Build Wall or Shut Down the Border

[UT alum]

33 minutes ago, mat said:

Your statement "the amount of wealth distributed to the top 1%" is also misleading. I think those 1% would think they earned it and it wasn't distributed to them.

I used distribution in a statistical way. Didn’t mean social distribution.

[UT alum]

38 minutes ago, stevenash said:

 

So the billionaire hedge fund managers pay a personal tax rate of 10% ?   Show me those stats please.  'll bet you believed it when Harry Reid stated that he "heard" that Mitt Romney hadnt paid any taxes. 

I misstated. Their income is treated as a capital gain instead of earned income even if they didn’t own what they sold. That’s 23% vs 37%. Still an unfair loophole.

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

 

So the billionaire hedge fund managers pay a personal tax rate of 10% ?   Show me those stats please.  'll bet you believed it when Harry Reid stated that he "heard" that Mitt Romney hadnt paid any taxes. 

Oh, and I don’t believe anything anyone said they “heard”. There’a a reason heresay evidence isn’t admissible in court.

[stevenash]

40 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Oh, and I don’t believe anything anyone said they “heard”. There’a a reason heresay evidence isn’t admissible in court.

 

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

I misstated. Their income is treated as a capital gain instead of earned income even if they didn’t own what they sold. That’s 23% vs 37%. Still an unfair loophole.

Their personal annual income is taxed as ordinary income.  To realize a capital gain rate , you must own an asset for at least 12 months.  Once that has happened, you can sell it at the capital gains rate.   That opportunity applies to you , me , and everyone else.  That is as legal as the day is long and always has been.    Yes, someone with a lot of money will have more capital gains than someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and cannot assume risk.  Those that buy and sell something at capital gains rate take the risk, and reap the reward IF they make a profit.  Additionally, once that investment has paid off, it allows them to reinvest the money in something else, be it a stock, a plant, or a farm, etc etc etc.  The intent of the capital gains rate was to increase the velocity of money and promote entrepreneurship.

[UT alum]

21 minutes ago, stevenash said:

 

Their personal annual income is taxed as ordinary income.  To realize a capital gain rate , you must own an asset for at least 12 months.  Once that has happened, you can sell it at the capital gains rate.   That opportunity applies to you , me , and everyone else.  That is as legal as the day is long and always has been.    Yes, someone with a lot of money will have more capital gains than someone who lives paycheck to paycheck and cannot assume risk.  Those that buy and sell something at capital gains rate take the risk, and reap the reward IF they make a profit.  Additionally, once that investment has paid off, it allows them to reinvest the money in something else, be it a stock, a plant, or a farm, etc etc etc.  The intent of the capital gains rate was to increase the velocity of money and promote entrepreneurship.

Did you do any reading up on the carried interest loophole that applies only to hedge fund managers? They don’t get treated like you, me and everyone else. They get special treatment. Instituted during George W Bush presidency. 

[LumRaiderFan]

2 hours ago, UT alum said:

I don’t know. Morgan has his reasons, but in the past he favored comprehensive reform including barriers, technology, additional judges, and border personnel. If Trump would bargain on DACA he’d get more for his wall, but the great negotiator is refusing to negotiate, only demand.

Bargain on how many illegals to allow in...maybe there is no bargaining room on that one.

Good for him.

Finally we have someone that doesn’t want to bargain on nonsensical policies that are bad for the U.S.

 

[Law Man]

2 hours ago, Law Man said:

You have disagreed with others but you don't engage in name calling. 

You don’t act like you are born out of insecurities. Englbert is aware of his shortcomings and has simply accepted them as perfect. He finds it easier to criticize and put someone down, rather than improve to grow beyond himself. He is stuck and afraid of change, like everything else, it becomes a reflex and a habit. He is willing to do anything to make himself appear better than everyone else. He tries to prove everyone is wrong, even if it’s the mundane thing. Name calling and ill treatment is his strength. This is nothing but a motive to re-assert his social status.  I am not a attorneys my point was that the DOJ hires the best qualified not marons.

[LumRaiderFan]

47 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Did you do any reading up on the carried interest loophole that applies only to hedge fund managers? They don’t get treated like you, me and everyone else. They get special treatment. Instituted during George W Bush presidency. 

Do you agree with the policy that the more you make, the higher percentage you should be taxed?

[Englebert]

2 hours ago, Law Man said:

You don’t act like you are born out of insecurities. Englbert is aware of his shortcomings and has simply accepted them as perfect. He finds it easier to criticize and put someone down, rather than improve to grow beyond himself. He is stuck and afraid of change, like everything else, it becomes a reflex and a habit. He is willing to do anything to make himself appear better than everyone else. He tries to prove everyone is wrong, even if it’s the mundane thing. Name calling and ill treatment is his strength. This is nothing but a motive to re-assert his social status.  I am not a attorneys my point was that the DOJ hires the best qualified not marons.

You are just too funny. I'm surprised you try to engage in psychoanalysis when you have no training, and you are incredibly bad at it. Apparently you have zero insight into your own shortcomings (lack of self-awareness). It doesn't take formal training to see that.

You make pathetic statements and I challenge you to back them up or simply call out the incorrect or untruthfulness of them. You lash out or deflect because you cannot justify you own statements. You get mad because I have the audacity to call you out on your own statements. So, I challenge you to justify your statements about me. Show were I am stuck and afraid of change. Show where I think my shortcomings are perfect. Show where I think I'm better than everyone else. These are just prime examples of your naive, immature, childish statements that you cannot defend. It seems these evolve from a vain attempt to "save face" by lashing out at the one that challenges you. So give some examples that lead to your conclusions (we are in need of some more laughs).

And fyi, I did not call you a moron. I cloaked a statement in an analogy to show the absurdity of your statements. You (predicatively) misinterpreted that as a direct descriptor. Now given your subsequent posts, was the analogy prophetic? Is it still opinion or is it now fact? Given your demonstrated inability to distinguish between the two, this might be a tough one for you.

Giving a forum for someone to show their true colors is all I've done. You childishly engaged in such admission, and predicatively lashed out when you cannot defend your own pathetic statements. You don't seem to be having any fun...and it's easy to see why. Embarrassed yet? If not, you should be.

[UT alum]

10 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Do you agree with the policy that the more you make, the higher percentage you should be taxed?

Yes

[UT alum]

10 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Bargain on how many illegals to allow in...maybe there is no bargaining room on that one.

Good for him.

Finally we have someone that doesn’t want to bargain on nonsensical policies that are bad for the U.S.

 

That’s pretty vague. How about this for nonsensical policy? Corporations are free to take jobs overseas taking advantage of lower wages, limited or non existing safety regulations, and no thoughts of providing any retirement contributions - all of which have decimated manufacturing jobs in this country. Then, on top of that, they can park their earnings offshore and pay 0% tax. So, that policy allows them to screw American workers AND avoid paying taxes at the same time. 

Consumers pay tariffs in the form of higher prices. The exporting country is not penalized. Why not let the “tariff” be higher wages for American workers? Conservatives are willing to raise taxes on imports, but not wages or retirement benefits for our own. That’s bad for the US.

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Yes

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Yes

Enough said...you are of the mindset that one should be penalized for success and the money that is confiscated at a higher rate goes to the gov which you obviously think is more capable of spending that money than the one that earned it.

Most likely you think it should be taken from the maker and given to the poor downtrodden taker in the form of welfare.

That very sentiment is ruining this country.

[LumRaiderFan]

39 minutes ago, UT alum said:

That’s pretty vague. How about this for nonsensical policy? Corporations are free to take jobs overseas taking advantage of lower wages, limited or non existing safety regulations, and no thoughts of providing any retirement contributions - all of which have decimated manufacturing jobs in this country. Then, on top of that, they can park their earnings offshore and pay 0% tax. So, that policy allows them to screw American workers AND avoid paying taxes at the same time. 

Consumers pay tariffs in the form of higher prices. The exporting country is not penalized. Why not let the “tariff” be higher wages for American workers? Conservatives are willing to raise taxes on imports, but not wages or retirement benefits for our own. That’s bad for the US.

Stick to the wall...the list of nonsensical U.S. policies could take forever to list.

We're talking about this particular one he is addressing.

[Reagan]

WOW!  Another socialist that actually believes in walls!

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[stevenash]

15 hours ago, UT alum said:

That is a misleading question. Income tax, maybe more in gross dollars, but not proportionately for value added taxes like sales tax or state income taxes.

A much more telling statistic is the amount of wealth distributed to the top 1% versus everyone else. Fifty percent of Americans at the bottown of the chart own about 1/10th of one percent of the nations wealth. I don’t have the stat right at hand for the one percent, but I can get it,  and it’s high. Over 70%. He who owns the most should pay the most for a system that protects their way of life.

I know that billionaire hedge fund managers pay a 10% rate on their earnings. My rate is twice that. That’s not a fair tax system.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[UT alum]

47 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Enough said...you are of the mindset that one should be penalized for success and the money that is confiscated at a higher rate goes to the gov which you obviously think is more capable of spending that money than the one that earned it.

Most likely you think it should be taken from the maker and given to the poor downtrodden taker in the form of welfare.

That very sentiment is ruining this country.

No, it all comes from the Maker and to whom much is given, much is required. Greed is ruining this country.

[LumRaiderFan]

6 minutes ago, UT alum said:

No, it all comes from the Maker and to whom much is given, much is required. Greed is ruining this country.

lol...so you think the fed gov is serving a Biblical role by overtaxing folks.

Greed, as you call it, is what I call the entrepreneurial spirit, which is what made this country the greatest that has ever existed.

 

[stevenash]

21 minutes ago, UT alum said:

No, it all comes from the Maker and to whom much is given, much is required. Greed is ruining this country.

Do you believe that the government is capable of "correcting this inequity" that you believe exists?  Who will make the decision on how much is enough and how much is not enough?

[stevenash]

23 minutes ago, UT alum said:

No, it all comes from the Maker and to whom much is given, much is required. Greed is ruining this country.

Who is the "giver" to the maker?

[UT alum]

59 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Enough said...you are of the mindset that one should be penalized for success and the money that is confiscated at a higher rate goes to the gov which you obviously think is more capable of spending that money than the one that earned it.

Most likely you think it should be taken from the maker and given to the poor downtrodden taker in the form of welfare.

That very sentiment is ruining this country.

 

10 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

lol...so you think the fed gov is serving a Biblical role by overtaxing folks.

Greed, as you call it, is what I call the entrepreneurial spirit, which is what made this country the greatest that has ever existed.

 

Again, words have meanings. 

Merriam Webster:

greed: a selfish desire for more (especially money) than is needed.

entrepeneur: one who organizes, manages and assumes the risks of s business enterprise.

I am an entrepreneur. I own a small business. I don’t equate that with greed.

[LumRaiderFan]

17 minutes ago, UT alum said:

 

Again, words have meanings. 

Merriam Webster:

greed: a selfish desire for more (especially money) than is needed.

entrepeneur: one who organizes, manages and assumes the risks of s business enterprise.

I am an entrepreneur. I own a small business. I don’t equate that with greed.

But you do agree that the fed gov is more capable of deciding how to spend someone's hard earned money than the one that made it, right?

And who gets to decide how much one "needs"?

 

[stevenash]

22 minutes ago, UT alum said:

 

Again, words have meanings. 

Merriam Webster:

greed: a selfish desire for more (especially money) than is needed.

entrepeneur: one who organizes, manages and assumes the risks of s business enterprise.

I am an entrepreneur. I own a small business. I don’t equate that with greed.

Why is it greedy to want to keep your money but it is not greedy to want money belonging to someone else?

[Reagan]

On 1/12/2019 at 9:12 AM, UT alum said:

Again, where “out there” is the evidence? Walls do work in some places, but a wall from Brownsville to San Diego is outrageous. It would cost over 50 billion and be a terrible waste of resources. You a big fan of imminent domain?

I don’t hate Donald Trump, I just  think he’s dangerously unfit for the job.

So, Trump has actually done more in 2 years than the presvious one did in 8.  So, curious --  where does obama fit in your category of the "fitness" of being President?

[UT alum]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

Do you believe that the government is capable of "correcting this inequity" that you believe exists?  Who will make the decision on how much is enough and how much is not enough?

Raising the minimum wage to at least 12.50 is a start. Making union formation easier is another. The free market would adjust to those constraints and move on, like it always has. 

[stevenash]

29 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Raising the minimum wage to at least 12.50 is a start. Making union formation easier is another. The free market would adjust to those constraints and move on, like it always has. 

And you honestly believe that would make a dent in this "inequity" to which you refer?   Did the last couple of minimum wage increases change anything?  Every time you legislate something like this, the "free" market becomes a little less "free".  Wages are currently rising at a rate not seen in some time and that is due to the very same free market that you seem to believe needs tinkering.  The free market also is providing more jobs available than workers to fill them.

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up