "why don't you stupid fucks vote for smart guys like us?"

    That's stupid too, no? Most businesses don't call their customers stupid.

  12. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    104   5:59pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    Wow, I had lunch with a couple of ambitious and financially literate friends yesterday and laid out the scenario in the graphic for them.

    They said "Yes! That's exactly how it is. Screw those morons. Let them vote to keep themselves poor! Why do you care?"

    I said if we continue to anally rape idiots like that, eventually there will be some revolution.

    They replied that they would easily be able to escape the revolution, and again urged me to just take advantage of their prejudices and anger to lower my own tax rate, make them into my slaves, etc etc. They went on to explain how Steve Jobs just borrowed against his own stock options, because he knew that when he died his heirs would get to reset the cost basis of those options to the current market value, because the 1% has so thoroughly corrupted our tax laws, ha ha. And that the 99% would never figure it out, because they are simply too stupid and angry, and just don't understand the basic math that will prevent them from ever joining the 1%.

    I'm definitely convinced that that graphic is truth.

  13. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    393 threads
    20,833 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    105   6:14pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected  

    thomas.wong1986 says

    iwog says

    100% of passive losses can be written off against passive gains. Patrick is correct. The $3000 limit is the NET loss allowed to be deducted after all your passive investments are taken into consideration.

    one again your mixing operating income and capital gains/losses.

    Once again? When did I discuss this before? When did I mention operating income? When the hell did I say ANYTHING about capital gains?

    Okay thomas I'm going to make this short and sweet because I believe you're full of shit and I also believe that by giving false information, you might cause someone to make a decision based on your ignorance. I have no respect for people like you and I wish you'd learn about a subject before holding yourself out as an authority.

    Here's a link to IRS form 8582 "Passive activity loss limitations"

    http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8582.pdf

    Notice that all passive losses from all sources are combined, including prior year carry over losses, and the NET TOTAL is used to figure out what losses can be deducted. The only relevant part YOU need to worry about is this one:

    Combine lines 1d, 2c, and 3d. If this line is zero or more, stop here and include this form with your return; all losses are allowed, including any prior year unallowed losses entered on line 1c, 2b, or 3c.

    Now if you want to challenge me again, or pretend you know what the hell you're talking about, I suggest you support your position at least as well as I'm doing right now.

    I'll repeat what I said originally: 100% of passive losses can be written off against passive gains. Patrick is correct. The $3000 limit is the NET loss allowed to be deducted after all your passive investments are taken into consideration. End!

  14. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    106   7:21pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    Once again? When did I discuss this before? When did I mention operating income? When the hell did I say ANYTHING about capital gains?

    Capital gains and losses schedule D.. Long Term 15%
    short term 35%...

    I dont know why your bringing up Rental Passive income.. since Patrick is calling Investing in Stocks Bonds Mutual Funds etc (Schedule D) as "Unearned Income" instead of capital gains and losses. .. its simple stuff.

    Your both screwed up !!!

  15. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    393 threads
    20,833 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    107   7:35pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected  

    thomas.wong1986 says

    I dont know why your bringing up Rental Passive income.. since Patrick is calling Investing in Stocks Bonds Mutual Funds etc (Schedule D) as "Unearned Income" instead of capital gains and losses. .. its simple stuff.

    Your both screwed up !!!

    I wasn't talking about rental passive income. I was talking about all passive income. I actually expanded it to show how absurd your conversation has been. There are actually exceptions for people who actively manage rental units that exclude the $3000 limit. You're all boxed in now so I suggest you give up.

    thomas.wong1986 says

    I dont know why your bringing up Rental Passive income.. since Patrick is calling Investing in Stocks Bonds Mutual Funds etc (Schedule D) as "Unearned Income" instead of capital gains and losses. .. its simple stuff.

    All Patrick said is that losses can be written off against gains. He's right. You're wrong. The $3000 limit is net. When you said:

    "On capital stock its limited to $3000 per year not 100% against gains and carry over residual losses in future years..."

    You were absolutely 100% WRONG. Losses can be written off 100% against gains.

  16. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    108   7:44pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    They went on to explain how Steve Jobs just borrowed against his own stock options, because he knew that when he died his heirs would get to reset the cost basis of those options to the current market value, because the 1% has so thoroughly corrupted our tax laws, ha ha. And that the 99% would never figure it out, because they are simply too stupid and angry, and just don't understand the basic math that will prevent them from ever joining the 1%.

    Right off, since when would strangers you spoke with know what Steve Jobs and his lawyers did in private ? Sounds like all conspiracy talk..

    Second, he had no stock options, he gave it all back. So he couldnt assign or transfer it. If he did have options and assigned/tranfered/sold his right, Apple Board of Directors would have to approved of it and it would be disclosure item with the SEC and since it would go to his trust..

    Lastly, Steve Jobs (Grantor) and heirs (beneficiary) dont have control over his estate assets, its under the control of the Trustee who values the assets, files the tax return, and distributes the income and assets.

    " I had lunch with a couple of ambitious and financially literate friends yesterday "

    ambitious .. yes.. literate... no ...

    Is that what people on University coffee shop do all.. how to con the guy on the street... yea... real great area (Fortress - Palo Alto) to raise your kids !

  17. tts


    Follow
    Befriend
    2 threads
    525 comments

    109   7:47pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    AlfonsoM says

    I know several illegal alien families who get wellfare, one of these families needed more money, so their 17 year old daughter got pregnant twice from 2 different men! just for the increase in government aid!

    Every institution or program can and will be abused to an extent, after all not all people are good.

    If however the institution or program on balance, despite some who will abuse it for personal gain, is beneficial to the whole of society in terms of money spent, social effects, and morality then it should still be supported right?

    If you want to argue the opposite then fine, I guess we should get rid of the police and military and hospitals, hell all governments too right?

  18. tts


    Follow
    Befriend
    2 threads
    525 comments

    110   7:49pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    They replied that they would easily be able to escape the revolution, and again urged me to just take advantage of their prejudices and anger to lower my own tax rate, make them into my slaves, etc etc.

    Those "friends" are real scumbags.

  19. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    111   7:57pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    All Patrick said is that losses can be written off against gains. He's right. You're wrong. The $3000 limit is net. When you said:

    There is no such thing income "gains" ... either you have operating income or you have operating losses.

    He was once again mixing "capital gains/losses" and "operation income/loss"

    Ok! so what the big deal with netting operating income with past losses ?

    Another conspiracy of the rich !!! laughable!!!

  20. edvard2


    Follow
    Befriend
    53 threads
    3,807 comments

    112   8:35pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    jerrypap says

    My biggest challenge every step of the way has all been related to onerous and typically nonsensical government restrictions - regulations, taxes, and a thousand other government policies that sometimes make it near impossible to get ANYTHING done.

    I'm coming to the conclusion that much government regulation is the way that the 1% prevents you from competing with them.

    All in the name of the public interest, of course. See this for some examples

    But likewise its perhaps more true that a lot of those regulations keep you, me, and others safe from any number of harmful or potentially harmful materials and situations. We live in a world that is absolutely chok-full of man-made chemicals and substances. Organizations like the EPA and OSHA constantly monitor and re-classify the zillions of things we're around all day everyday.

    Think about it this way: It wasn't too long ago that asbestos, PCBs, lead in both paint and gasoline, and 1000's of other everyday chemicals and materials were used extensively and are now either regulated, banned, or re-classified with proper handling and exposure guidelines, none of which would have existed without forms of regulations.

  21. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    113   9:48pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    thomas.wong1986 says

    Right off, since when would strangers you spoke with know what Steve Jobs and his lawyers did in private ? Sounds like all conspiracy talk..

    Second, he had no stock options, he gave it all back

    Actually, Steve Jobs did not give it all back, and those guys were right about the reset in cost basis:

    "David S. Miller writes that when Facebook goes public later this year, Mark Zuckerberg plans to exercise stock options worth $5 billion of the $28 billion that his ownership stake will be worth and since the $5 billion he will receive will be treated as salary, Zuckerberg will have a tax bill of more than $2 billion making him, quite possibly, the largest taxpayer in history. But how much income tax will Zuckerberg pay on the rest of his stock that he won't immediately sell? Nothing, nada, zilch. He can simply use his stock as collateral to borrow against his tremendous wealth and avoid all tax. That's what Lawrence J. Ellison, the chief executive of Oracle, did, reportedly borrowing more than a billion dollars against his Oracle shares to buy one of the most expensive yachts in the world. Or consider the case of Steven P. Jobs who never sold a single share of Apple after he rejoined the company in 1997, and therefore never paying a penny of tax on the over $2 billion of Apple stock he held at his death. Now Jobs' widow can sell those shares without paying any income tax on the appreciation before his death — only on the increase in value from the time of his death to the time of the sale — because our tax system is based on the concept of "realization." Individuals are not taxed until they actually sell property and realize their gains and the solution to the problem is called mark-to-market taxation. According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years."

    http://news.slashdot.org/story/12/02/08/2310218/the-zuckerberg-tax

    tts says

    Those "friends" are real scumbags.

    You'd probably say they're smart and pleasant people if you met them in person. But I was kind of shocked that it was perfectly fine with them to let angry stupid Republicans screw themselves over so that the rich could enjoy unfairly low tax rates.

  22. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    114   9:59pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    thomas.wong1986 says

    iwog says

    All Patrick said is that losses can be written off against gains. He's right. You're wrong. The $3000 limit is net. When you said:

    There is no such thing income "gains" ... either you have operating income or you have operating losses.

    He was once again mixing "capital gains/losses" and "operation income/loss"

    Ok! so what the big deal with netting operating income with past losses ?

    Another conspiracy of the rich !!! laughable!!!

    Individuals don't have operating losses, only businesses do. Iwog is right, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

    All stock losses are fully deductible against stock gains, though I think you have to match up short term gains and losses and match up long term gains and losses.

    And then if you still have a loss, you can deduct $3,000 of that loss from regular income forever until it's all deducted away. I know TurboTax has been having me deduct $3K per year for a huge loss I had in the dot-com bubble for, oh, about a decade now.

    The sum of the story is this: our tax code is ridiculously biased in favor of unearned income, at the expense of working people.

  23. AlfonsoM


    Follow
    Befriend
    5 comments

    115   10:29pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    tts says

    If however the institution or program on balance, despite some who will abuse it for personal gain, is beneficial to the whole of society in terms of money spent, social effects, and morality then it should still be supported right?

    who said anything about getting rid of police or hospitals? you take things to the extreme, then I should also! You said that all those people that abuse the system for personal gain benefit our society by spending the money, well hell! lets give all those people double or even triple the amount they take, in that way our society will also benefit a lot more! by your logic this will work! Right!
    What i'm saying is that this system can work, if done correctly, by taking the proper measures to prevent fraud! sure it will never be perfect but once fraud is detected then it should be stopped! that is way to logical for our system! we promote fraud by not stopping it!
    I really don't care if someone believes me or not! I just don't care, but try searching in youtube for EBT Cards and you will be amazed!

    Thank you patrick for your work on this site!

  24. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    116   10:34pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Individuals don't have operating losses, only businesses do. Iwog is right, you don't seem to know what you're talking about.

    As he pointed out.. Form 8562 "Passive Activity Loss Limitations"... attach to 1040... Individual Tax return or 1041 Estate/Trust. This is not the 1120 Corporate Inc. Tax Form.

    Not the big corporation you were thinking of..

    You have been talking about 15% capital gains tax on sale of assets/investments.. vs ordinary income tax 35% on profits.

    Two different transactions that occur.

  25. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    117   10:38pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    And then if you still have a loss, you can deduct $3,000 of that loss from regular income forever until it's all deducted away. I know TurboTax has been having me deduct $3K per year for a huge loss I had in the dot-com bubble for, oh, about a decade now.

    Ok so now its Capital Stock ... And you have a problem with this ? Was it some stock insanely overvalued like Ariba back in 1999! 150x future earnings... would you buy LinkedIn today at 1000x future earnings.. did you learn anything?

    Yes PE does count for something....

  26. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    118   10:51pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Actually, Steve Jobs did not give it all back, and those guys were right about the reset in cost basis:

    OK lets say. Jobs Ellison and Z all had vested options, all approved by board of directors to get a loan and disclosed to the SEC (given)

    My comments: So what ? They secured the loan with the options to the lendor.

    Eventually in order to pay the loan off, they will have to sell stock along with the taxes...

    But here is the catch from your linked article... the new game to increase govt revenue upfront taxes...That is, the govt couldnt wait until taxpayer sell the shares to pay for the loan. In this case stock only, but the reality is stocks go up one year and down the next.. but the IRS gets their cut of the action as your holding it and saving it for the future. Would you apply the same rule on homes even during a housing bubble mania. Clearly not..

    "According to Miller, mark-to-market would only affect individuals who were undeniably, extraordinarily rich, only publicly traded stock would be marked to market, and a mark-to-market system of taxation on the top one-tenth of 1 percent would raise hundreds of billions of dollars of new revenue over the next 10 years."

    If your asking about Mort Z.. i say he may "off himself" if he borrows and his stock tanks ... wouldnt be the first time that happened with rich to rags story..

  27. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    119   11:01pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    Or consider the case of Steven P. Jobs who never sold a single share of Apple after he rejoined the company in 1997, and therefore never paying a penny of tax on the over $2 billion of Apple stock he held at his death. Now Jobs' widow can sell those shares without paying any income tax on the appreciation before his death — only on the increase in value from the time of his death to the time of the sale — because our tax system is based on the concept of "realization."

    Again, his assets and all the claims to his assets including any lendor who provided a loan secured by stock will get valued by the excutor of the trust (independent party). They will value the assets including the stock and report that to the IRS. The trust later distributes the income and corpus. After that estate tax rules kick in.. i dont recall if its 30-40% tax.

  28. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    120   11:05pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Patrick says

    The sum of the story is this: our tax code is ridiculously biased in favor of unearned income, at the expense of working people.

    Invest wisely.. or dont invest at all... it has nothing to do with tax code..

    Or are you going to be the first person to buy Facebook stock at $ xxxxxxxxx/share and a Price Earning multiple of 100,000 times future earnings.

  29. thomas.wong1986


    Follow
    Befriend
    16 threads
    4,424 comments

    121   11:11pm Fri 23 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

    This Thread is about senseless left wing politics rather than facts...

    Throw some meat to the masses.. they want their 10 lbs of flesh.

  30. Honest Abe


    Follow
    Befriend (41)
    108 threads
    1,839 comments

    122   7:21am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)  

    The guy on the left (get it, the left?) is most likely a unionized government employee.

  31. Nomograph


    Follow
    Befriend (1)
    104 threads
    2,848 comments

    123   10:16am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)  

    Honest Abe says

    The guy on the left (get it, the left?) is most likely a unionized government employee.

    The guy on the left is Honest Abe.

  32. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    124   10:30am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    The guy on the left is not even remotely like any government employee I ever met. But he is exactly like most hard-core Republicans in the 99%.

    I have to admit that Honest Abe's complaints about everyone except the people who are killing his American Dream make Abe seem exactly like the guy on the left.

    They are in your way Abe! They are killing your dream. They prevent competition by using regulation and and skew the rewards in favor of themselves by using the tax code. You don't really have a chance in America to profit from your own labor until the playing field gets leveled out.

    You're your own worst enemy Abe. I'd like for you to have a good life, but you have to free your mind first. Leave your hates behind and look at the facts: unearned income is taxed at such a low rate that no matter how hard you work you will never catch up to the very rich, not in 100 lifetimes, and you will have to bid against them for housing, education, and every other thing you want. And they have to do no work except keep the tax code corrupted in their favor.

  33. sack


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 comments

    125   11:06am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    tts says

    sack says

    But the dividends have already been taxed once as corporate tax, taxing it again is probably netting the government more than your 35% (which I doubt many of us are paying).

    This is pure pro-rich meme horseshit.

    Yeah, when shown a fact/logic for which people have no answer, make a claim that it is fecal matter of some animal. Classic.

    The non rich wage earners get their income quadruple mega taxed by this logic. After all they pay a sales tax, gas tax, state tax, property tax, federal income tax, etc. all on the same salary.

    Sales tax and gas taxes are consumption tax, and even the rich pay the same. More you consume, more you pay.

    State and federal taxes are applicable on corporate profits too... If I
    make a corporate as a sole proprietorship, I get taxed only once... all my earnings are considered to be my wages and taxes accordingly.

    Instead if I invest in a company, the company gets taxed at corporate rates (which I believe is higher than personal taxes, but I am no tax expert), and then when I take my earnings out (dividends), I get taxed again -- on both state and federal level.

    So don't you tell me that only the poor (btw: really poor

  34. sack


    Follow
    Befriend
    4 comments

    126   11:09am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    tts says

    This is pure pro-rich meme horseshit.

    Yeah, when shown the fact logic for which people have no answer, make a claim that it is fecal matter of some pasture animal. Classic.

    Sales tax and gas taxes are consumption tax, and even the rich pay the same. More you consume, more you pay.

    State and federal taxes are applicable on corporate profits too... If I
    make a corporate as a sole proprietorship, I get taxed only once... all my earnings are considered to be my wages and taxes accordingly.

    Instead if I invest in a company, the company gets taxed at corporate rates (which I believe is higher than personal taxes, but I am no tax expert), and then when I take my earnings out (dividends), I get taxed again -- on both state and federal level. So don't you tell me that only the poor pay 4 times the taxes (btw: really poor i.e people with less than 50K hardly pay any state/fed taxes) pay -- even the rich pay that (and no, I am not rich).

    The second thing is every one talks about the rich paying just 15%, but if you are really honest and you are making around 100-150K, I doubt you will be paying much more than 15-16% either ( effective tax rate for married filing jointly without any other deduction like mortgage etc. If used, it reduces the income tax paid much much lesser than the 15%).

    I can understand taxing more on capital gains, but to say dividends needs to be taxed further is something I dont agree with. Furthermore, with Obamacare, there is already another 4% that will be taxed on earnings above 250K, add the expiring tax breaks that will make the rates 20% (or 18% if held for more than 5 years). Effectively, the rich will be paying close to 25% of their earnings.. If you are not rich and you claim to be paying more than the rich, i.e. 25% federal tax (effective rate), then you need better tax professional.

  35. rootvg


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    1 threads
    814 comments
    Danville, CA
    Premium

    127   11:10am Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (3)   Protected  

    Patrick, that's idiotic. No one's killing his dream or yours other than the guy in the White House and possibly the people running the EPA.

    Have you not heard what Steve Wynn has had to say about this administration's economic policies? He's a Nevada Democrat, for God's sake. Harry Reid wouldn't be Senate Majority Leader (or even a Senator) without him.

    Do you really understand this, or do you have only the frame of reference of the bureaucrats who educated you?

    You need to get out more. Go to the suburbs of Atlanta for a weekend. Go to Cary, NC for a few days to see all the relocated Yankees there. Go to Leesburg, VA and see all the people moving in from the northeast and midwest. I don't think I'd move to Loudoun today. It's getting too big.

    One of the finest automotive radio shows in existence is Wheels with Ed Wallace on KLIF. I was streaming it while doing a little work this morning. He said what people there have known for awhile (now confirmed), that Dallas' north suburbs have the highest population growth rate of anywhere else in the nation. That happened before, in the mid nineties when we moved there from Ohio. Why? Because Texas doesn't allow bearded academics, unstable personalities and liberal dickheads to run anything important! When someone wants to come in and create a few jobs, they get out of the way!

    Just how long do you think you'd last down there? We lived there eight years. I would have stayed for a lifetime had it not been for the allergy problem, which anyone raised in a northern state would have in a southern state. The doctors told us move and we did...but I haven't changed and I can guarantee you I won't.

    Honest Abe should stick to his guns. No one's oppressing him...but I sense you're trying to mindscrew him. That's another one of those California high school, narcissistic, everyone-run-in-the-same-direction-and-make-fun-of-those-who-don't culture things. I can't tell you how much money I've saved (and made) by ignoring those folks.

  36. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    128   12:29pm Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    sack says

    But the dividends have already been taxed once as corporate tax, taxing it again is probably netting the government more than your 35% (which I doubt many of us are paying). And you discount the fact that investments is what finances others to be "productive".

    I could see that money distributed as dividends should probably be deductible from corporate earnings since it is going to be someone else's income. But it should be taxed at the same rate as ordinary income at the maximum marginal rate then. None of this 15% bullshit which is a forced gift to billionaires from working people.

    OTOH, you could say that the corporate income tax is simply the cost of incorporation. If the legal benefits of incorporation (no liability for shareholders) are not worthwhile with the corporate income tax taken into account, then don't incorporate.

  37. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    129   12:37pm Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected  

    rootvg says

    No one's killing his dream or yours other than the guy in the White House and possibly the people running the EPA.

    At least you agree that the 1% is using EPA regulations to prevent competition from Honest Abe, you, and me.

    Corruption of government by corporate interest is the one and only problem. Nothing else is significant.

    Obama's just a Republican in Democratic clothing. He voted for the bailouts (but so did McCain), he kept the unfairly low capital gains and dividend rates without objection, he sold out health care reform to the insurers by ditching the public option, and worst of all, he signed the NDAA, which is the Republican wet dream of imprisoning anyone, any time, for no reason at all, forever.

    We don't really have any choice in elections, since both parties are funded by the same 1%.

    Did you see Bulworth?

  38. rootvg


    Follow
    Befriend (7)
    1 threads
    814 comments
    Danville, CA
    Premium

    130   12:39pm Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)   Protected  

    Patrick says

    Watch replies by email

    Patrick, how is it that I'm VERY sure I could bring you my buddy in Dallas who's a retired full bird Army Colonel (and Vietnam era Green Beret) with a PhD, who would cut your and your friend's arguments to pieces? I should get him up here and have us all meet at a restaurant. God, that would be FUN.

    We are TWO separate nations in many ways...and you can obviously believe what you want (as I do) but there are only 55 Electoral votes here and there are at least 160 in the so called values states and that's before we get to Ohio, Pennsylvania and Missouri.

    You're not in control. You'll never be in control!

    This is why Democrats have served so few years in the White House since the end of World War II. This is what happened to Carter and is about to happen to Obama. It's a familiar pattern: something bad happens, we elect Democrats to the White House and Congress, they go in there and show us how bad they really are, the Republicans get religion and we put them back in for another 15-20 years. Over and over and over...that's how it goes.

    We don't live in the United States of California, where the wine and food and climate make us all feel like we can do anything we want and not pay the price!

    It's a center right nation, California and Massachusetts be damned.

  39. Patrick


    Follow
    Befriend (55)
    5,666 threads
    6,354 comments
    male
    Menlo Park, CA
    Premium

    131   12:43pm Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike   Protected  

    The whole left-right thing is a deliberately cultivated distraction from the main issue, which Teddy Roosevelt put perfectly:

    "To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

  40. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    393 threads
    20,833 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    132   12:53pm Sat 24 Mar 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected  

    rootvg says

    Because Texas doesn't allow bearded academics, unstable personalities and liberal dickheads to run anything important! When someone wants to come in and create a few jobs, they get out of the way!

    You can always count on the board neocons to reach deep within their right-wing talk radio resources and spew out as much non-information as they possibly can. No facts, no references, no links, no nothing. Just blind assertion after blind assertion after blind assertion after blind assertion..........

    I'll interject some reality and real numbers. Texas has traditionally lagged the United States and the liberal coasts in unemployment numbers for decades. Texas has always been a REALLY shitty place to find a job and most honest people admit this. The government in Texas doesn't really "get out of the way" and money is not flooding into the state. While it's true unemployment has been lower than the coasts in recent years:

    It is also true that the Texas "miracle" was bought and paid for by increases in the price of oil and the new natural gas hydrofracking boom.

    Little of this wealth is actually flowing to the working class. Per capita texas wages, even with the energy boom, remain lower than every coastal "liberal" state in the union. Furthermore unemployment really isn't that low. Texas is currently around the national average.

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104652.html

    In summary, nearly everything you read from the right is pure bullshit. Two Texans in the White House, a decade of rising oil prices, and a natural gas energy rush has made the employment situation in Texas a little better than it used to be. Congratulations.

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »

marquismark is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 190 milliseconds to create.