Republican Primaries

[jomoco]

How has your Failed Redistributionist done so far with his Marxist policies? We are taking in ASTRONOMICAL revenue to fund government NOW. It’s not OUR fault that policies such as sub prime mortgages, TARP, “stimulus” bills, bailouts and Obamacare have robbed billions from our children and grandchildren. All these have been nothing more than disguised slush funds to buy votes, straight from the playbooks of Marx and Alinsky. The private sector is being robbed blind NOW, and guys like you aren’t satisfied. You WILL be satisfied when our system collapses and the Constitution is scrapped. Rob

So your ridiculous assertion is that Ike’s administration in 1960, that taxed anyone making over 400K at 91 percent, was a marxist, failed redistributionist pinko?

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Your woeful lack of American history knowledge paints you brightly neocon friendly my friend.

So who are the principled conservatives, Ike and Elvis paying whatever it took to meet that generation’s fiscal bar bill?

Or today’s neocon’s squealing about bills that are a fraction of their father’s, during a multi-fronted series of active wars, started by a couple of neocons, under shady circumstances?

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

So your ridiculous assertion is that Ike’s administration in 1960, that taxed anyone making over 400K at 91 percent, was a marxist, failed redistributionist pinko?

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Your woeful lack of American history knowledge paints you brightly neocon friendly my friend.

So who are the principled conservatives, Ike and Elvis paying whatever it took to meet that generation’s fiscal bar bill?

Or today’s neocon’s squealing about bills that are a fraction of their father’s, during a multi-fronted series of active wars, started by a couple of neocons, under shady circumstances?

jomoco

You’re only looking at half the equation of 1960 taxes. There were a huge number of deductions available under those tax rates that are not available now. There awere also no at risk rules in those days, no passive income rules, no rules concerning all the material participation in businesses that had losses, no alternative minimum tax, etc. etc. etc… The truth is when we went to just two tax brackets in 1981 and eliminated the majority of the itemized deductions allowed most of my higher income clients paid more taxes than they did when the top rate was 90%.

 

[Tabooo]

How has your Failed Redistributionist done so far with his Marxist policies? We are taking in ASTRONOMICAL revenue to fund government NOW. It’s not OUR fault that policies such as sub prime mortgages, TARP, “stimulus” bills, bailouts and Obamacare have robbed billions from our children and grandchildren. All these have been nothing more than disguised slush funds to buy votes, straight from the playbooks of Marx and Alinsky. The private sector is being robbed blind NOW, and guys like you aren’t satisfied. You WILL be satisfied when our system collapses and the Constitution is scrapped. Rob

Your last Failed War Hawk produced 2 wars and also had a stimulus bill, albeit with a much smaller price tag.

 

[jomoco]

You’re only looking at half the equation of 1960 taxes. There were a huge number of deductions available under those tax rates that are not available now. There awere also no at risk rules in those days, no passive income rules, no rules concerning all the material participation in businesses that had losses, no alternative minimum tax, etc. etc. etc… The truth is when we went to just two tax brackets in 1981 and eliminated the majority of the itemized deductions allowed most of my higher income clients paid more taxes than they did when the top rate was 90%.

And you’re failing to acknowledge the roots of modern day neocon policies that are currently sucking the life out of our treasury, both monetarily and ethically speaking in various countries throughout the world. This is the very new world order that pappy bush dreamed of when he came out of the neocon closet back in 91.

youtube.com/watch?v=48V41HqIyRw&feature=related

That clinton and obama are firmly on board the neocon boat to neverending wars is obvious from their concessions to neocon policy being signed into law. Nafta, allowing China membership in the WTO, the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act.

Our politicians in both parties too pointedly ignore the hard fact that all these highly touted “free trade” agreements have been pure poison for a vast majority of America’s working middleclass.

When our lowest paid, and most humble of America’s working class, is pitted against overseas communist labor for pennies on the dollar, who benefits from this erosion of American sovereign rights, other than communists in general, and a handful of greedy American businessmen chasing cheap labor halfway around the world? These once proud American companies have in effect spurned the very country and people that allowed their success in the first place.

jomoco

 

[RACJ]

So your ridiculous assertion is that Ike’s administration in 1960, that taxed anyone making over 400K at 91 percent, was a marxist, failed redistributionist pinko?

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Your woeful lack of American history knowledge paints you brightly neocon friendly my friend.

So who are the principled conservatives, Ike and Elvis paying whatever it took to meet that generation’s fiscal bar bill?

Or today’s neocon’s squealing about bills that are a fraction of their father’s, during a multi-fronted series of active wars, started by a couple of neocons, under shady circumstances?

jomoco

 Jomoco, you are like a guy being attacked by a swarm of hornets who still is focused on that itchy mosquito bite. As Estesbob mentions, without the massive tax deductions and credits, our economy would have collapsed faster than a Soviet Republic. 
 What gives YOU the right to feel entitled to the wealth created by other people's time and toil? The Federal Government is the greatest scam and monopoly in the world today, with its employees paid nearly TWICE what those in the private, WEALTH-creating sector earn. Only a fool, and I'm not calling  you one, believes that our Fiend-in-Chief's $1 1/2T+ deficit per year can be sustained. If BHO is not GONE in 2013, our nation is DEAD. His duped voters can proudly wear his Hope and Change pins as they wait in their bread lines. 
 About the wars, I do NOT support our lukewarm missions of today, and I fully oppose the Marxist's pointless venture into Lybia. :shrug: Rob

 P.S. Getting back to the primaries, Sarah Palin is still my candidate, and I'm going to see the Steve Bannon documentary about her ASAP. Sarah PALIN'12!!

 

[estesbob]

And you’re failing to acknowledge the roots of modern day neocon policies that are currently sucking the life out of our treasury, both monetarily and ethically speaking in various countries throughout the world. This is the very new world order that pappy bush dreamed of when he came out of the neocon closet back in 91.

. I see we have now went from your misunderstanding of how the tax code works to the standard rhetoric about evil corporations, neocons( codeword for Jews) and a world conspiracy to take jobs away from Americans. Debating with you is impossible because you never respond to people when they point out the inconsistencies and errors of what you post, instead you launch into another set of left wing talking points

 

[jomoco]

Jomoco, you are like a guy being attacked by a swarm of hornets who still is focused on that itchy mosquito bite. As Estesbob mentions, without the massive tax deductions and credits, our economy would have collapsed faster than a Soviet Republic.
What gives YOU the right to feel entitled to the wealth created by other people’s time and toil? The Federal Government is the greatest scam and monopoly in the world today, with its employees paid nearly TWICE what those in the private, WEALTH-creating sector earn. Only a fool, and I’m not calling you one, believes that our Fiend-in-Chief’s $1 1/2T+ deficit per year can be sustained. If BHO is not GONE in 2013, our nation is DEAD. His duped voters can proudly wear his Hope and Change pins as they wait in their bread lines.
About the wars, I do NOT support our lukewarm missions of today, and I fully oppose the Marxist’s pointless venture into Lybia. Rob

Why did Elvis and Ike pay their taxes without hissy fits and epileptic tantrums?

Were they pinkos in your book my friend?

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

Why did Elvis and Ike pay their taxes without hissy fits and epileptic tantrums?

Were they pinkos in your book my friend?

jomoco

As has already been explained to you their effective tax rate was in all likelihood lower than the effective tax rate on the same amount of income today. . Of course, since you ignored that explanation and instead went off into ranting against neocons sucking the economy dry It is no wonder that you’re making the same erroneous assumption on taxation you did before.

 

[RACJ]

Why did Elvis and Ike pay their taxes without hissy fits and epileptic tantrums?

Were they pinkos in your book my friend?

jomoco

 Government employees did not make stratospheric sums of money in those days. If you haven't noticed, we are being shaken down by the political class today. Why is there even an energy department? They don't produce a drop of energy, and they prevent the engines of our economy, the producers, from developing new sources. Governments make almost half a dollar on each gallon, and the producers make less than a dime.
 When my cousin makes $68,000/year in pension after never doing more than following orders and pushing papers, yeah, I think I'm being robbed! :rolleyes: Rob
 P.S. Again, DO you think that our deficits are sustainable? Aren't you concerned about your posterity?

 

[Raskolnikov]

RACJ, I have to ask you question, prompted by your, let’s say, frivolous (I think a generous word) use of the word ‘Marxist.’ Have you ever read a single word ever written by Marx? By any Marxist? Do you know what a Marxist is?

PS: What did your cousin do, that he gets a $68,000 a year pension? Forgive my incredulity. Anyway, who do you think makes the most money in the provate sector? Paper pushers.

 

[jomoco]

As has already been explained to you their effective tax rate was in all likelihood lower than the effective tax rate on the same amount of income today. . Of course, since you ignored that explanation and instead went off into ranting against neocons sucking the economy dry It is no wonder that you’re making the same erroneous assumption on taxation you did before.

You can’t change American history one iota, no matter how many times you deny it without corroborating proof that backs your assertions.

Limbaugh talking points only make sense to died in the wool neocon believers, too lazy to check their facts against recorded and documented American history.

You’ve got documentation backing your version of history regarding upper bracket tax rates, and who paid how much?

Then by all means my good fellow, lay out your documentation that all might see it.

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

You can’t change American history one iota, no matter how many times you deny it without corroborating proof that backs your assertions.

Limbaugh talking points only make sense to died in the wool neocon believers, too lazy to check their facts against recorded and documented American history.

You’ve got documentation backing your version of history regarding upper bracket tax rates, and who paid how much?

Then by all means my good fellow, lay out your documentation that all might see it.

jomoco

The only “documentation” you have presented is the fact that tax rates were higher in the 60s than they are now. But again, you totally ignore the other factors the going to arrive in of one’s income tax As I told you before the effective tax rate for the upper income people is higher today than it was in the 60s. . This is because of a whole myriad of llegal ltax shelters and excessive deductions available before the rates were lowered. Just the institution of at risk rules alone caused a huge tax increase for investors in commercial real estate even though the upper tax rate was significantly lower than it was in the 60s… And of course your simplistic analysis ignores the alternative minimum tax, which was not in effect in the early 60s.

 

[jomoco]

And your expertise in taxation is? The only “documentation” you have presented is the fact that tax rates were higher in the 60s and they are now. But again, you totally ignore the other factors the going to arrive in of one’s income tax As I told you before the effective tax rate for the upper income people is higher today than it was in the 60s. . This is because of a whole myriad of llegal ltax shelters and excessive deductions available before the rates were lowered. Just the institution of at risk rules alone caused a huge tax increase for investors in commercial real estate even though the upper tax rate was significantly lower than it was in the 60s… And of course your simplistic analysis ignores the alternative minimum tax, which was not in effect in the early 60s.

So I gather that no, you can’t document your silly assertions other than mouthing a few meaningless limbaugh platitudes?

Even Elvis would draw the line at this new neocon brand of “conservatism” being practised by far too many folks in America today.

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

So I gather that no, you can’t document your silly assertions other than mouthing a few meaningless limbaugh platitudes?

Even Elvis would draw the line at this new neocon brand of “conservatism” being practised by far too many folks in America today.

jomoco

Again, you are trying to make profound conclusions based on merely knowing what the top tax rate was in the 1960s. You totally ignore the other factors that go into determining one’s tax. . I have explained to you in detail the deductions available in the 60s that arenot available now, and the changes in the tax laws concerning at risk rules, passive income rules ,alternative minimum tax, etc . . I suspect since you do not understand the effect of these it is easier to mock those who do. I have done in excess of 20,000 tax returns in the last 30 years. . You have no grasp whatsoever about the American taxation system works now, nor in the past

 

[bbarrick8383]

too lazy to check their facts against recorded and documented American history.

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

jomoco

Your telling me that you believe, if Elvis brought home 1 million, he casually and without hesitation paid 900,000 to the government?

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/02/michael-moore/michael-moores-film-capitalism-claims-richest-paid/

I don’t like the web site, but you may find it interesting.

I’d bite your tongue and chill out with the calling people lazy and all that though if I were you.

 

[jomoco]

Again, you are trying to make profound conclusions based on merely knowing what the top tax rate was in the 1960s. You totally ignore the other factors that go into determining one’s tax. . I have explained to you in detail the deductions available in the 60s that arenot available now, and the changes in the tax laws concerning at risk rules, passive income rules ,alternative minimum tax, etc . . I suspect since you do not understand the effect of these it is easier to mock those who do. I have done in excess of 20,000 tax returns in the last 30 years. . You have no grasp whatsoever about the American taxation system works now, nor in the past

Then why can’t you document your silly assertions, other than beating your own chest?

Here’s mine again:

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Now if you can prove my documentation of facts somehow false?

Then by all means my friend, feel perfectly free, even cordially invited, to do so at your earliest opportunity.

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

Then why can’t you document your silly assertions, other than beating your own chest?

Here’s mine again:

stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf

Now if you can prove my documentation of facts somehow false?

Then by all means my friend, feel perfectly free, even cordially invited, to do so at your earliest opportunity.

jomoco

Where does this chart show effective tax rates?

 

[jomoco]

Where does this chart show effective tax rates?

It’s to the right side of your income bracket earnings for that year. Let’s see, ah yes, in 1960 any income over 400K was taxed at a rate of 91 percent.

Are you implying that Elvis didn’t pay up like many other well off Americans of that generation did as proud patriotic conservatives?

jomoco

 

[estesbob]

It’s to the right side of your income bracket earnings for that year. Let’s see, ah yes, in 1960 any income over 400K was taxed at a rate of 91 percent.

Are you implying that Elvis didn’t pay up like many other well off Americans of that generation did as proud patriotic conservatives?

jomoco

Actually taxable income over $400,000 was taxed at a rate of 91%. You are familiar with the difference between gross income and taxable income? Elvis’s gross income was $900,000 but we don’t know what Elvis’s taxable income was- however we do know that there were a lot more deductions available for him to bring his taxable income down in 1960 than there are today.Again, you appear to not have any understanding whatsoever of the difference between tax rates. and effective tax rates

 

[bbarrick8383]

Actually taxable income over $400,000 was taxed at a rate of 91%. You are familiar with the difference between gross income and taxable income? Elvis’s gross income was $900,000 but we don’t know what Elvis’s taxable income was- however we do know that there were a lot more deductions available for him to bring his taxable income down in 1960 than there are today.Again, you appear to not have any understanding whatsoever of the difference between tax rates. and effective tax rates

I read that a millionaire could have gotten a tax refund in those days.