Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 18894109)

One person has 100 dollars and gives you 50 dollars
Another person has 1 million dollars and gives you 50 dollars

Which person is in more financial crisis by the giving of 50 dollars? (who gave "more"?)

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18894171)

I disagree.

I have $10 million. You have $1 million.

I pay 10%. You pay 20%.

I pay $1 million. You pay $200,000.

I have never learned of any math in existence where $200,000 is "more" than $1 million. The pool of money that paid money came from has no bearing on whether or not $1 million is more than $200,000.

$1 million is more than $200,000, fact.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18894189)

fact is: that multi millionaires use their tax cuts to create jobs is a myth.

not that they dont create jobs at all, they just dont create more cause they just saved 1 or 2 million USD in taxes. Cause a reasonable company owner only creates jobs that he needs, not just for fun cause he has an extra million to spend

Originally Posted by Sunny Day (Post 18894221)

Walmart the company that pays it's employees so little they have to collect food stamps, products made in China instead of the USA and gets tax breaks and cash to build new stores to destroy local businesses is owned by several of the richest people in the world.
All because of tax breaks for the rich.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. "Anatole France"

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 18894109)

One person has 100 dollars and gives you 50 dollars
Another person has 1 million dollars and gives you 50 dollars

Which person is in more financial crisis by the giving of 50 dollars? (who gave "more"?)

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18894253)

Which could only be said by a guy who has never hired anyone. I'd love to hire another person or two right now. We need a marketer and another tech. Just last night I wrote a check that would cover six months salary for either, but guess who I wrote the check too?

In the real world, in the world of actual business, real businesses DO lay people off if they're going to be a million short of making payroll and the DO hire people when they have the cash to do so. The funny thing is you're posting this in a forum where half of us actually employ people, where we've RECENTLY had to lay people off partly to pay that extra million or two in taxes you're talking about. It's kind of like you went to the NFL owner's meeting and tried to tell them football is all about intimidation. Your readers, who actually hire people, know what they're doing so it highlights the ridiculousness of how clueless you are. Go say that stuff in a stoner forum and half the people might believe you. In a business forum we're all just laughing at you.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894279)

That only makes sense to the unsuccessful.

Do the successful pay more for a loaf of bread than you do?

I bet in your deluded world they should.

Originally Posted by Houdini (Post 18894261)

So you're for raising corporate taxes too? You know that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world? I think you're confused. In fact, I know you are.

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18894319)

The lazy don't pay for bread, you buy their bread. It's called EBT. Yes, in his world not only does that make sense, but you're evil for working to buy the lazy guy's bread.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894367)

So 60% of the tax cuts benefitted 99% of taxpayers and a whopping 40% went to benefit 1%?

Was my comprehension of that one guys statement wrong?

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18893882)

I'll await any of your links where planned parenthood funds have been cut in an effort to reduce the deficit.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18894316)

laugh at your clients as much as you want... :winkwink:

Originally Posted by raymor (Post 18894383)

I promise not to laugh at mine any more than you laugh at yours. :)



Have you ever hired people you can't pay? And kept them? Have you ever WANTED to hire someone, but the budget didn't allow for it? I sure have. We need more people to handle clients better, which you probably know if you are one. If you had an extra couple million in the budget each year, you would have hired more, right?

There's this thing called the velocity of money. Let's say you get Clonebox on a thousand servers, so we get $20,000 per month. If you tax that $20,000 at 40%, the government gets $8,000. On the other hand, if you tax it at 25%, the government gets $5,00 and we hire a guy who pays $1000 in taxes, so the government gets $6,000 and someone gets a job. He spends his paycheck someone, which pays someone else's paycheck, that's taxed and the government ends up with the same amount of money.

The difference is that eith a lower ra yt e sunstone gets a job PLUS you get better service, you tell people how great Clonebox is, and more money moves around being taxrd a little bit at each step. It's all about keeping money moving. With people buying, selling and hiring people are happy and the government gets to keep taxing that money every time it changes hands. If the government takes half the money to start with, it's not in the economy, being used to buy, sell, hire, and TAX.

In the 1990s money was moving around quickly, people were buying, selling, investing, hiring, building, etc. There wasn't a bunch of brand new money printed - the money was out in the economy moving from person to person. Removing money from.the flow is what kills an economy, as does scaring people into holding on to their money by passing tax laws a few months at a time and such rather than passing an annual budget.

Originally Posted by seeandsee (Post 18893565)

I was thinking Obama will change america, i see now president is nothing, a clown, he cant do shit

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894367)

So 60% of the tax cuts benefitted 99% of taxpayers and a whopping 40% went to benefit 1%?

Was my comprehension of that one guys statement wrong?

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 18894556)

Whats wrong with the Buffet rule? Allow me..

The rich already pay more in taxes than everyone else combined!

Thats the argument. That "more" word as it applies to volume of dollars. Thats the argument about what's wrong with it.. essentially symantics.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894489)

After previous wars we had highest tax rates of 80-90% (I believe it was suggested by Mellon, same as suggested now by Buffet, but lower).

We are out of one war and still in another with historically low tax rates.

History is just repeating itself. Taxes must be raised.

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18894472)

oh, i am in the position right now that i would need to hire someone and i am not sure if i can afford it in the long run or not

Originally Posted by MaDalton (Post 18894316)

laugh at your clients as much as you want... :winkwink:

but over the last 10 years i have hired and layed off about 20-25 people - in my own companies (!) and as employee being responsible for my own department.

and i never hired someone just cause i could afford it but didnt need him.

what you obviously missed in my post is that i didnt speak about small businesses, i said "multi millionaires" :2 cents:

if someone makes 20 million profit, he will not create a single job more or less if he pays 25% or 30% tax. period. and he surely can afford to pay 30%.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894591)

No, your silly semantics equating your $2000.00 token payment to successful peoples' $1,000,000+ payment is what's wrong.
Your entire way of life is ALREADY paid for by the successful but sehow that's not good enough for you. You want us to pay for more.
It's gutless and pathetic. How about expecting as much from yourself as you do from your betters?

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894591)

No, your silly semantics equating your $2000.00 token payment to successful peoples' $1,000,000+ payment is what's wrong.
Your entire way of life is ALREADY paid for by the successful but sehow that's not good enough for you. You want us to pay for more.
It's gutless and pathetic. How about expecting as much from yourself as you do from your betters?

Originally Posted by directfiesta (Post 18894663)

us ... like including you .... :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you live in fantasy land .... :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 18894640)

Raw $ is a useless way to discuss tax rates, but I know you know that and are just having fun.

Originally Posted by PR_Tom (Post 18894640)

Raw $ is a useless way to discuss tax rates, but I know you know that and are just having fun.

Originally Posted by Traffic Guru (Post 18894750)

Someone forgot to take his meds and now seeking attention on da internets.
Why do people still fall for this schizophrenic ego maniac? He didn't start topic for sake of argument. Can't you see, washed out wannabe wants some attention and compliments but none given. So he goes on praising himself in third person. "We did" - no you didn't washed out rag. How is your mega affiliate program doing these days? Still getting 12 clicks like it was 5 years ago?

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894767)

Look who's home from the lunch shift!
Any fry-0-lator burns today, sparky? :1orglaugh

Originally Posted by Traffic Guru (Post 18894750)

Someone forgot to take his meds and now seeking attention on da internets.
Why do people still fall for this schizophrenic ego maniac? He didn't start topic for sake of argument. Can't you see, washed out wannabe wants some attention and compliments but none given. So he goes on praising himself in third person. "We did" - no you didn't washed out rag. How is your mega affiliate program doing these days? Still getting 12 clicks like it was 5 years ago?

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894594)

Yes, they must be raised on the leeches who currently pay ZERO income tax.

Originally Posted by KillerK (Post 18894843)

Way to go douchebag.

Every so often I agree with 12Clicks. This thread I agree.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894899)

Everybody needs them raised. Spending needs to be cut, too. It sucks, but it what needs to be done. It's useless though if they don't cut spending as well.

What will probably end up happening is taxes will be raised and spending will, too.

Originally Posted by 12clicks (Post 18894579)

Yes, your comprehension was wrong. Read it again

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894899)

Everybody needs them raised. Spending needs to be cut, too. It sucks, but it what needs to be done. It's useless though if they don't cut spending as well.

What will probably end up happening is taxes will be raised and spending will, too.

Originally Posted by epitome (Post 18894914)

Explain it to me then. I want to understand.

Originally Posted by Sly (Post 18894921)

My concern is they waste so much already, why should I be giving them more money to waste?

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18894923)

The fact is that the tax cuts were for everybody.

And you bunch of dumbfucks are too busy arguing about Fox News to even address the fact that Obama's team of political strategists always try to paint the picture that Bush tax cuts were just for the wealthy.

NewsFlash: Most of the people in the U.S. don't pay any Federal Income tax. So of course they didn't get a "tax cut". lol

Originally Posted by Bryan G (Post 18894938)

How do they get away with not paying federal tax? I dunno I'm from Canada, here if you make more than 6k a year you're paying income tax.

Originally Posted by Bryan G (Post 18894938)

How do they get away with not paying federal tax? I dunno I'm from Canada, here if you make more than 6k a year you're paying income tax.

Originally Posted by Robbie (Post 18894945)

Wow. That's not how it works here in the U.S.

How much does a Canadian making only 6 thousand dollars a year pay in federal income tax? Here in the U.S. that would be way under poverty level.

Don't get me wrong...everybody has to file (legally). But at the end of the year....most don't pay taxes. They get refunded from the money taken out of their paycheck all year.