Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

During all the debate and fuss about raising the debt ceiling Mr. Nobama said today"I will never sign a bill that will allow me to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I do not need"..that is his defense to wanting to raise taxes...So is it me or does anyone else think that statement is a little weird??

larry3100 wrote:During all the debate and fuss about raising the debt ceiling Mr. Nobama said today"I will never sign a bill that will allow me to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I do not need"..that is his defense to wanting to raise taxes...So is it me or does anyone else think that statement is a little weird??

Its not weird, he has repeatedly said the rich like himself can afford to have their taxes set back to mid 1990's levels....when the economy was doing fine incidentally.

Kreutz wrote:

larry3100 wrote:During all the debate and fuss about raising the debt ceiling Mr. Nobama said today"I will never sign a bill that will allow me to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I do not need"..that is his defense to wanting to raise taxes...So is it me or does anyone else think that statement is a little weird??

Its not weird, he has repeatedly said the rich like himself can afford to have their taxes set back to mid 1990's levels....when the economy was doing fine incidentally.

Hey Kreutz, why dont you and all your liberal buddies just give uncle all of your extras...

Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together...and the socialist commie anointed one wants the "rich" to pay their fair share...bite me...

Here is his definition of fair...

Citizen A works hard, saves and invests, and climbs the ladder of American wealth. One day Citizen A become "rich."

Citizen B doesnt hit a lick at a stick, saves nothing, goes no where and remains poor.

To be "fair" A must now give to B.

My definition of fair would be this...Citizen A hires citizen B. If citizen B works hard they are rewarded with raises and bonuses. Citizen A can continue to grow his wealth and hire more citizen Bs...Simple.

If citizen A is forced to give to citizen B then soon A will have nothing and neither will B...everybody loses...

Btw, Kreutz...yes we had a little prosperity under the Clinton administration and it started after he lost the congressional majority. He was a smart man...he moved to the center which boosted his success...obama refuses to do this...

I know for a fact that obama is quite smart, hence his mission is not to fix...it is to break, destroy, and burn...why? You gotta tear down the old before the new can be built...

zephyp wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

larry3100 wrote:During all the debate and fuss about raising the debt ceiling Mr. Nobama said today"I will never sign a bill that will allow me to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars that I do not need"..that is his defense to wanting to raise taxes...So is it me or does anyone else think that statement is a little weird??

Its not weird, he has repeatedly said the rich like himself can afford to have their taxes set back to mid 1990's levels....when the economy was doing fine incidentally.

Hey Kreutz, why dont you and all your liberal buddies just give uncle all of your extras...

Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together...and the socialist commie anointed one wants the "rich" to pay their fair share...bite me...

Here is his definition of fair...

Citizen A works hard, saves and invests, and climbs the ladder of American wealth. One day Citizen A become "rich."

Citizen B doesnt hit a lick at a stick, saves nothing, goes no where and remains poor.

To be "fair" A must now give to B.

My definition of fair would be this...Citizen A hires citizen B. If citizen B works hard they are rewarded with raises and bonuses. Citizen A can continue to grow his wealth and hire more citizen Bs...Simple.

If citizen A is forced to give to citizen B then soon A will have nothing and neither will B...everybody loses...

Btw, Kreutz...yes we had a little prosperity under the Clinton administration and it started after he lost the congressional majority. He was a smart man...he moved to the center which boosted his success...obama refuses to do this...

I know for a fact that obama is quite smart, hence his mission is not to fix...it is to break, destroy, and burn...why? You gotta tear down the old before the new can be built...

DK - that is a very informative post.

I'll put on my liberal hat for a split second just to say - "Think of Citizen B's CHILDREN!"

zephyp wrote: Hey Kreutz, why dont you and all your liberal buddies just give uncle all of your extras...

Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together...and the socialist commie anointed one wants the "rich" to pay their fair share...bite me...

Here is his definition of fair...

Citizen A works hard, saves and invests, and climbs the ladder of American wealth. One day Citizen A become "rich."

Citizen B doesnt hit a lick at a stick, saves nothing, goes no where and remains poor.

To be "fair" A must now give to B.

My definition of fair would be this...Citizen A hires citizen B. If citizen B works hard they are rewarded with raises and bonuses. Citizen A can continue to grow his wealth and hire more citizen Bs...Simple.

If citizen A is forced to give to citizen B then soon A will have nothing and neither will B...everybody loses...

Btw, Kreutz...yes we had a little prosperity under the Clinton administration and it started after he lost the congressional majority. He was a smart man...he moved to the center which boosted his success...obama refuses to do this...

I know for a fact that obama is quite smart, hence his mission is not to fix...it is to break, destroy, and burn...why? You gotta tear down the old before the new can be built...

Don't forget non-citizen C who visits a Spanish speaking bank teller to send Citizen A's money to Mexico.

zephyp wrote:Hey Kreutz, why dont you and all your liberal buddies just give uncle all of your extras...

I'm middle class, my tax rate is fine, not too much, not too little. I give thanks to Obama for fighting the GOP off from raising middle class taxes.

Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together

How is that mathematically possible?

...and the socialist commie anointed one wants the "rich" to pay their fair share...bite me...

As the primary beneficiarie sof "the system", yeah, they should pay their fair share.

Here is his definition of fair...

Citizen A works hard, saves and invests, and climbs the ladder of American wealth. One day Citizen A become "rich."

Yes, the system in place benefited him. He should pay more. Lets eliminate all taxes so we have the infrastructure of Mogadishu and see how far Citizen A gets...oh wait, he was hacked to death by bushmen on his way to the office/goat pen. Nevermind.

Citizen B doesnt hit a lick at a stick, saves nothing, goes no where and remains poor.

Duuuude, most poor are the "working poor". The stereotypical poor person mooching off the system is not real. These people (invariably working for citizen A) get crap pay and no benefits, so citizen A can stay rich.

To be "fair" A must now give to B.

Absolutely fair!

My definition of fair would be this...Citizen A hires citizen B. If citizen B works hard they are rewarded with raises and bonuses. Citizen A can continue to grow his wealth and hire more citizen Bs...Simple.

But every raise A gives B means less $ for A-and even worse, A's shareholders.

If citizen A is forced to give to citizen B then soon A will have nothing and neither will B...everybody loses...

No, A has less, but really wont miss it, and B gets more opportunities to become A thanks to Pell grants, access to healthcare, etc.

Btw, Kreutz...yes we had a little prosperity under the Clinton administration and it started after he lost the congressional majority. He was a smart man...he moved to the center which boosted his success...obama refuses to do this...

But...Clinton raised taxes. Under the narrative currently espoused by the GOP taxes=economic ruin. And it wasn't a "little prosperity", it was alot of it.

Trickle down economics never work. Thats why the deficit EXPLODED under Reagan. Haven't had a balanced budget since Carter, DEMOCRAT.

Give A more $...and A has more $ to spend of A's favorite cause...himself.

Kreutz wrote:Give A more $...and A has more $ to spend of A's favorite cause...himself.

What's wrong with that? "A" EARNED IT!!

My question:

"A has less, but really wont miss it"

How do you know that? You're making the assumption under what YOU earn. Not what A EARNS!

If Citizen A owns a business, he pays taxes on the business. Any profit? He pays taxes on it. He draws a salary? Taxed. Makes money on sale of stock options? Taxed.

Takes what's left over, and buys a decent house for himself, and family, including a couple vehicles that will last awhile. TAXED! Personal Property.

Has to buy his own healthcare because HE is the employer, puts himself, and his family on the work one. TAXED! That's an income benefit as the owner.

Decides to take whatever is left over, invests it, makes a profit, TAXED!

At this point? That same guy is taxed SOOOOO often, why bother?

Reverenddel wrote:My question:

"A has less, but really wont miss it"

How do you know that? You're making the assumption under what YOU earn. Not what A EARNS!

If Citizen A owns a business, he pays taxes on the business. Any profit? He pays taxes on it. He draws a salary? Taxed. Makes money on sale of stock options? Taxed.

Takes what's left over, and buys a decent house for himself, and family, including a couple vehicles that will last awhile. TAXED! Personal Property.

Has to buy his own healthcare because HE is the employer, puts himself, and his family on the work one. TAXED! That's an income benefit as the owner.

Decides to take whatever is left over, invests it, makes a profit, TAXED!

At this point? That same guy is taxed SOOOOO often, why bother?

I will defer to someone smarter (and vastly wealthier) than myself:

Warren Buffett's cry of 'tax the rich!' is being heard across the Atlantic. Warren Buffett Watch highlighted his comments to CNBC's Brian Shactman the other night, in which he said the gap between the 15% tax rate for public partnerships and the 35% rate for public corporations seemed "illogical." (That's become one of the more contentious issues in Washington following Blackstone's big IPO.)

In his appearance at Hillary Clinton's fund-raiser later that same night, he spoke more generally, in effect complaining that he, and very rich people like him, should be paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

rest at:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/19483842/Warren_ ... x_the_Rich

@Kreutz - hey bud...you definitely missed out when you caved to your wife and didnt move to europe...perhaps you guys would be happier living in north korea or better yet some place like somalia....yeah, somalia where they have no constitution and no government. You guys can craft something after your own images, worship it, and live happily ever after.

@EVERYBODY EXCEPT KREUTZ - I'm starting a collection to send Kreutz and his family to somalia...who's in? Better idea...lets write our congressmen and suggest they pass a law mandating all socialists get shipped over there at government expense. I'd gladly agree to a tax hike for that one...

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz - hey bud...you definitely missed out when you caved to your wife and didnt move to europe...perhaps you guys would be happier living in north korea or better yet some place like somalia....yeah, somalia where they have no constitution and no government. You guys can craft something after your own images, worship it, and live happily ever after.

@EVERYBODY EXCEPT KREUTZ - I'm starting a collection to send Kreutz and his family to somalia...who's in? Better idea...lets write our congressmen and suggest they pass a law mandating all socialists get shipped over there at government expense. I'd gladly agree to a tax hike for that one...

What is this nonsense? Somalia is where you say you want to live-you are an anti-government fellow arent you? A ruined hellscape (no taxes though!) where the little money to be had is all hoarded by a select few while everyone else dies in the streets/goat paths.

But hey, at least everyone has their freedom to starve and/or be raped and/or mutilated as they damn well please!

Plus theres no damned OSHA or atheist liberals (like they need the gubbermint breathing down their necks!) to spoil the party and ban traditional, God-fearing, pro-family activities like child soldiers and female genital mutilation.

I wanted to live in Germany, France, or Denmark. You know, places that have taxes and order and stuff?

You can have your Objectivist nightmare, I'll pay the damn taxes and enjoy electricity and those newfangled "streets".

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together

How is that mathematically possible?

It is mathematically possible if the top 1% of earners pay more than 50% of the total personal income tax burden. My info has the top 1% paying 38% of the total income tax burden, but it's a little dated:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

BTW, the bottom 50% of earners only pay 2.7% of to total income tax burden.

FatAndy wrote:

Kreutz wrote:

zephyp wrote:Btw, IRS data reveals that the top 1% of taxpayers currently pay more than then lower 99% all added together

How is that mathematically possible?

It is mathematically possible if the top 1% of earners pay more than 50% of the total personal income tax burden. My info has the top 1% paying 38% of the total income tax burden, but it's a little dated:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

BTW, the bottom 50% of earners only pay 2.7% of to total income tax burden.

Who pays more social security and medicare? Is the cap still 108k on that? I haven't been self-employed in awhile so I stopped caring to keep track.

Incidentally quite the big difference between 38% and 99%.

Kreutz wrote: Who pays more social security and medicare? Is the cap still 108k on that? I haven't been self-employed in awhile so I stopped caring to keep track.

Well, I could take the government line and say that SS and Medicare/aid are mandatory participation programs and not actually taxes, but since our overlords dip into those funds all of the time to fund non-SS/Medicare/aid "things", they should be considered.

Kreutz wrote: Incidentally quite the big difference between 38% and 99%.

zephyp didn't say that the top 1% paid 99% of personal income taxes, just that they paid at least 50% of them. My data source says 38%, in 2008.

@Kreutz - you can pay more if you want just keep your socialist hands out of my pockets...

zephyp wrote:@Kreutz - you can pay more if you want just keep your socialist hands out of my pockets...

I dont want to pay more-I'm good where I am at-Warren Buffet wants himself and his friends to pay more. Can't say I disagree with them. Is Warren Buffet a socialist too?

Warren Buffet is a jackass

OakRidgeStars wrote:Warren Buffet is a jackass

Taggure wrote:

OakRidgeStars wrote:Warren Buffet is a jackass

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
T'AIN'T FUNNY. IT'S TRUE.

Again...

Warren Buffett can ONLY speak for himself, and other liberal-minded folks LIKE himself! AKA Bill Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs...

I don't hear the OTHERS chiming in...

If those fellows DO want to pay more?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... t/gift.htm

Right there brotha! Send the check! Otherwise? They need to start shutting up, and stop acting like they speak for EVERYONE, when clearly they do NOT!