In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Over how many years?
Assuming those stats are accurate and not skewed, they were 2010 stats. I'm curious to see the ones from 2012 and how it has changed since then.
10 years, same as the decade reference from the post I was responding to.
Non-partisan research and policy institute working on federal and state fiscal policies and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income Americans
You may run like Hayes, but you hit like $*!#
We will know in about 1 to 2 years. It takes time to conduct research that will actually provide any probative value.
Mitt Romney wanted to keep the progressivity in the tax code, so under that definition he is also a socialist. Obviously, long term spending has to be addressed. Have you ever heard anyone say otherwise?
This is a little OT but I didn't want to go digging for more of our political threads from weeks ago... I realize that 99% of the people on here (and probably everywhere) hate Bill Maher, but I actually thought this was a good bit:
Full Episode :http://realtimewithbillmaherspot.blogspot.com
Bill Maher: Second Amendment Is Not Under Attack, But All Your Other Rights Are
In his final New Rule of the night, Bill Maher smacked down the conventional wisdom on the right that the Second Amendment is under attack from President Obama, saying that "America's gun nuts" need to stop wetting their pants over it. But more importantly, Maher said that people are so very concerned about their right to own guns that they don't notice and/or care that they have been stripped of their other rights.
Maher highlighted how the Senate quietly reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act while everyone was so concerned about the fiscal cliff, and there wasn't even a peep out of the "freedom" crowd. In fact, Maher said, people seem to be okay with government surveillance and warrantless wiretapping at this point.
So you don't believe my prior post about effective tax rates being more in line when all current regressive taxes in place are accounted for? The higher percentage of employment taxes, sales taxes, and other regressive taxes placed on poor people and lower income earners tends to offset the progressive structure of the income tax code.
It sounds like fairness in your mind is an absolute value rather than a percentage. Do you think it would be fairer for the government to simply say everybody has to pay $2,000 as their 2013 tax bill, and not worry about anything else? Or should it be a percentage of one's income/wealth/means, whatever you want to call it? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but in your post it seems like you think percentages are unfair and absolute dollar figures are fair. Is that a correct statement of your belief?
No, I have not heard many Democrats say that spending shouldn't be addressed. I only hear them towing the company line on more taxes on the successful and not mention spending unless a specific question about it is asked. Then they have to say it is neccessary because everyone knows that it really is. But they publicly blast Republicans who want the tax increases to match spending cuts. Otherwise, the spending issue is ignored.
My socialist comment was based on policies on redistribution of wealth to take care of the lower class. How was Romney also doing that?
Also, Romney lost the election and is out of the picture, just like George Bush.
My dad would kick your dad's ass
RIP Lil Julio
A progressive tax code is redistribution of wealth. There are very few serious people out there that don't believe in a progressive income tax. The Republicans had a deal on the table two years ago from Obama that a trillion in revenue for 3 trillion in spending cuts. They walked away.
As part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, Obama offered a reduction in future social security benefits by lowering the CPI index. You want to know how the GOP took that? Boehner walked away from negotiating and immediately went on his Plan B fiasco, while Marco Rubio tweeted that the GOP does not support changes to social security benefits, but Obama does.
This isn't about spending for the republicans, that is why they haven't proposed any specific spending cuts they want. That is how negotiations work, you ask for what you want. Obama wanted increased taxes on the wealthy through an expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and he got part of what he wanted. GOP wants reduced entitlement spending, so they rejected Obama's offer on social security indexing and accussed him of trying to screw seniors??? If republicans want entitlement cuts so bad, why did Romney constantly accuse Obama of taking over $700 billion out of Medicare? Shouldn't he have been praising him for it, medicare is, after all, entitlement spending. The GOP's concern over spending is a red herring; it always has been.
I don't say that because in the long term spending isn't important, it is. But the short term employment problem is much more problematic to our economy, and that should be addressed first, imo.
I deleted the rest of the garbage to highlight this gem
The cite to support that "gem" is linked above. Please feel free to explain why you think it's not accurate.
Really looking forward to his answer.
Sorry it probably wasn't as exciting as you were hoping
Christopher Chantrill sure hates Obama, doesn't he?
It's exactly what I expected. It's not an answer.
In part yes. It is unfair to tax one considered rich at a higher rate simply because he is worth more in the market. At the end of the day he gets the same protection and benefits from the usa as the one considered poor but he paid for poor man's share and many more.
Like I said I don't know the best way to implement something like that but the idea is there
10 Major Poll National Titles (CFB record)
35 Bowl Wins (CFB record)
72 Wins over last 6 years (CFB record)
If Phil Mickelson makes $1 M and is taxed at 50% (which is high), he makes $500k.
If Phil Mickelson makes $0 and is taxes at 10-20%, he makes $0.
The only way I can think of this working out is that he makes so much money on capital gains, endorsements, etc that the $500k cash in pocket means nothing to him and isn't worth the effort. In which case, I don't exactly have tons of pity for him.
Even with a flat tax the richer man technically pays more. Personally, I've never said let's stop taxing the poor and make the rich foot the bill; I think everyone should pay less in taxes. However, I do think to a degree the poor should pay less than the rich, because as I've said before, $2,000 means more to the guy making $20,000 than $20,000 does to the guy making $200,000. If we could get everyone'a taxes down to 10% or less that would be awesome. But would someone making over six figures really be that pissed if they had to pay, say, 15% while someone making less than $30,000 only paid 12%? Is that really something to get up in arms about if it's helping someone, a hard working someone, get by?
So, we have no responsibility to help the disabled, the poor, the elderly?
Not necessarily true, because some people have more stuff than others.
What I mean is, if you have $1,000 and someone tries to steal it, but the cops stopped them, they provided a service worth $1,000 to you.
If you have $100,000 worth of stuff and the cops stopped them, they provided a service worth $100,000 to you.
As a result, you might want to have to pay more.
You also might have to pay at a higher rate, because income isn't the only variable. What I mean is that if each person has $20,000 of living expenses, but one makes $50,000 and the other makes $100,000, the former has only $30,000 of real income before taxes while the latter has $80,000. As a result, if you tax each of them at 50% of their income, you take $25,000 and $50,000 grand off. Person 1 has $5k left while person 2 has $30k left, so your taxes are much more of a burden for Person 1. Hence, most economists consider flat taxes regressive, meaning they punish the poor more than the rich.
Not saying I agree with it, just explaining the other position.
Apparently gun control is the most important issue right now so jobs and the economy are just going to have to wait. Afterall, every article on the subject has to remind us in the first couple of paragraphs about Newton, Connecticut because we are so dumb that we will forget about it without the media keeping it fresh on everyone's minds.
I don't really see anything on this website that disputes what I said and the link I provided above.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports