My Final Thoughts before moving on....

1) Adjusted grossincome of over $250,000.

2) That depends on where the person lives. In some areas of the country (New York, for example), $40,000 a year is no where near enough to live on. In other places, particularly in the Midwest, someone making $40,000 a year can buy pretty much anything he wants and still have money left over.

3) Many people have said they wish there were a flat tax. That way everyone would pay the same percentage on what they earn. While there are many reasons that won't work, I don't believe it is fair that the average working stiff puts in overtime and when that knocks him into the next tax bracket, he ends up often paying HALF of that overtime pay in taxes. Yet the ones who are truly wealthy and can afford to pay creative accountants to find every loophole, including offsh ore accounts, and they end up paying a much smaller percentage than the middle class and even in some cases, those bordering on poverty.

    The way I see it, if someone lives in this country and has found a way to make large sums of money, they owe it to their country to pay taxes that go toward the infrastructure that allowed them to earn the money in the first place. Instead, many of them bank their money offsh ore to avoid paying taxes at all. THAT, while it may be legal, is NOT ethical, nor is it fair.

4) Probably not. The economy is too fragile right now. I heard a report on the radio this morning, comparing our fiscal cliff with the troubles in Europe. They said that a lot of European countries are in trouble because they overspent, and raising more revenue only made it worse because they continued to spend.

    However, they also spoke about Luxembourg who, rather than raising more revenue, just cut services. Their economy slowed down even more than the countries that raised revenue.

    The "experts" suggested that a combination of both, but SLOWLY and MINIMALLY, while the economy is so sluggish, whould be the best way. THEN, after things pick up some, we should be more agressive.

5) Insulting question based on your erronious assumption that Democrats want to punish the rich as long as THEY keep what they've got.

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

Now, consider yourself humored. You and I have had some good discussions in the past, and we have had some that got a little crazy. I will miss whatever good ones we may have in the future, but I agree, things on this forum have gone downhill, and the crazy ones, I will dismiss with good riddence. 

Like you, I have grown somewhat tired and disgusted with some on this forum, and while I may check in from time to time, I probably won't be posting or reading anywhere as much in the future as I have in the past.

Good luck.

That imaginary clinton "tax surplus" and yep, cut the military and other important things so we can give someone three million dollars to study african grandmothers. Sheesh. Obamacare has already raised the tax on the "rich".  The guy was so right-"leaving democrats alone to do math is like leaving  toddlers alone with matches".

 Insulting question based on your erronious assumption that Democrats want to punish the rich as long as THEY keep what they've got.

How is that insulting? I simply asked if you felt you would be justified if your tax rates were either lowered or remained the same, as long as those making more than you had theirs raised? How is that insulting, it is a "yes" or "no" answer. The definition of "rich" for most of the folks who frequent this forum, especially the liberal Left, has been those who make more than themselves.  It may be an erroneous perception, but for what I see it has always been a feeling of entitlement or pure greed for what someone else has that drives this definition.

I think seeweed offers a little better reasoning, though I doubt anyone in their right mind would envision a tax rate of 95% on any faction of the citizenry.  Especially since I think the numbers are wrong.  I think there are many more than 2% who make over the $200K year number.  In reality what I think is that we becoming a society who has decided they will target the professional (white collar) faction (lawyers, executives, doctors) because we have become a base who blames our problems on this group.  Right or wrong, it makes no difference, it is what it is.  Like the Europeans, we will just continue to increase spending while increasing taxes, until the system collaps. It is obvious with the latest Obama proposal that this is what he intends to do.  He wants to increase taxes while adding another $50B in social handouts in the form of "stimulus".  This is a sickening display of "pay it back" to a voter base which has a large portion who thinks that they are owed something for their allegiance.  If the tax rates increase was only a few percent, that would be sufficient, but this is topped with additional build in tax increases and penalties which for the self employed could mean as much as $10-12K per year based on projected figures. i don't know about you, but that type of increase can and will be detremental to the typical family in this AGI, whether you consider them "rich" or not.

________

I rarely come to politics, but I enjoy reading your post in the other parts of the forum. I know where your coming about this place being somewhat of a waste of time, & depressing. I guess I'm a fool for punishment, but most of the time I enjoy it & I've "met" some good people here.

Hope it's ok I didn't answer your quesions, just wanted you to say I'll miss your post. Hope you & your family have a wonderful Christmas & New Year. (IF we get pass December 21)  

You too Semi, perhaps if the Mayans are right it is all a moot point anyways.  I hope it at least holds off till Dec 22, my son is coming home on the 21st, and I am looking forward to seeing all my kids for Christmas.  Have a Happy Holidays!

"How is that insulting? I simply asked if you felt you would be justified if your tax rates were either lowered or remained the same, as long as those making more than you had theirs raised? How is that insulting, it is a "yes" or "no" answer. The definition of "rich" for most of the folks who frequent this forum, especially the liberal Left, has been those who make more than themselves.  It may be an erroneous perception, but for what I see it has always been a feeling of entitlement or pure greed for what someone else has that drives this definition."

__________________________________

Your question is insulting because the premise for that question, which you lay out here, is insulting. You are reading into people's posts what you WANT to read. You have a preconcieved notion of how liberals think, and you refuse to trust the evidence of your own eyes (by reading our posts), because it might prove your well-loved notion wrong.

Please, show me a post by any of the liberals on this forum showing that we think anyone who makes more than us is rich. You can't, because there are none.

Then answer the question...

Are you or will you will satisfied with any increase of tax rates on other faction of the populace as long as yours is either reduced or remains the same?  Simple question. And your diversion from it speaks volumes about your stance.

There you go, being nasty and insulting again. There is no DIVERSION

If you think that is nasty and insulting, you must not get out much.

"Will you be satisfied when all liberals are dead?", would YOU consider that a reasonable question?

Put it in the form of a question and post it.  See how many yes and no answers you can get.  I did not ask that question

If you really want an answer to that question though, all you have to do is read my answers to numbers one and three. I believe that those, and only those, making over $250,000 a year should pay more in taxes than they currently are. I believe that instead of offsh ore accounts, they should bank their money here, where not only would they be taxed on it, but their money could be put to work IN AMERICA.

So you think that people making $250K a year have offs**** accounts to shield their money? Really, that is your impression of the "rich"? And much like I insinuated, you are happy as lonog as someone else is paying the bill for your freebies. Sort of what I expected from you, and a few others that frequent the circus.  I still however want for you to tell me what you think the defintion of "fair share" should be, or are you to dance around that one as well.

FYO, IF I made that much, I would be perfectly happy to have my rates rise AND the loopholes close. And honestly, if I made a lot of money, I would NOT hide it outside of the country.

I definitely call BS on that as well.  If you were happy to have your rates raised, you would not have a problem with it at what you make now.  No, what you want is exactly like I said, for someone else, who you consider to be better off than yourself, to foot the bill for the freebies you think the government should provide.  It is not about giving back, for if that was the case why should those who are benefitting most from the system not be giving back, yet claim to pay the lowest rates. If you understood anything about how the government actually worked, you would know that the money you pay into SS is used up in the first few years of your retirement.   The same goes for Medicare The rest comes from those who are currently working, and the money they are paying into the system, which they erroneously believe to be held for them in a magic box until they are ready to retire.

And yet you find it distateful for those who  pay more taxes to utilize deductions that are available to anyone, despite the fact that some of the deductions are phased out as you make more money.  In reality the true "rich" in society are the multimillionares and billionaires who live off of trust.  Those making $250K a year are really just upper middle class who are being targeted by the liberals, since if you excluded them you would have less than 1% of people to suck more money from.  Ironically as the $250K crowd dries up and the government realizes that they cannot continue to spend like a drunken sailor and prevent our eventual collapse, they will decrease their amount or definition of "rich", and eventually you will be in that category,

Oh, and by the way, I guess you concede that no one on this forum has EVER said that anyone making more than them is rich. So are you willing to admit that THAT part of your hatred for liberals is unfounded?

Haha, seriously?  I concede nothing.  All you have to do is a random search on this forum for the past three or four years and it does not take a brain surgeon to see how most of the more vicious Libs on here think. I am not going to spend the rest of my afternoon digging it out for you.  Do it yourself.  After spending the morning working, as soon as I finsih the rest of this work, I plan on enjoying a weekend.  I don't plan to spend the time worrying about someone else has, whether it be an offs**** account or not. I have found that it is much more important that find happiness in what I have rather than wanting what someone else has, and the problems that come along with it. I bet a cursory search if you can find credible information, would show that the percentage of offs**** accounts, is probably about equal among Dems and Republicans.  A huge percentage of those were also probably inherited, and come from family money made years and years ago.  I have my own obligations to worry about, and think it is bad for your health to sit and covet your neighbor's belongs, and dwell on what they have.

Kattyatty, on Jan 8 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Well I will be hit by this as I am over the 250k limit and trust me you would not want to pay more when you see how much it really is you pay.   I have always said means test all entitlement receivers and corporate welfare programs, get rid of the waste and fluff and then ask for more of my hard earned  money. 

Actually you are saying since I make more than you I should pay more since you support taxing anyone above 250k.

BTW, I don't think I've ever called anyone on here a "gimmethat". If I have it's slipped my mind. Yes, I talk about "gimmethats", and no one in their right mind could deny they exist. You yourself have even acknowledged that part of our society, but instead of wanting something done about it you think it's just something we should live with. So maybe "subconsciously" you've labeled yourself a gimmethat. That's on you, not me.

What I post about gimmethats and democrats is what I think of them, and I am as entitled to post those thoughts as you're entitled to post the rants you go on about republicans. At least I haven't declared, as you have about me, that democrats want to see people die. And therein lies one more problem you have-you can't take an opposing view, you can't stand for something you posted to be debunked, and when you hand out insults and post half/untruths you are always "insulted/surprised" and on the attack when you get called on it and get the insults sent back to you. And now it looks like you're sinking to a new low, making up and posting outright lies. 

teyates,

I think the problem with your questions are that they show you come from a mindset of us vs. them, or takers vs. makers.  You seem to believe that the only reason anyone would want to raise revenue is to take it from those who earned it and give it to lazy people.  Just to illustrate a point, let's take the total cost of 3 federal programs where one might find abuse and fraud.  Let's then eleminate those programs entirely.  Just to make sure we weed out all the abuse we will  also stop payments to those who "need it."  Pick any 3, it doesn't matter which 3.  Add up their costs for any given year and see how much of the federal budget they consume.  You will see that it isn't a big slice of the pie.

Our long term debt problems cannot be solved by revenue alone.  Major spending cuts must be put in place, but that doesn't mean revenue should be off the table.  Many advocates of returning the top marginal rate to the pre-Bush tax cut levels aren't seeking to punish the rich, or make sure there's plenty of money available so that they can get more food stamps.  They're simply pointing out the need for more revenue to make some dent in our deficit problems.

Here are SOME of the complications: http://www.celiacsociety.com/c...fo_complications.asp

And there are a lot more that DON'T resolve with the diet, especially when one has had it for a long time.

Coeliac disease has been linked with a number of conditions. In many cases, it is unclear whether the gluten-induced bowel disease is a causative factor or whether these conditions share a common predisposition.

• IgA deficiency is present in 2.3% of patients with coeliac disease, and in turn, this condition features a tenfold increased risk of coeliac disease. Other features of this condition are an increased risk of infections and autoimmune disease.^[12]
• Dermatitis herpetiformis; this itchy cutaneous condition has been linked to a transglutaminase enzyme in the skin, features small-bowel changes identical to those in coeliac disease, and may respond to gluten withdrawal even if there are no gastrointestinal symptoms.^[13][14]
• Growth failure and/or pubertal delay in later childhood can occur even without obvious bowel symptoms or severe malnutrition. Evaluation of growth failure often includes coeliac screening.^[4]
• Recurrent miscarriage and unexplained infertility.^[4]
• Hyposplenism (a small and underactive spleen);^[15] this occurs in about a third of cases and may predispose to infection given the role of the spleen in protecting against bacteria.^[4]
• Abnormal liver function tests (randomly detected on blood tests).^[4]

Coeliac disease is associated with a number of other medical conditions, many of which are autoimmune disorders: diabetes mellitus type 1, autoimmune thyroiditis,^[16] primary biliary cirrhosis, and microscopic colitis.^[17]

A more controversial area is a group of diseases in which anti-gliadin antibodies (an older and non-specific test for coeliac disease) are sometimes detected, but no small bowel disease can be demonstrated. Sometimes, these conditions improve by removing gluten from the diet. This includes cerebellar ataxia, peripheral neuropathy, schizophrenia and autism.^[

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:

May I second that and I completely understand.  About to give them up myself.  Left one yesterday, this one soon.

Merry Christmas Dr Teyates and Semi.

Oh No, I wish you luck with your celiac issues.  

Thanks Frog. When I consider that there are so many people with much worse problems, I realize that even though I would like to feel better, I've actually got it easy by comparison.

Hope all is well with you.

I am fine, thanks, and appreciate you asking

Ono since best is an RN and tyates is a doctor, they might recommend some helpful ideas for you. God I would hate have TYates put that mask over my face and notice Best out of the corner of my eye as his assistant. LOL. Cas I know the jig is up.

Originally Posted by Crumbpicker:

Merry Christmas Dr Teyates and Semi.

_________

Merry Christmas, Crumb.

________

But when in pain & not able to do our usual routine, it's hard to think about having it easy by comparison.

Come to Alabama, stay with me for the Holidays, you & I will cry in our beer together.

Hope you feel better.