10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    Hahaha....again...IRONY
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut : Sparring with pinkeye is like talking to a four year old.
    Posted by Bill.the.Cat[/QUOTE]

    Which is a real challenge for you, because you talk like a two year old.

    Glad you are stretching yourself.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from lawboy. Show lawboy's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    Let us pray, that'll solve everything ppfftt
     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    We just past the 7th month anniversary of Obama extending those very same cuts.
     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut : Well, were are all the jobs the wingnuts promised?
    Posted by 12-Angry-Men[/QUOTE]


    To coin the anointed one, maybe they meant "jobs saved".
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from IamYourDaddy. Show IamYourDaddy's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut : Wow, what a vague and absolutely useless post. Is $100,000 some magical number to define affluence. And how are you valuing the dollar? Is it tied to gdp or chained to say, 1980 dollars? How about CPI or PWC? Just another attempt at obfuscation. Here's a real world calculation about relative value. That is what a dollar in 1960 would be worth today. In 2010, the relative worth of $1.00 from 1960 is:   $7.36 using the Consumer Price Index   $5.95 using the GDP deflator   $8.49 using the unskilled wage   $10.40 using the Production Worker Compensation   $16.20 using the nominal GDP per capita   $27.90 using the relative share of GDP That means that an annual income of about $15,000 in 1960 equals an annual income of $110,000 today. Does that mean everyone making $15,000 in 1960 were in poverty but now, without a raise in 50 years, just the rise in CPI they would be making $100K and would be affluent? What a useless and misleading post. Try again.
    Posted by 12-Angry-Men[/QUOTE]

    Hay dip & hit ... w&tf are u talking about?

    who give a rat a$ss what the cost was in  1960 .. the poverty rate is adjusted every year by the goverment ... if u look at the chart maybe cenus bureau may provide with a clue

    The point is today ... right now there are more affluent wealthy people than before ... i know you dont  like the fact but CHOKE on it
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from IamYourDaddy. Show IamYourDaddy's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut : Awwww, look at poor 'Idon't know what it means but it looks good'. All huffy and puffy because he can't answer a question about his graphs and charts. Let's try and simplify it so maybe even you can understand. You posted a chart that starts in 1997 for income. Was the dollar, CPI and cost of living index the same in 1997 as it is today? Even simpler for you...Did a dollar then have the same buying power as it does now? I didn't think so. So why would a $100k line matter over 25 years?  So that means your chart is useles except as something you can show first graders how to color within the lines. And who are you to determine what 'wealthy' is? As far as you've shown it's some arbitrary number that looks good in your charts. Is $100 K 'wealthy' in NYC? San Fran? Boston? Every wingnut on these boards says that idea of raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 isn't hitting 'wealthy' people but middle class. But for some freakin reason you decided that $100 k was 'wealthy'. And that poverty rate chart... I could go on about that but I'll let you try figure out what exactly your 'wealthy' chart actually means.
    Posted by 12-Angry-Men[/QUOTE]

    I know exactly what it means .. can't help it if u can't figure it out

    Those charts are adjusted for inflation but i'll even give u the benefit of the doubt

    What cost $500000 in 1997 would cost $676099.76 in 2010.

    Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2010 and 1997,
    they would cost you $500000 and $369404.33 respectively.


    Let me break it down 

    38 million has 100k net worth (minus primary residency)

    15 mil      has  500k

    8.4 mil     has 1 mil plus

    1.06 mil   has 5 mil or more

    ===

    you do know what net worth means(probably not) ...  try to understand what is wealth and what is income, if you make a million dollar and spend a million, you are not wealthy, you might live a rich lifestyle but you have no wealth. It doesn't matter where you are NYC, Boston,san fran etc .... GET IT

    Living in areas with smaller cost of living or making higher income  with (LESS TAXES) might make it easier for you to save and build your wealth, see where this is going, making a little sense now maybe

    The chart show that more household is building their wealth over the years

    currently there are around 130 million household in the US, tell you what I'll even throw out the people with only 100k-500k of net worth out. There are still around 25 million (20%) of us household that has net worth more than 500k 

    ============

    Try to understand between taxing income vs taxing wealth. A person making 100k is in the top 10% of earners, The top 10% pays 70% of all taxes. The only way to grow the revenue is to tax the top 10% ... Even thou they said we are only going to tax people making 250k ... (the number doesn't get there)

    Taxing wealth is only 15% (capital gain) that why Buffet can say his tax rate is lower than his secretary. But wealth is mobile meaning if the rate is too high people tend to move their wealth around.

    When you increase income tax rate you are only hurting the working not the wealthy


     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BilltheKat. Show BilltheKat's posts

    Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut

    In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: 10 year anniversary of the Bush tax cut : Which is a real challenge for you, because you talk like a two year old. Glad you are stretching yourself.
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    Let me quote pinkeye the circus boy

    "Hahaha....again...IRONY "
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     

Share