Occupy… your afternoon commute :/

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 11058 wrote:

So either you don’t have anything to address those other points or don’t believe what you have will suffice. If you change your mind, we’ll be happy to examine the substance of your claims in detail.

You make up a scenario, yet still are not able to substantiate your allegation. We will assume you were simply making up a scenario intended as a distraction.

Either you are not a scientist, or you think that none of us can do math.

Drop the top tax rate from 39% to 35%, and that means someone making $1,000,000 pays $40,000 less

On the other hand, the little (if any) tax cut afforded a poor family can now be used to buy much needed food and shelter.

The bottom 50% own 2.5% of the nation’s wealth – there is no handwaving that can begin to point to the poor or lower middle class as the problem. I can’t believe you would even try to go down this path…

I have yet to insult you and this is my last post.

I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife’s job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said “Bush tax cuts for the poor” I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the “for the …” rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?

[WillStewart]

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

I am approaching the top 1% with my government salary and my wife’s job as an IT consultant with a government contractor. Does anyone wonder why the richest areas of the country are around Washington?

When there are tax rate cuts, this must mean that average tax rates for all taxpayers (who receive cuts, which was everyone in 2001 and every one with income from capital in 2003) must have their average tax rates fall. When I said “Bush tax cuts for the poor” I was simply addressing the absurdity of politicians adding the “for the …” rhetoric either in an ignorant or duplicitous manner.

Much of the 2001 tax cuts went to upper middle class families with children because of the child tax credits. A large amount of high income taxpayers did not see a cut because they were subject to the AMT or were thrown into the AMT. And which party claims to support fixing the AMT, which by definition only falls on relatively high income folks?

Since the lowest income level of the top 1% is $386k by the following source, you may need to rethink how close you are to the top 1%. Of course, your stated position may well be understood in the light of your financial position.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You still haven’t named any couples in Government jobs that are in the top 1%, nor have you given any statistics that show what percentage of the top 1% they entail.

When I and a number of other posters refer to the 2003 Bush tax policy as tax cuts for the rich, it is your free speech right to say that we are ignorant or duplicitous, but you show yourself to be struggling in vain to deny the obvious.

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

I have yet to insult you

Hmmmm….

The 2003 tax rate cuts were not the same at each level (the highest tax rates dropped the most, and the lowest rates did not change), so your allusion to average rates for everyone falling is not supported by the facts. More importantly, capital gains dropped dramatically, a major cut for the highest category.

Your discussion of AMT misses the point that much if not most of the top 1% receive a significant amount of their income in capital gains, which is taxed at the lower rate of 15%, which had dropped in the 2003 cuts. That’s one reason Warren Buffet’s aggregate tax rate is only 17%.

@DismalScientist 11063 wrote:

this is my last post

You said that once before, a few posts back…

[DismalScientist]

@WillStewart 11067 wrote:

Since the lowest income level of the top 1% is $386k by the following source, you may need to rethink how close you are to the top 1%. Of course, your stated position may well be understood in the light of your financial position.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one-percent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

You still haven’t named any couples in Government jobs that are in the top 1%, nor have you given any statistics that show what percentage of the top 1% they entail.

When I and a number of other posters refer to the 2003 Bush tax policy as tax cuts for the rich, it is your free speech right to say that we are ignorant or duplicitous, but you show yourself to be struggling in vain to deny the obvious.

Hmmmm….

The 2003 tax rate cuts were not the same at each level (the highest tax rates dropped the most, and the lowest rates did not change), so your allusion to average rates for everyone falling is not supported by the facts. More importantly, capital gains dropped dramatically, a major cut for the highest category.

Your discussion of AMT misses the point that much if not most of the top 1% receive a significant amount of their income in capital gains, which is taxed at the lower rate of 15%, which had dropped in the 2003 cuts. That’s one reason Warren Buffet’s aggregate tax rate is only 17%.

You said that once before, a few posts back…

Have a good night’s sleep.

[MCL1981]

For the record, I’m sorry I started this post. My intention was express my annoyance with disorganized foul smelling fools blocking roads. Not start a two page political argument.

[baiskeli]

@MCL1981 11069 wrote:

For the record, I’m sorry I started this post. My intention was express my annoyance with disorganized foul smelling fools blocking roads. Not start a two page political argument.

Yes, you wanted to ignore and belittle a political protest movement. Doesn’t always work out. You don’t have to agree with their message or their methods (I support them in general but disagree strongly with some of both) but you can’t just dismiss them and ride away without someone responding.

[Arlingtonrider]

C’mon guys. Let’s get back to being a biking forum. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

[Usern Ame]

@MCL1981 10904 wrote:

FYI… I saw on the news this morning that there will be a large, foul smelling, disorganized, and probably illegal march of the so-called “protesters” through downtown and across the Key Bridge into Arlington during the afternoon rush hour today. Apparently they believe making life miserable for those who actually go to work and earn a living will make people believe in whatever their cause is today. I know a lot of people commute that way (bike or car) so plan accordingly. It could fall apart before it begins and amount to nothing, or it could be a nightmare.

It is very interesting how reminiscent your post seems of how drivers talk about bike commuters. In fact, one need only replace the word “protester” with “bike commuter” and it is nearly a perfect fit —> “Foul smelling, disorganized and probably illegal march of so-called “bike commuters” through
downtown and across the Key Bridge into Arlington during the afternoon rush hour today.”

Ligthen up…you sound like a real a–hole.

[acc]

1%, 2%, 3%….
1%: Washed out white and undrinkable
2%: Better for you but not quite the same
3%: The *good* stuff

We are talking about milk, aren’t we?

I’m thankful I have a warm home, food that I’m unfortunately forced to cook for Thanksgiving, more bikes than I need, and wonderful friends on this forum like Dirt, Dismal Scientist, Greenbelt, KLizotte, and Arlingtonrider. I can even appreciate, sort of, Blacknell. Put down your weapons folks and get back into the kitchen, or better yet, sneak out the backdoor and go for a ride.

ann

[zanna_leigh]

Just a reminder that we’re all on the same side here. It’s Thanksgiving tomorrow, let’s take ann’s cue and be thankful for the forum :o)

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[creadinger]

@Arlingtonrider 11093 wrote:

C’mon guys. Let’s get back to being a biking forum. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

Where’s Roscoe when you need him? At least his post pertained to cycling. Haha.

[baiskeli]

@acc 11209 wrote:

1%, 2%, 3%….
1%: Washed out white and undrinkable
2%: Better for you but not quite the same
3%: The *good* stuff

We are talking about milk, aren’t we?

Let me know when you get to 6% or 7% so I know we’re talking about beer.

[Author]

Posts