BF2S Forums another democrat hates paying taxes, but loves you paying them

Dilbert_X wrote:

OK so:

Democrats making people pay the right amount of tax to meet govt spending commitments is bad.

Republicans giving selective tax cuts to the rich and mortgaging your children's future to the Chinese to help the already wealthy is good.

Washington Times wrote:

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Washington Times wrote:

After dipping in the early part of the Bush administration, by 2007 the top quintile of earners - the 20 percent who made the most - paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the federal government collected, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. That includes a staggering 86 percent of the income tax being paid by just the top quintile of earners.

By contrast, the bottom 40 percent on average not only pay no income tax, but they siphon money back from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a 35-year-old program designed to offset some of what low-income workers pay in Social Security taxes.

Between 2000 and 2007, the top quintile’s average pretax income went from $236,500 to $264,700, or a jump of 11.9 percent - nearly twice the rate of increase of any other quintile. But the top quintile was also the only group to see their federal tax burden rise, and by 2007, it was paying the vast majority of all such taxes.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

OK so:

Democrats making people pay the right amount of tax to meet govt spending commitments is bad.

Republicans giving selective tax cuts to the rich and mortgaging your children's future to the Chinese to help the already wealthy is good.

Facts don't support your argument:

Washington Times wrote:

But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.”

Washington Times wrote:

After dipping in the early part of the Bush administration, by 2007 the top quintile of earners - the 20 percent who made the most - paid nearly 70 percent of all the taxes that the federal government collected, according to Congressional Budget Office figures. That includes a staggering 86 percent of the income tax being paid by just the top quintile of earners.

By contrast, the bottom 40 percent on average not only pay no income tax, but they siphon money back from the federal government in the form of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a 35-year-old program designed to offset some of what low-income workers pay in Social Security taxes.

Between 2000 and 2007, the top quintile’s average pretax income went from $236,500 to $264,700, or a jump of 11.9 percent - nearly twice the rate of increase of any other quintile. But the top quintile was also the only group to see their federal tax burden rise, and by 2007, it was paying the vast majority of all such taxes.

Nic wrote:

A thought provoking, provocative and controversial topic. This Democrat is definitely the poster-child for every democrat and represents the very best in all of them. Not a one off at all. I see the big brush is out again and being used to paint your world the exact way you want to see it.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-23 07:04:40)

Nic wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nic wrote:

A thought provoking, provocative and controversial topic. This Democrat is definitely the poster-child for every democrat and represents the very best in all of them. Not a one off at all. I see the big brush is out again and being used to paint your world the exact way you want to see it.

and I see, yet again, you do contribute, only insult..

you have no idea how much it pains me that you think my threads are not worthy of your attention.

How is that an insult?

As far as I am concerned, it sums up the OP very well. What does her being a Democrat have to do with the fact that she was evading taxes. Being a leader in the government does, as far as a countries leaders not following the rules laid out by them, be they republican or democrat, which ever way they feel about it (this is the real issue btw). Its like implying that it is not as bad for me to murder or rape someone if I argue that I would vote differently on them being laws.

Adding the democrat factor is no more relevant than saying "Another blonde hates paying taxes, but loves you paying them", or "Another woman hates paying taxes, but loves you paying them."

Adding democrat is simply a way for you to either keep your world view blinders on, or an attempt to make a topic more "provocative" by applying a unrelated twist to it that will intentionally elicit a response that has nothing to do with the real topic.

The difference between the two is one is just another opinion that is used to support exactly what you want it to support, and the other is trolling.


So, as far as I see it, you saying I am just throwing out an insult because I'm calling the OP what it is, is the equivalent of a hooker who is being called a hooker saying that is an insult. Don't like it, probably shouldn't be a hooker.

Edit: As far as the "you know how much it pains me..." comment. As you so often say, I'm not here to be your friend, its not a popularity contest for me.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-23 09:23:08)

lowing wrote:

Nic wrote:

lowing wrote:

and I see, yet again, you do contribute, only insult..

you have no idea how much it pains me that you think my threads are not worthy of your attention.

How is that an insult?

As far as I am concerned, it sums up the OP very well. What does her being a Democrat have to do with the fact that she was evading taxes. Being a leader in the government does, as far as a countries leaders not following the rules laid out by them, be they republican or democrat, which ever way they feel about it (this is the real issue btw). Its like implying that it is not as bad for me to murder or rape someone if I argue that I would vote differently on them being laws.

Adding the democrat factor is no more relevant than saying "Another blonde hates paying taxes, but loves you paying them", or "Another woman hates paying taxes, but loves you paying them."

Adding democrat is simply a way for you to either keep your world view blinders on, or an attempt to make a topic more "provocative" by applying a unrelated twist to it that will intentionally elicit a response that has nothing to do with the real topic.

The difference between the two is one is just another opinion that is used to support exactly what you want it to support, and the other is trolling.


So, as far as I see it, you saying I am just throwing out an insult because I'm calling the OP what it is, is the equivalent of a hooker who is being called a hooker saying that is an insult. Don't like it, probably shouldn't be a hooker.

Edit: As far as the "you know how much it pains me..." comment. As you so often say, I'm not here to be your friend, its not a popularity contest for me.

ALready explained the relevance to the democrat label..Thew fact that democrats think we are not paying near enough taxes and insist they are raised to fund "making life fair for everyone, yet go out of their way to NOT pay themselves, makes liberal hypocrisy an issue.

McCaskills website wrote:

McCaskill supports a compromise that would extend tax cuts for those making up to a million dollars per year, but allow tax cuts for millionaires to expire. Allowing the tax cuts for millionaires to expire will reduce the country's deficit by $400 billion.
McCaskill believes that the United States has historically flourished as a result of its vibrant middle class, but these families have had faced harder times during this recession. She feels that Congress must focus on lifting up the middle class and small businesses in order to turn our economy around and create new jobs

Last edited by Nic (2011-03-23 09:35:07)

Nic wrote:

err, lol.

Last edited by lowing (2011-03-23 10:08:53)

Nic wrote:

The fact that she then evaded those taxes makes her a hypocrite, but still has nothing to do with her being a democrat...

Last edited by Nic (2011-03-23 10:13:58)

Nic wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Just because Republicans are responsible for raising taxes while cheating on them as well doesn't mean that we can't deride a Democrat for doing the same thing.

Of course we can, Remember, its about being a Democrat, not a hypocrite or evading taxes. Here I was under the impression that the tax evading was the negative part of the description, while all along it was the Democrat part that was the negative.

Ty wrote:

This isn't even a question of Democrats and Republicans, to be perfectly honest from where I sit they're essentially the same anyway. It's a question of class, namely that among a large number of those in the upper class, (which in this case I'm referring to those well off enough to afford their own private plane,) they feel that they're removed from the system, almost to the extent of holding an ideology of libertarianism. This is due to the fact that anything one of these super-rich people want or need they can get without concern. They have no use for public services and feel that they shouldn't have to pay for them - if not out loud than certainly in their actions. Tax cheats among the rich are pretty common. Less so among the middle and lower classes with most tax evasion cases in those socio-economic groups coming from an inability to pay not an unwillingness.

It's not even a matter of beliving that taxes are too high or too low and though in this case there is certainly a massive aspect of hypocrisy I don't think it make it any worse than some wealty toss-pot thinking he's being taxed too much while working out legal and political loopholes to avoid paying his fair share to the country that has allowed him to gain/have such wealth.

Democrat or Republican they're all selfish greedy pricks who don't deserve the opportunities they've been given. You may want to focus on the Democrat angle Lowing but meh, they're all the same in my book.