|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 30, 2014 15:12:29 GMT -5
Cut them for many, raised them for a few. Congrats if you were among those who saw an increase. Sent from my SPH-L710 using proboards Actually taxes went up or stayed the same for people paying taxes and tax credits went up for people that don't. So basically families with dependents making even 35k could potentially not pay any taxes and actually get a10k credit from fed and state. It's more income redistribution. so you are against income redistribution even if the rules are unfair to inflate the incomes of the haves? So apparently if income distribution rules favor you it is ok and if not then its a problem? just trying to understand your angle. The system isnt fair and redistributing income in the fashion that it is currently done is indeed wrong but those who the rules favor actually make the rules so it will never be fair.
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,849
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jan 30, 2014 15:46:05 GMT -5
Just to be clear, what's not fair? We have a progressive tax system where wealthier pay a greater % and more overall.
If you're talking about unearned (ie: investment) income, that's different. It may not seem fair on its face that someone so rich they don't have to work actually pays a lower percentage but my bet is they're paying in aggregate more than I pay even given the lower rate. If they then donate enough to eliminate their tax burden, well then good.
Are there loopholes? For sure and those favor the wealthy. Representatives on both sides pushed those. In general I'm not in favor of redistribution. I'm in favor of safety nets at the local and state level but not at the fed level.
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,334
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Jan 30, 2014 17:47:51 GMT -5
Actually taxes went up or stayed the same for people paying taxes and tax credits went up for people that don't. So basically families with dependents making even 35k could potentially not pay any taxes and actually get a10k credit from fed and state. It's more income redistribution. so you are against income redistribution even if the rules are unfair to inflate the incomes of the haves? So apparently if income distribution rules favor you it is ok and if not then its a problem? just trying to understand your angle. The system isnt fair and redistributing income in the fashion that it is currently done is indeed wrong but those who the rules favor actually make the rules so it will never be fair. Well they certainly don't favor me. I believe everyone should pay taxes even the family making 35k in my example. Not only don't they pay but they get 10k. That is not right. Let me ask u this, if a guy makes 10 million a year playing baseball. How much should he pay in income tax? Most libs and socialists refuse to answer this question.
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 30, 2014 18:57:35 GMT -5
so you are against income redistribution even if the rules are unfair to inflate the incomes of the haves? So apparently if income distribution rules favor you it is ok and if not then its a problem? just trying to understand your angle. The system isnt fair and redistributing income in the fashion that it is currently done is indeed wrong but those who the rules favor actually make the rules so it will never be fair. Well they certainly don't favor me. I believe everyone should pay taxes even the family making 35k in my example. Not only don't they pay but they get 10k. That is not right. Let me ask u this, if a guy makes 10 million a year playing baseball. How much should he pay in income tax? Most libs and socialists refuse to answer this question. Well first off its pretty effed up he's making 10 million
|
|
gorvy
Associate Head Coach
Posts: 10,022
Dislikes:
|
Post by gorvy on Jan 30, 2014 19:32:59 GMT -5
They make 10 million because we continue to go to the games and watch them on tv.
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jan 30, 2014 23:12:26 GMT -5
They make 10 million because we continue to go to the games and watch them on tv. I watch zero pro sports
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Jan 31, 2014 7:19:09 GMT -5
They make 10 million because we continue to go to the games and watch them on tv. I watch zero pro sports Millionaire college coaches everywhere thank you - You get the idea, though. Certainly not trying to justify pro-athlete salaries, but sports, TV & movie stars are a major source of entertainment in our society. Those priorities are not likely to change. The salaries are a obviously a result of supply & demand. High demand and a very few people who can do what they do. In a utopian world things would be different. How could we ever put a particular price on what everybody's salary is worth to a society short of going authoritarian/socialist? And who would we want making those decisions? We have to make the best of what we have in an imperfect world giving everybody the opportunity to use their skills/talents to improve their lot the best they can. I do think the market (call it capitalism, it's not inherently an evil word) is the best way man has devised to get there. It has it's imperfections, like everything and everybody, but we have to get there as a majority to work them out. We will never find unanimity. I say again to both left and right, we have to find compromise that works and we need leaders who can work for the greater good. I don't see too many in Washington (or Albany).
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Feb 2, 2014 8:17:40 GMT -5
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,334
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 3, 2014 5:13:45 GMT -5
Too bad the rest of the "objective" media isn't as objective as Fox. The funny thing is O'reilly was still pretty easy on the President. youtu.be/9uzJYlbhH54
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,334
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 3, 2014 5:30:53 GMT -5
Too bad the rest of the "objective" media isn't as objective as Fox. The funny thing is O'reilly was still pretty easy on the President. youtu.be/9uzJYlbhH54He even denies his own words when he said he wanted to "fundamentally" change the country. Our liberals friends share his ideology. The most "transparent" administration? What a joke!
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Feb 3, 2014 6:58:33 GMT -5
Too bad the rest of the "objective" media isn't as objective as Fox. The funny thing is O'reilly was still pretty easy on the President. youtu.be/9uzJYlbhH54You do understand that each and every time you claim ANY news source is objective you lose a little credibility. Especially a source like Fox which is about as objective as Huffington post
|
|
CellarRat
Assistant Coach
Enter your message here...
Posts: 4,334
Dislikes:
|
Post by CellarRat on Feb 3, 2014 7:36:58 GMT -5
Too bad the rest of the "objective" media isn't as objective as Fox. The funny thing is O'reilly was still pretty easy on the President. youtu.be/9uzJYlbhH54You do understand that each and every time you claim ANY news source is objective you lose a little credibility. Especially a source like Fox which is about as objective as Huffington post I disagree. I read the huffingting post, I watch Fox News and I watch other news stations including CNN. If you want to say the Fox is the opposing view to CNN, that would be fair. Msnbc, huffingting post, have very extreme views. CNN and FOX are simple left and right leaning, respectively.
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,849
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Feb 3, 2014 8:10:34 GMT -5
SF & MP - the left gets all testy about Fox. OK, so what's the problem? Is it the reporting on Benghazi? The IRS abuse of conservatives? The reports of spying on the Assoc Press and Fox? The reporting about PRISM/Verizon intrusions? The reports about admin officials using non-agency emails to avoid FOIA?
Sure, none of those things are complimentary to the administration but from what I can see they are all legit stories. What's not objective? I get you don't like the outcome but that doesn't in itself make Fox not objective.
On the flip side you have the "fake but accurate" Rathergate. You also have the complete joke MSNBC. Let me ask you - how often to mainstream news agencies press the admin on the "no attacks on American soil" lie whenever it is said? Ft Hood anyone? Undie-bomber? Times Square? Just because the guys doing the attacks failed due to incompetence doesn't mean the attack didn't happen. No, your "objective" news agencies are so concerned with losing access to the president that they'll report whatever he wants. There was a day that the mere implication of a quid pro quo would've sent the news agencies into a collective frenzy. Not anymore.
I'm open to evidence that Fox isn't objective - show me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 10:57:06 GMT -5
SF & MP - the left gets all testy about Fox. OK, so what's the problem? Is it the reporting on Benghazi? The IRS abuse of conservatives? The reports of spying on the Assoc Press and Fox? The reporting about PRISM/Verizon intrusions? The reports about admin officials using non-agency emails to avoid FOIA? Sure, none of those things are complimentary to the administration but from what I can see they are all legit stories. What's not objective? I get you don't like the outcome but that doesn't in itself make Fox not objective. On the flip side you have the "fake but accurate" Rathergate. You also have the complete joke MSNBC. Let me ask you - how often to mainstream news agencies press the admin on the "no attacks on American soil" lie whenever it is said? Ft Hood anyone? Undie-bomber? Times Square? Just because the guys doing the attacks failed due to incompetence doesn't mean the attack didn't happen. No, your "objective" news agencies are so concerned with losing access to the president that they'll report whatever he wants. There was a day that the mere implication of a quid pro quo would've sent the news agencies into a collective frenzy. Not anymore. I'm open to evidence that Fox isn't objective - show me. Odd that your objective Fox found nothing wrong with Bush's policies during his eight years of bedlam and spending. Imagine if Obama actually started a war we didn't need and which served no beneficial purpose. "Mission Accomplished" was heralded by the Fox team. Bush's nuking of the surplus into a deficit was not criticized by the "conservative - fiscally responsible" right. The economy got trashed while he implemented costly policies without a funding source - Medicare Part D! I recall Hannity announcing a personal vendetta against Hillary years before any hint of her running for President - he said on the air he would do anything to discredit her! The Fox stories you picked were all covered by the "other" media. Since I don't trust anything Fox puts out, I can't cite specific differences but my common sense says there were many. Their reporting on Obamacare was slanted from the day the idea started to emerge as viable. They were the creators of and maintained a constant stream of fear mongering and you "single source" FOX fans ate it up, didn't digest it and allowed it to continue to give you all heartburn. Did FOX ever report a positive outcome from the Affordable Health Care act?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 3, 2014 11:27:44 GMT -5
Glen, you tell me - did FOX ever report that Chris Stevens (Benghazi) had refused additional security?
|
|