Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Rush

Pages: 1 ... 809 810 [811] 812 813 ... 819
12151
And everyone would be taxed.  Right now a huge portion (around 50%) pay no income tax.

Not really.  I used to be for the fair tax too but after I read more about it, I'm not sure anymore.  Those under the "poverty line" would receive checks to offset the tax they paid on food and other essentials of life.  Actually, we'll all get checks to offset what we spent on essentials. At least this is the plan as I read it on Wiki.  This amounts to creating a huge new entitlement distribution and I'm wondering what unforeseen consequences that could have.  I can see the drug addict mom using her check to buy drugs and buying less of the more expensive (because of the added tax) food for her kids. Everyone would pay the tax at the point of purchase, but the effective rate for many would still be zero.

As opposed to Canada's consumption tax. Canada exempts essential food from the GST, but makes the seller responsible for collecting or not, and so they need to keep up with what is essential and what isn't. But that's not simple. Not all foods are essential for life.  Snacks are not for example. But basics, such as raw ingredients sold to households are.  But ingredients sold to a snack maker are not if they are being made into snack foods. Cooking oil is essential if a housewife buys it. It is not if it is used to make Cheeto's.  A meal bought at a restaurant is not essential; it must be considered luxury, and so it is taxed. But the same meal made at home from scratch would be considered exempt when you buy the meat and potatoes to make it.

All of this seems a mind boggling nightmare, as bad or worse than our IRS.  As an auditor I was trying to find out whether the GST charged on a shipment of soybean oil in Canada was legitimate or not, I never could work it out. I realize the proposed Fair Tax would not work that same way, but it got me thinking that nevertheless it could end up just as bad or worse than what we have now - hard as that is to believe.

12152
Spin Zone / Re: Fox's Ted Baxter FIRED - Not Fake News
« on: April 22, 2017, 10:31:27 AM »
Excellent points. Andrew Wilkow has a phase that he uses to describe this type of environment, which extends well beyond just sexual harassment. He calls it "weaponized outrage" and I think that's a very accurate statement. We've taken any little thing that we don't like and turned it into mass anger and then use that to destroy people.

O'Reilly isn't the only to suffer this but he is one of the bigger profile people to succumb to this most recently. Anyone remember what happened to Herman Cain in the 2012 primaries? Or what Harry Reid said about Mitt Romney?

I was thinking about Herman Cain. And also I was thinking about the more generalized "weaponized outrage" you describe but didn't have that term on the tip of my tongue. 

12153
Paul, I gave you a "Like" on that one because it's such a well argued and articulated position, not because I specifically agree with everything in there. I wish this site had different types of like/agree/dislike buttons. I'll respond more later, but traveling for the next couple of days.

I thought the same thing except I was wishing there was a "love" button because mere like doesn't express what I felt.

12154
The last part in that video says it all:  Castro's personal worth was $900,000,000 when he died.  Those who enforce socialism are fucking hypocrites.

12155
Spin Zone / Re: Fox's Ted Baxter FIRED - Not Fake News
« on: April 22, 2017, 06:48:56 AM »
Of course I can't know exactly what happened here. But I've been a female working in a male dominated environment and I know the general territory very well.  The facts are, males and females will play the sexual game EVERYWHERE and part of that means males will pursue females before the female, if ever, develops any interest. Back when I was young, such male attention at the workplace was considered normal so long as the advances never were used to threaten your job, or of course, never became forcible against your will.  If the attention was not wanted, a well placed verbal cut was usually sufficient to put a complete stop to it. If a woman accepted such attention, it then became her responsibility as much as the man's. You wouldn't dream of later accusing a man of "harassment" if you had failed to smack him away at the moment of the incident.

You could claim a "culture of sexual harassment" at any workplace, if by harassment you mean this biologically normal dance of the sexes.  But in today's world, apparently you are expected to cut this off, completely muzzle it.  That's never going to happen, it is against human nature.  Therefore, it is a set up for women to exploit for money, or for political purposes, any male or company. We have seen it over and over, used by the Democrats to destroy men they see as threats. So far it seems only Trump has been able to withstand this method of attack.

And don't get me started on how this atmosphere is misguiding our young people. Males are being taught that their normal testosterone urges are organically criminal and legally dangerous, and females are being taught that the slightest suggestive move, even if only verbal, has violated their emotional equilibrium. The message is that females are weak, despite all the feminist hype about female strength and independence.

12156

The simple formula is when 50% of the SS benefits and any other income hits a certain amount you begin paying taxes on the SS benefits and the amount can range up to 85% of it being taxed.

So basically when the government said, "We'll take your money and keep it safe for you then give it back to you when you're old," they lied.

12157
Paul, you have hit it out of the park.

12158
Can't comment on your specifics, but here is the background on when SS benefits became taxable:

In 1981 the National Commission on Social Security Reform (sometimes referred to as the Greenspan Commission after its Chairman) was appointed by Congress and President Reagan to work on the financing crisis in Social Security. The result of their study included several amendments that were passed by Congress, signed by President Reagan and made into law in 1983. The specific rule applying to the taxation of Social Security benefits for the first time is copied below:

If the taxpayer's combined income (total of adjusted gross income, interest on tax-exempt bonds, and 50% of Social Security benefits and Tier I Railroad Retirement Benefits) exceeds a threshold amount ($25,000 for an individual, $32,000 for a married couple filing a joint return, and zero for a married person filing separately), the amount of benefits subject to income tax is the lesser of 50% of benefits or 50% of the excess of the taxpayer's combined income over the threshold amount. The additional income tax revenues resulting from this provision are transferred to the trust funds from which the corresponding benefits were paid. Effective for taxable years beginning after 1983.

Wow, thanks. I cannot imagine what sort of twisted mind came up with that.

12159
She probably should not be.  Is is that the first 25k is not taxed or that you don't get taxed if you make less than 25k?  Of course if she makes more than 25k/year, that's a good thing, right?  Try TurboTax...

An accountant did them and I'll need to go look at it but all I remember is her "taxable" social security income was $4000 more this year than it was last year even though her total SS received was virtually the same from year to year, and the accountant told me it was because her portfolio earned more this year than last year.  If it's her portfolio income that triggered the tax, why was it listed as "social security" taxable income?

The whole thing totally bewilders me.

12160
Spin Zone / Re: Average temperature
« on: April 21, 2017, 02:58:53 PM »
No, I'm saying I'd like to see Texas' gun laws catch up with a state like Arizona now that they have Constitutional carry. You no longer need a concealed weapon permit to carry concealed in the state.

Yes that would be nice.  I'm still going through the application process. You need the permit for concealed or open in Texas. In NC you don't need a permit for open.  It's all a big bother

12161
I see the key to reducing Muslim terrorism being the moderate Muslims policing their own ranks.  If the moderate Muslims took a very hard stand against those committing acts of violence, then it would be drastically reduced.  Right now, I see them either just ignoring it, or actually supporting it in a non-transparent way.  I don't know what it will take to get moderate Muslims off their collective asses to punish the radical terrorists.

Ideally yes.  This plus everyone on the globe just getting brutal with them. You have to squash them like cockroaches. Until the moderate Muslim gets on board with this, the Islamic terrorist threat will only grow.

It's also a cultural thing, a "we" vs "them" thing.  If on the whole your culture has more in common with the terrorists, then you will side with them, even if you on theory disagree with their methods of targeting innocent civilians. Those who grew up in Muslim cultures that I have spoken with, the key is that they are exposed to Western culture and ideas, and begin to identify more with Western culture and values. That is when they become actively against the terrorists. The radical fundamentalists seem to be rooted in outdated stone age, nomadic, tribal ideas, such as covering up their women, chopping off hands and heads, etc.

12162
While were at it can we stop taxing Social Security Benefits.

I was doing Mom's taxes. She is 90. I got to thinking what the HELL is she doing paying taxes on her Social Security benefits?

Your FICA "contributions" are already a forced tax. So paying tax on it when you get it back is double taxation. I don't know why I always assumed they weren't taxed.

12163
Spin Zone / Re: Average temperature
« on: April 21, 2017, 08:12:23 AM »
I'm glad.  I will eventually move back.  I think there is more "freedom" there (not the coast of course), and a great way to get away from angry northeasterners!   ;D

Well I love the climate. Low humidity, no winter to speak of.  Other than that I like the way the roads and highways are different from urban NC, more logical, and of course no state income tax. Our property taxes are higher, but altogether we saved total compared to living in NC. The people are just completely different. That's not a good or bad thing, just different demographics. I do love the Texas pride and sense of self sufficiency.

12164
Spin Zone / Re: Average temperature
« on: April 21, 2017, 06:27:37 AM »
Hope you enjoy it!  Sound great.  I miss the West.

I don't miss the East.  I love it out here.   ;D

12165

I'm not prepared at this point to go to war with a billion Muslims.

I am. Better now than when there are 4 billion Muslims.

Pages: 1 ... 809 810 [811] 812 813 ... 819