“Casuistry - look that one up. Thats what you do - you do not debate. Like I said, If you do not like this site as you have said in a previous comment then go to the Right Wing sites and stop your 'center-left' charade.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 12:14:17
“You have yet to respond to any of the facts or links I have posted with any fact-based rebuttal. You have, however, applied ad hominem multiple times.
I believe that an impartial observer would see you as having no rational stance to debate from. When all you can resort to is attacking the method or the person, reason suggests that you have already lost the debate.
Did you ever read the CBO report I linked? How about the BLS statistics? Care to comment on the substance of the debate?”
“Like I said in my very first suggestion to you, go to these sites, readers there are 'critical' thinkers just like you, not to mention Math WIzards in their family tree. Here is the list again:
5) Instapundit: Glenn Reynolds has been the best known linker in the blogosphere for more than a decade.
4) The Blaze: Beck’s news machine is already a must read.
3) Memorandum: What people are talking about right now on both sides of the blogosphere. (Not conservative per se, but still good)
2) Hot Air: Frequently updated headlines, plus the latest news stories.
1) The Drudge Report: Whatever Drudge links becomes what everyone is talking about.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 12:15:14
“Nice ad hominem. Once again, you are assuming my response to be something it isn't and which my statements do not support.
You should try learning and using factual data to support your position.”
“Hard data where you leave out facts inconvenient to you? You don't fool anyone here at HP.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 12:22:14
“Exactly what facts am I leaving out? Bring some hard data from a reliable source, and let's debate it rationally. The only links and quote I've posted are official raw data sources, not a bunch of blogsites. What data have you brought, and what are your reliable, unbiased sources?”
“Both sides do not use the same skills. Liberals do not use trained talking Parrots that chant 'Rich pay too much, Rich pay too much'.”
PaulArt on Jun 2, 2013 at 11:13:22
“Hard data where you leave out facts inconvenient to you? You don't fool anyone here at HP.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 10:30:14
“No, their talking parrots say "tax the rich more, tax the rich more". You might have noticed (if you have actually read anything I've written), that I fall into neither camp.
The problem at this site is the complete lack of understanding of the hard data. Many of the ideas espoused here are quite valid and need to be discussed, but the ideological crap being used in attempts to support the good ideas render them worthless.
If you guys learned to use some actual facts in your arguments, you'd get some reasonable debate and agreement from people outside the narrow-minded HuffPo circle.”
“Ahhh, the Right WIng chant now changes tempo and tune to, 'CEOs good, CEOs good, CEOs too regulated, CEOs too regulated'.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 10:27:33
“Where did I suggest that those regulations aren't a good thing? Stop putting words in my mouth - I said nothing of the sort. You're trying to represent my positions as something they are not. I made a purely factual statement, with no portion of my post being a judgement or call as to good/bad.
You need to learn to read critically and understand what words mean.”
“Quibbling and splitting hairs. More proof of your Right Wing visitor status here at HP.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 10:23:43
“40% gains isn't splitting hairs. If you call using facts to debate complex issues "quibbling", then why do you participate? Are you only willing to debate people that already agree with you? Do you really think that your approach sheds any light on the issue?”
“You think your posts and replies are the elixir of widsom?
"A 2011 study by the CBO found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution."
This is from Wikipedia and I can also find plenty of other sources for this kind of information. You are driven mostly by your '47% mooching off the rest' idealogy. You are not driven by any real truth or facts.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 20:46:24
“Irrelevant - you're still looking at a period of less than 30 years, and ignoring the real income gains in the middle and lower income groups. The fact is that even in your quote, the middle 60% GAINED 40% IN REAL INCOME. Since when is a 40% gain not a good thing?”
“How about the last many years when Capital Gains and Carried Interest WERE taxed at 15%? That is ok with you? And all this hair splitting for short term Cap gains and long term. I mean, how disingenous can you be? How many idiot CEOs do you think there are who dump stocks in the first year of vesting?”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 20:43:14
“They're not allowed to - thanks to a number of federal regulations, CEOs of public companies have to maintain a significant amount of personal holdings in their company (generally 5x annual salary). They also have to put their own money in if they hold ISOs (options) longer than the 15 seconds it takes to exercise the option; if they are taking advantage of the long-term cap gains tax rates, they are putting their own money at risk.”
“Good cover - energy efficiency business. Does it involve selling snake oil by any chance? Like maybe leaving out stock options when discussing income, or leaving out carried interest and capital gains and constantly talking of 'effective tax rates'? Or better yet talking about the last 100 years instead f the last 50 when discussing income inequality? You have zero friends in HP and you have been here since sept 2012. Are you sure you know what you are doing here? You seem to be using quite a bit of fuel fossil or otherwise but changing very few minds here to your Right Wing drivel.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 2, 2013 at 10:21:17
So much for rational debate. Thanks for the lesson in ad hominems.”
“One needs to examine the provenance of ideaology and that can be discerned from the whole of the comments that people make. You remember that old adage by Upton Sinclair?
"its difficult to make a man believe something when his salary depends on his not believing it".”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 15:07:42
“Who pays your salary? From your comments here, it would appear that you are on the payroll of some far-left organization. FWIW, I'm in the energy efficiency business - I make my living helping the world use less fossil fuels.”
“You mean progressive as in the 15% or so tax on Capital Gains and Carried Interest? Again - reply to my points raised instead of constant deflection. 1950-70 saw the greatest and most equitable growth in all incomes and we had 90% as the top tax rate. We need to go back to that. Also, what is the upper middle class defined as? People making more than $1 million? You are hawking all the Cato Institute talking points here.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 15:06:09
“I did reply to your attempt at a point - it's a red herring, and I pointed out exactly why it is.
Also, your supposed 90% top tax rate is a red herring - actual collected tax rates were nearly identical to the collection rates today, because there were so many deductions. In fact, that supposed top rate NEVER EXISTED, because the actual collection system had a lower statutory limit; it was possible for a few percent of your total income to be subject to that 90%, but the majority could not be as you would run into the statutory limit and have your taxes lowered.
Put in a clearer light, if the tax collection rates were so high, why did they have to enact AMT in the late 60s? [Hint: It was because so many people in the higher income groups were paying absolutely NOTHING.]
To further the point, the lower income tax rates were significantly higher as well - do you really want to more than triple the effective tax rates on people earning between $25K and $60K/year?
Once again, you don't have a fact-based argument, you have red herring talking point based on a partial factoid that you haven't really investigated fully enough to realize why it's not a relevant argument. Look at the actual history of tax collection rates - you might learn something.”
“Yeah like the cherry picked data that you offer perhaps? The far left has a deathgrip on politics? Amazing. I suppose that is what you have learnt in all the years of enriching yourself in this Society?”
“Once again the 'reply' button on your latest reply to me was removed. Here is my reply to your latest comment:
Peddle me something other than that old 'dont double tax Capital Gains' canard. A Corporation is a person but if I make money from that Corporation then tax only one of us, not both of us. I know you cite CBO most of the time but your citations are cherry picked and do not impress me one bit. You are left leaning in what? Gay rights? Abortion? Please, spare me that DLC Kool-Aid. I have reviwed every comment of yours. When a person keeps chanting 'effective tax rate, effective tax rate' its a dead giveaway they do not believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation removes inequality and levels the playing field for everyone in Society. Think 1950-1970. Capitalism in America brought benefits to ALL except maybe less to African-Americans. Progressive Taxation most importantly ensures the effectiveness of Democracy and REMOVES the megaphone that the top 0.1% today have in terms of controlling legislation. You don't know this? Every human being in Society has a right to free education, healthcare and an opportunity to move upwards as per their ability. That is what Progressive Taxation ensures.
“We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”
U.S. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 13:15:01
“1) Not true- the corp gets taxed as corporate profts, then any capital gains or dividends get taxed again as individual income - dividends paid out are not deductible from corporate profits. This is basic accounting
2) I am absolutely in favor of a progressive taxation system; the fact is, however, that the US has one of the most progressive taxation systems of any advanced nation. This is because our entire tax structure is too low, and we have reduced the rates at the bottom to zero or negative. I've never said that our upper income taxes are too high - in fact, I would be in favor of repealing the entire Bush tax cut package, ALL of it. The problem with the Democrats' proposals is that they are only willing to tax the upper middle class - and that is NOT the path to economic growth, nor is the Republicans' plan to reduce all taxes (which would inevitably increase the deficit).”
“Nice again, the old 'double tax' raspberry pie. A Corporation is a person but if I make money from that Corporation then tax only one of us, not both of us. Your citations are cherry picked and do not impress me one bit. You are left leaning in what? Gay rights? Abortion? Please, spare me that DLC Kool-Aid. I have carefully gone over each and every comment of yours. When a person keeps chanting the 'effective tax rate' mantra then its a dead giveaway that they do not believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation removes inequality and levels the playing field for everyone in Society. It most importantly ensures the effectiveness of Democracy and REMOVES the megaphone that the top 0.1% today have in terms of controlling legislation. You don't know this? Every human being in Society has a right to free education, healthcare and an opportunity to move upwards as per their ability. That is what Progressive Taxation ensures.”
“By the way, how do you manage to turn off the reply button on some of your replies with the bogus stats? For example you cite a CBO report on Bush tax cuts - this report is nonexistent and the report I did find does not have a page 21. What exactly are you doing here? I think you are sailing close to the wind. I have reported you to HP by the way.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 13:35:06
“Reported me for what? Disagreeing with you and posting a link to the data that proves you wrong?”
“'...15% is higher tax rate than the bottom 90% pay on average'
Nicely done again. Lets average out the tax brackets for all the bottom 6 tax brackets so that we come out at 11% and hey voila! bottom 90% pay less tax rates on average I can tell you definitely have Leibnitz and Lagrange in your family tree not to mention Issac Newton and Fourier.”
“Quoting misleading and cherry picked stats, making sweeping statements, ignoring Elephants in the Room like the 15% Capital Gains tax and claiming that the top 0.1% pay a fair share of tax- yeah, you are really well informed. All I can say is, you are giving good returns for your Right Wing Handlers whoever they are but the problem is, reality, its a stubborn thing, it won't go away.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 13:23:42
“You keep mentioning this 15%, but it's a total red herring. 1) It doesn't exist anymore - cap gains will now be taxed at up to 23.8%, and 2) The actual taxes paid by upper incomes are higher than that. Why? Because short-term cap gains (and options exercised and not held more than a year) are taxed as regular income (along with non-qualifying dividends).”
“The people who quote the stats are responsible for the links, not those who read them.”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 11:21:22
“"Therefore, the total impact of extending all expiring tax provisions (again, other than the payroll tax reduction) for all taxpayers would be to reduce revenues and increase outlays for refundable tax credits over the next decade by $5.4 trillion. Excluding the income tax provisions affecting high-income taxpayers would reduce that amount by about $0.8 trillion."
CBO report dated 8/22/2012, Page 21. In this scenario, the revenue from the high-income tax cuts in the Bush package amount to less than 15%. In other scenarios, the CBO has come up with lightly different numbers, but in no case have they ever show the high-income portion of the Bush tax cuts as being more than 1/3 of the total.”
“More bilgewater from someone who is obviously a paid Pete Peterson foot soldier or a Capitalist Leech, Rentier, Parasite or all of the above. The top 1% or 0.1% pay less taxes in proportion to their income because they pay almost ALL of their taxes via Capital Gains and not taxes on wages. You did not know that? The stock market is owned 80-90% by people in the top 10% of the income ladder in this country. You did not know that? Here is a link for you to read and digest but then you have come here not to share and question but to misinform and mislead, isn't it? I share this link for the benefit of other readers: http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/who-benefits-from-the-climbing-us-stock-market/”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 13:41:40
“BTW, if you honestly believe that guy like Jared Bernstein is telling you the complete, unbiased truth, you have a lot to learn.
You really should start reading the actual data and forming your own opinions. I wish more people would do so - both the far left and far right might not have such a deathgrip on our political process if people would educate themselves.....”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 13:20:28
“Forget the idiotic blog posts and go to the SOI section of the IRS website. The top 1% pays an average tax rate of just over 20%. Hard data beats op-ed any day - at least it does in a rational, intelligent debate..”
FullThrottle64a on Jun 1, 2013 at 11:26:48
“Which are you talking about, the top 1% or the top 0.1% Those are different income groups (you may have heard of the concept of a "subset").
Per the IRS, the income group paying the highest effective tax rate is the top 1%. This is public information, shown in the SOI (Statistics of Income) section of the IRS website. Yes, there is some regression at the very top - well into the top 0.1% - but even then, their effective rates are higher than any group in the bottom 95%. Their is also the fact that earnings takes as capital gains or dividends have already been taxed as corporate income, so the net total rate on those earnings is higher than the individual income portion taken by itself. Talk to anyone who owns their own incorporated business and look at their total taxes paid, and you'll see the WHOLE truth.
FWIW, I'm quoting public hard data sites, not uber-biased blogsites. In fact, I'm centrist to left leaning - but I studied enough economics to know that the class warfare rhetoric currently being pushed by the left has the potential to do tremendous damage to our society both economically and socially.”