Print Page - Politics, Spin, And Reality

http://www.coyoteblo...ass_warfar.html

This is the proportion of taxes paid.

QUOTE

Wealthiest 1%: 33.6%
Wealthiest 5%: 55.1%
Wealthiest 10%: 67.9%
Wealthiest 20%: 83.0%
Wealthiest 40%: 97.8%
Wealthiest 60%: 103.0%

This article is incredibly factual. He backs up all of his claims with sources.

My questions are:

Is this fair?

When the Democrats speak of tax reform, how to they plan to change it?

The reason for the title is: We have been misled. We have been told there are "tax cuts for the rich". That was never true or even close to it. You can read, in that article how that effected the taxes. If the democrats are going to change it, how will they change it so they don't tax the the poor people who they count on votes from more?

You cannot have a flat tax or a consumables tax. It is unnecessarily unfair to the poor. They are already barely making ends meet. A consumable tax would do no good because the extremely wealthy horde all of their money anyway. What is best for our economy is to keep money constantly shuffling around. That is the way the system is setup.

I think our current setup is fair. I am also sure I will complain about it when I enter into a higher tax bracket.

/note to self
Re-read this when you finish school.

It is not porportional, when compared to the person's net worth.

http://sociology.ucs...wer/wealth.html

Top 1% 33% of net worth
Top 5% 59% of net worth
Top 10% 71% of net worth
Top 20% 83% of net worth
Bottom 80% 16% of net worth

If you ask me, the Top 10% is not paying their 'fair share.'

Flat tax in the US is next to impossible, unless we eliminate military and social security.

I guess I don't see your points where you're saying a flat tax doesn't make sense and can't work. for someone who makes 20,000/yr, 5% is $1000. For someone who makes 2,000,000/yr, 5% is $100,000. How is that unnecessarily unfair to the poor person but not the rich person? It sounds to me like what you are proposing is that no matter how much money you make, you should have to give all excess away so that we can all be equal. That may not be what you think you're saying, but it is.

As we know, the poor are employed by the rich, so you're not helping anyone by taxing the rich more because what are they going to do? Yep that's right, make it back by cutting your wages, any benefits you may have had, and basically putting you in a much worse situation.

It is impossible for you to know whether a flat tax would actually work or not until you see the budget, and see how much the taxes actually need to bring in. Then you can calculate based on how you tax and who you tax how much your rate/s will bring in. A flat tax is very fair. It is proportional. It taxes the rich a large sum of money and the poor a very small amount of money.

You are right, but the family who makes $20,000 usually gets $2,000 back instead of paying $1,000. That is a difference of $3,000 which is a lot to a family that only makes $20,000/yr.

Also, to make the full amount the same amount as taken in now, the flat tax would be closer to like 20%.

Charities would be hurt by this. People would donate less because the tax breaks would not be as beneficial. Right now, donations can drop you down a tax bracket.

There are more disadvantages than this. I do believe everything will balance out in the long run, and possibly be better, but in the meantime, it would cause a ton of chaos.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jan 10 2007, 02:53 PM)

You are right, but the family who makes $20,000 usually gets $2,000 back instead of paying $1,000. That is a difference of $3,000 which is a lot to a family that only makes $20,000/yr.

No that's a difference of $1,000. -1000 + 2000 = 1000

QUOTE

Also, to make the full amount the same amount as taken in now, the flat tax would be closer to like 20%.

I think we'd have to see some real numbers for this to be credible. That doesn't actually mathematically make any sense. A flat tax is not a tax break for the rich at all.

QUOTE

Charities would be hurt by this. People would donate less because the tax breaks would not be as beneficial. Right now, donations can drop you down a tax bracket.

I don't think they would be hurt at all. You could still provide some incentive. Take off a fraction of a percent or whatever. If tax was reformed why wouldn't the charities? Also, look up the definition of "charity". You will not find tax breaks anywhere in the definition. Why as someone who is in favor of higher taxes do you care about charity anyways? Taxes basically say that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, so we're going to force you to give us some of it.

QUOTE

There are more disadvantages than this. I do believe everything will balance out in the long run, and possibly be better, but in the meantime, it would cause a ton of chaos.

So even though it has the potential of improving life for everyone overall, don't do it because the potential immediate backlash is scary? I have to disagree with you on all points here.

Face it, the tax system favors the rich. Bush seeks to eliminate taxes from earnings from stocks. Who actually has the money to invest in stocks? The top 5% of the people who owns 59% of net worth? Or the bottom 95% who owns 41% of the net worth?

Not just that, the rich probably have investment advisors who knows how to hide money in offshore accounts so the money made is hidden from Uncle Sam. You think most of the bottom 90% can afford a investment advisor?

You never have any proof that we are 'misled' by the ill effects of democrats taxing the rich. I think it is justified when you tax 59% of the net worthers 55% of the taxes, if not more.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 10 2007, 04:42 PM)

Face it, the tax system favors the rich. Bush seeks to eliminate taxes from earnings from stocks. Who actually has the money to invest in stocks? The top 5% of the people who owns 59% of net worth? Or the bottom 95% who owns 41% of the net worth?

Uh, Are you serious? Have you EVER had a history lesson or paid attention to anything? Remember the great depression? That was because the stock market crashed and you'll hear all about the ordinary people that were investing that lost their asses. EVERYONE invests in stocks these days.... meaning people from every class. You cannot be of sound mind and say that the tax system is set up to "favor" the rich. You have to be absolutely demented to say or think that. Does anyone else agree with him? Throwingks? Honestly, I'm so disturbed by that statement.... I cannot believe you said it.

QUOTE

Not just that, the rich probably have investment advisors who knows how to hide money in offshore accounts so the money made is hidden from Uncle Sam. You think most of the bottom 90% can afford a investment advisor?

Wow, now that is truly amazing. Off-shore accounts, secret investment advisors that nobody else has. .... just wow. When are the aliens coming? All money earned has already been taxed. Why does it matter what these people do with it after that? It's their money, not the governments.

QUOTE

You never have any proof that we are 'misled' by the ill effects of democrats taxing the rich.

Well then how about you let someone try it their way and we'll see the proof? It's common sense. It's funny that you think these people should be taxed this much but then you start threads bitching about companies leaving the United States. There is proof all over the place.... you're just not able to open your eyes and see it. If you keep taking huge chunks of these people's money, they are going to figure out how to keep your hand out of their pocketbook. They didn't make their money by being stupid.

QUOTE

I think it is justified when you tax 59% of the net worthers 55% of the taxes, if not more.

I don't think people should be penalized for being successful. I don't understand why people would want to drive that money out of the country. What people don't realize, tax people less and they start having more money to spend. Spending more money boosts the economy and you get your money anyways from the sales tax. The way it is, people just want to keep taking and taking and they think it doesn't have any negative consequences.... of course it does and you're seeing that by people moving overseas. You're seeing it by more businesses paying employees minimum wage or moving overseas where they can get cheap labor. This is forcing companies out..... and yet people continue to make the same mistakes and try to make them on a grander scale.

I cannot fathom your remarks here. I hope you're not serious.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 10 2007, 04:09 PM)

No that's a difference of $1,000. -1000 + 2000 = 1000

20,000 + 2,000 = 22,000 <--- what they are used to.
20,000 - 1,000 = 19,000 <--- what they would have if their were a flat tax.
22,000 - 19,000 = 3,000 <--- the difference.
You accidentally did the summation, not the difference.
$2000 - $-1000 = $3,000

QUOTE

I think we'd have to see some real numbers for this to be credible. That doesn't actually mathematically make any sense. A flat tax is not a tax break for the rich at all.

Look at pugs previous post. Do the math. The rich pay a lot of taxes. The poor get tax money back. If the poor were to pay taxes instead of receive money, then mathematically the rich would pay less, for the gov't to get the same amount of money.

Example: Lets say the gov't receives $1,000,000 in taxes. They pay 1,000 to the poor. That means the rich paid $1,001,000.
If the poor no longer received, but paid $1,000, that means for the gov't to end up with $1,000,000, the rich would now be paying $999,000.
That is a $2000 break in what the rich would have to pay.
*These are all arbitrary #s. Made up for the example

QUOTE

I don't think they would be hurt at all. You could still provide some incentive. Take off a fraction of a percent or whatever. If tax was reformed why wouldn't the charities? Also, look up the definition of "charity". You will not find tax breaks anywhere in the definition. Why as someone who is in favor of higher taxes do you care about charity anyways? Taxes basically say that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, so we're going to force you to give us some of it.

I worked for a non-prof for 2 years. Their #1 sales pitch, even though it isn't supposed to be, was "you get a tax break." I think it was up to a $400 donation, you could write-off $400. More than that didn't matter so they never asked for more than that. People would rather give money to charities than the gov't. I am not sure why, that is just the way people think.

P.S. It was a little while ago, it may have been only $200. I cannot remember the exact $ amount. I do think they would make up the difference eventually. But, it would take a while.

QUOTE

So even though it has the potential of improving life for everyone overall, don't do it because the potential immediate backlash is scary?

Yes. The implications would have a backlash far too great for any political party to put their name on it. I am not saying morally it is not the right thing to do. Cause it is. We should have a flat tax. I am saying that it won't happen.

QUOTE

I have to disagree with you on all points here.

That's ok. That is why these forums are fun to me. I hope we can all learn something from one another. I just feel the gov't needs money. Taxes are good to an extent if not abused. The taxes should come from the people that will be the least affected by it. The rich can afford to pay more and still keep their standard of living. If there was a flat tax, right now, a large portion of people would not be able to keep their standard of living. I don't feel there it is a penalty if you can keep your standard of living. To the poor $3,000 can crush you. To the rich $3,000 means nothing, relatively speaking.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jan 10 2007, 06:00 PM)

20,000 + 2,000 = 22,000 <--- what they are used to.
20,000 - 1,000 = 19,000 <--- what they would have if their were a flat tax.
22,000 - 19,000 = 3,000 <--- the difference.
You accidentally did the summation, not the difference.
$2000 - $-1000 = $3,000

I didn't accidentally do anything. To my understanding, nobody gets more taxes back than they paid. Everyone pays taxes. So my argument holds. Yours does not. I'm sorry I respect you but I don't think what you're saying is the truth.

QUOTE

Look at pugs previous post. Do the math. The rich pay a lot of taxes. The poor get tax money back. If the poor were to pay taxes instead of receive money, then mathematically the rich would pay less, for the gov't to get the same amount of money.

Everyone pays taxes. Some people get all or most of it back. Rich people paying less isn't necessarily a bad thing as i have pointed out, but that's not going to happen.

QUOTE

Example: Lets say the gov't receives $1,000,000 in taxes. They pay 1,000 to the poor. That means the rich paid $1,001,000.
If the poor no longer received, but paid $1,000, that means for the gov't to end up with $1,000,000, the rich would now be paying $999,000.
That is a $2000 break in what the rich would have to pay.
*These are all arbitrary #s. Made up for the exampleI worked for a non-prof for 2 years. Their #1 sales pitch, even though it isn't supposed to be, was "you get a tax break." I think it was up to a $400 donation, you could write-off $400. More than that didn't matter so they never asked for more than that. People would rather give money to charities than the gov't. I am not sure why, that is just the way people think.

I understand what you're saying, but what you're not understanding is taxing the rich people less can do nothing but help the poor people. These people are not in competition. They depend on each other. The rich need the poor people to work for them and to buy their products. They know this. They make more jobs, higher pay and lower prices if they can afford to because that will MAKE THEM MORE MONEY. If they cannot afford to do that, then it hurts the poor man. It's either a win, win or a lose, lose. Right now we're in a lose lose. The rich people want to stay rich so they pass the buck to the little man.

You're not sure why people would rather give a donation than give it to the government? It's simple. It's THEIR money. They want to be able to have the choice on how to spend it..... not be forced to put it somewhere.

QUOTE

P.S. It was a little while ago, it may have been only $200. I cannot remember the exact $ amount. I do think they would make up the difference eventually. But, it would take a while.Yes. The implications would have a backlash far too great for any political party to put their name on it. I am not saying morally it is not the right thing to do. Cause it is. We should have a flat tax. I am saying that it won't happen.That's ok. That is why these forums are fun to me. I hope we can all learn something from one another. I just feel the gov't needs money. Taxes are good to an extent if not abused. The taxes should come from the people that will be the least affected by it. The rich can afford to pay more and still keep their standard of living. If there was a flat tax, right now, a large portion of people would not be able to keep their standard of living. I don't feel there it is a penalty if you can keep your standard of living. To the poor $3,000 can crush you. To the rich $3,000 means nothing, relatively speaking.

I disagree. I think if there was a flat tax the poor people would benefit greatly. The companies would be able to afford to move back to their market instead of relocate overseas. They would be able to hire more people to help move their products faster. They would be able to raise the pay to keep the more skilled workers. They would do all of these things because IT MAKES THEM MONEY. You saying that rich people are less effected. That may be true but rich people are not rich because they are careless. That's why we are losing so many overseas. That's why they lay off the already poor people. That's why they only pay minimum wage. Why do you not realize this?

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 10 2007, 07:18 PM)

I didn't accidentally do anything. To my understanding, nobody gets more taxes back than they paid. Everyone pays taxes. So my argument holds. Yours does not. I'm sorry I respect you but I don't think what you're saying is the truth.

If I am misrepresenting the truth, I do not mean to. I do not know how you could respect someone that does intentionally misrepresent the truth.
I am under the impression the poor do get more in income tax returns than they pay. Especially if they are married with children.

I will try and find some references.

QUOTE(throwingks @ Jan 10 2007, 06:42 PM)

If I am misrepresenting the truth, I do not mean to. I do not know how you could respect someone that does intentionally misrepresent the truth.
I am under the impression the poor do get more in income tax returns than they pay. Especially if they are married with children.

I will try and find some references.

No I am not intending to call you a liar. I don't believe you'd intentionally mislead. I think on people getting more taxes back than they paid, that could potentially be true, but not on the scale of which we're speaking. I would guess that it's so small that it would make very little difference.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 11 2007, 12:50 AM)

Uh, Are you serious? Have you EVER had a history lesson or paid attention to anything? Remember the great depression? That was because the stock market crashed and you'll hear all about the ordinary people that were investing that lost their asses. EVERYONE invests in stocks these days.... meaning people from every class. You cannot be of sound mind and say that the tax system is set up to "favor" the rich. You have to be absolutely demented to say or think that. Does anyone else agree with him? Throwingks? Honestly, I'm so disturbed by that statement.... I cannot believe you said it.

1) Now don't use this thread as your insult thread. 2) Everyone invests stocks these days, that's a good one, including some bum on the street.

QUOTE

Wow, now that is truly amazing. Off-shore accounts, secret investment advisors that nobody else has. .... just wow. When are the aliens coming? All money earned has already been taxed. Why does it matter what these people do with it after that? It's their money, not the governments.
Well then how about you let someone try it their way and we'll see the proof? It's common sense. It's funny that you think these people should be taxed this much but then you start threads bitching about companies leaving the United States. There is proof all over the place.... you're just not able to open your eyes and see it. If you keep taking huge chunks of these people's money, they are going to figure out how to keep your hand out of their pocketbook. They didn't make their money by being stupid.

Obviously you don't know why there are investment advisors out there making money for their rich clients. Why do you think lawmakers are complaining that they want to close loopholes for rich people making money from offshore accounts. Oh wait, offshore accounts are a myth? Isn't it?

QUOTE

I don't think people should be penalized for being successful. I don't understand why people would want to drive that money out of the country. What people don't realize, tax people less and they start having more money to spend. Spending more money boosts the economy and you get your money anyways from the sales tax. The way it is, people just want to keep taking and taking and they think it doesn't have any negative consequences.... of course it does and you're seeing that by people moving overseas. You're seeing it by more businesses paying employees minimum wage or moving overseas where they can get cheap labor. This is forcing companies out..... and yet people continue to make the same mistakes and try to make them on a grander scale.
I cannot fathom your remarks here. I hope you're not serious.

You would expect someone making 10 times more than you would pay 10 times more taxes than you. But it doesn't happen that way. The rate how the government takes away from payroll checks are much higher than dividend gains from stocks. So who would stand to gain from it, the rich people who have millions in stocks, or middle class who would be lucky to have 50k in an etrade account?

'Tax people less and they having more money to spend' has been Republican's slogan for decades. But no Republican President can ever abide by their promise. Bush Sr says no new taxes but has to be forced raise taxes to balance the budget. Bush Jr. who doesn't know how to balance anything, and has already burnt a hole in the deficit by lowering taxes.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 10 2007, 08:55 PM)

1) Now don't use this thread as your insult thread. 2) Everyone invests stocks these days, that's a good one, including some bum on the street.

I haven't thrown one single insult so don't insinuate that I have. I very plainly explained what I meant. It's correct. If you say otherwise you're terribly wrong. A bum on the street doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes so he wouldn't apply anyways.

QUOTE

Obviously you don't know why there are investment advisors out there making money for their rich clients. Why do you think lawmakers are complaining that they want to close loopholes for rich people making money from offshore accounts. Oh wait, offshore accounts are a myth? Isn't it?

No you have a conspiracy theory. I have used investment advisors and lost tens of thousands of dollars upon their advice. (I'm not rich, and am very far from it thus proving my own point.) They don't know magic. They don't give you an edge that nobody else has. Also, I clearly addressed offshore accounts. #1 I'd say this is a only for the top 5% or so. If their money has already been taxed once (income tax), why should it be taxed again and again? It's their money, let them spend it here in America instead of forcing them overseas with your high taxes.

QUOTE

You would expect someone making 10 times more than you would pay 10 times more taxes than you. But it doesn't happen that way. The rate how the government takes away from payroll checks are much higher than dividend gains from stocks. So who would stand to gain from it, the rich people who have millions in stocks, or middle class who would be lucky to have 50k in an etrade account?

They all stand to gain from it since it is a level playing field. Why should someone be penalized because he's better at the game than you?

QUOTE

'Tax people less and they having more money to spend' has been Republican's slogan for decades. But no Republican President can ever abide by their promise. Bush Sr says no new taxes but has to be forced raise taxes to balance the budget. Bush Jr. who doesn't know how to balance anything, and has already burnt a hole in the deficit by lowering taxes.

The economy was doing very poorly right before the war due to the Clinton era's decisions. The war started and now our economy is booming. Of course W knows how to balance... and he's doing a great job of it. You balance a budget when you have a war to fight, millions of illegals pouring into the US and getting aid, taxes and EPA and unions forcing your big money overseas, etc. You have no points here. Please don't start the mudslinging.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 11 2007, 04:36 AM)

I haven't thrown one single insult so don't insinuate that I have. I very plainly explained what I meant. It's correct. If you say otherwise you're terribly wrong. A bum on the street doesn't have a job and doesn't pay taxes so he wouldn't apply anyways.

Don't flip-flop on what you said. You said that EVERYONE (in caps) invest in stocks nowadays and now you said it is not true..

QUOTE

No you have a conspiracy theory. I have used investment advisors and lost tens of thousands of dollars upon their advice. (I'm not rich, and am very far from it thus proving my own point.) They don't know magic. They don't give you an edge that nobody else has. Also, I clearly addressed offshore accounts. #1 I'd say this is a only for the top 5% or so. If their money has already been taxed once (income tax), why should it be taxed again and again? It's their money, let them spend it here in America instead of forcing them overseas with your high taxes. They all stand to gain from it since it is a level playing field. Why should someone be penalized because he's better at the game than you?

You sounded like as if it is the government's problem that we tax the rich too much and you think that a flat tax will stop people from using offshore accounts and other ways to cheat on taxes. It is like when Bush assume that there will peace in Iraq when Saddam is caught, tried and executed.

QUOTE

The economy was doing very poorly right before the war due to the Clinton era's decisions. The war started and now our economy is booming. Of course W knows how to balance... and he's doing a great job of it. You balance a budget when you have a war to fight, millions of illegals pouring into the US and getting aid, taxes and EPA and unions forcing your big money overseas, etc. You have no points here. Please don't start the mudslinging.

I almost fell off my chair when I read this one. Blame on Clinton on Bush's bungling job performance. Blame on Clinton on 9/11. Blame on Clinton when the Economy was worse off now than before. Blame on Clinton and the Democrats on getting aid, taxes and the EPA. All those people in the White house are all talk and no action. That's the reason those pathetic Republican losers got voted off the last election. The the most funniest of all is that you actually said that Bush actually balanced the budget. You have to stop smoking weed, bud.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 11 2007, 09:30 AM)

Don't flip-flop on what you said. You said that EVERYONE (in caps) invest in stocks nowadays and now you said it is not true..

Here is what I said:

EVERYONE invests in stocks these days.... meaning people from every class.

Now there is NO flip-flopping going on. What IS going on, is you are trying to twist what I'm saying, but you are clearly wrong.... anyone else can see that. It's hilarious.

QUOTE

You sounded like as if it is the government's problem that we tax the rich too much and you think that a flat tax will stop people from using offshore accounts and other ways to cheat on taxes. It is like when Bush assume that there will peace in Iraq when Saddam is caught, tried and executed.

Well you're wrong on everything you said here. If you quit robbing people then they will feel no need to hide their money. It's a pretty simple concept. Bush never said or thought the violence would stop once Saddam was killed. You know that once you understand the sectarianism over there.

QUOTE

I almost fell off my chair when I read this one. Blame on Clinton on Bush's bungling job performance.

Where?

QUOTE

Blame on Clinton on 9/11.

His reaction to lockarby scotland didnt' help but specifically where did I make this claim?

QUOTE

Blame on Clinton when the Economy was worse off now than before.

Yes I rightly did that

QUOTE

Blame on Clinton and the Democrats on getting aid, taxes and the EPA.

They take credit for that... there's no need to "blame".

QUOTE

All those people in the White house are all talk and no action. That's the reason those pathetic Republican losers got voted off the last election. The the most funniest of all is that you actually said that Bush actually balanced the budget. You have to stop smoking weed, bud.

No you're hilariously wrong... they are being criticized by you left wingers because they TAKE ACTION. If they hadn't you wouldn't be able to criticise us being in Iraq, you'd be criticizing the amount of terrorist attacks on us. You left wingers have no plan but to bash Bush. I NEVER said Bush balanced the budget. Now you're just plain lying. It's funny that you're doing that because the proof is in the post. I said he's doing a good job with it since so much spending is uncontrollably going on right now. Geez... someone else tell him. My sides hurt from laughing.

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Jan 11 2007, 05:03 PM)

Here is what I said:

EVERYONE invests in stocks these days.... meaning people from every class.

How can I make an argument with someone who changes his position all the time? EVERYONE by definition is every person. And now you try to reduce your definition of EVERYONE to every class is just plain flip-flopping.

QUOTE

No you're hilariously wrong... they are being criticized by you left wingers because they TAKE ACTION. If they hadn't you wouldn't be able to criticise us being in Iraq, you'd be criticizing the amount of terrorist attacks on us. You left wingers have no plan but to bash Bush. I NEVER said Bush balanced the budget. Now you're just plain lying. It's funny that you're doing that because the proof is in the post. I said he's doing a good job with it since so much spending is uncontrollably going on right now. Geez... someone else tell him. My sides hurt from laughing.

What you said up there is much different from what you said down there.

QUOTE

Of course W knows how to balance... and he's doing a great job of it.

You have to keep chainging your position on what you said all the time so nobody knows what you are talking about or your position is.

For the past 6 years Democrats were not the majority so they can't do much. Now they are in power, they can stop Bush from dragging this mess in Iraq and pushing some real reforms in the government.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 11 2007, 12:35 PM)

How can I make an argument with someone who changes his position all the time? EVERYONE by definition is every person. And now you try to reduce your definition of EVERYONE to every class is just plain flip-flopping.

All you have to do is read the original post to see how wrong you are. Seriously, how hard is it to read? The quote that I provided that you're lying about clearly proves I have not and did not flip flop.

QUOTE

What you said up there is much different from what you said down there.

Nope you're lying... because I went up to that post, copied it and pasted it down here.

QUOTE

You have to keep chainging your position on what you said all the time so nobody knows what you are talking about or your position is.

Nope I haven't and until you prove I have you are a liar plain and simple.

QUOTE

For the past 6 years Democrats were not the majority so they can't do much. Now they are in power, they can stop Bush from dragging this mess in Iraq and pushing some real reforms in the government.

Well now we'll see what they can do. One empty statement deserves another.

Nobody knows what kind of garbage you are talking about in this thread anymore. You make claims that the Rich are unfairly paying too much compared to the poor when you can't prove it. You make claims that 'flat tax' is the way to go but you can't prove that it works except that 'it just works.' You make claims that the Democrats are conspiring against the rich and you can't prove it. You make claims that I lied and yet you don't know what I am 'lying' about, except that 'I am a liar, plain and simple.'

Let's face it, this is just another one of your personal bitch threads. Maybe you can use 'yo momma' has the best counterargument like the last bitch thread that you started.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 11 2007, 03:34 PM)

Nobody knows what kind of garbage you are talking about in this thread anymore. You make claims that the Rich are unfairly paying too much compared to the poor when you can't prove it. You make claims that 'flat tax' is the way to go but you can't prove that it works except that 'it just works.' You make claims that the Democrats are conspiring against the rich and you can't prove it. You make claims that I lied and yet you don't know what I am 'lying' about, except that 'I am a liar, plain and simple.'

Let's face it, this is just another one of your personal bitch threads. Maybe you can use 'yo momma' has the best counterargument like the last bitch thread that you started.

Seriously, this guy just comes into threads and personally attacks me and accuses me of things I didn't do. I'm so tired of you badmouthing me. I'm tired of you making things up. All someone else has to do is read and they know you're wrong on everything you've just said. Give it up.

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Jan 11 2007, 03:34 PM)

Nobody knows what kind of garbage you are talking about in this thread anymore.

Me? All of the following claims you make are made up. I challenge you to quote me showing how you're right. If you do not, you concede that you are wrong and lying.

QUOTE

You make claims that the Rich are unfairly paying too much compared to the poor when you can't prove it.

Find where I said anything to the tune of "the Rich are unfairly paying too much compared to the poor". I didn't and you can't....

QUOTE

You make claims that 'flat tax' is the way to go but you can't prove that it works except that 'it just works.'

Find where I said "it just works". You quoted it but yet I didn't say it. That makes you a liar.

QUOTE

You make claims that the Democrats are conspiring against the rich and you can't prove it.

Where did I make any claim about a conspiracy pertaining to what you've just said here?

QUOTE

You make claims that I lied and yet you don't know what I am 'lying' about, except that 'I am a liar, plain and simple.'

I've shown where you lied. That's why you conceded the flip-flopping argument. You were lying about it just as you have been about the quotes directly above. You are wrong on your arguments so you simply lie and make things up. If that is untrue, all you have to do is prove how your claims above are true.

QUOTE

Let's face it, this is just another one of your personal bitch threads.

No, it is plain to see that I started a thread for real discussion but since you are not able to provide anything to disprove me, you attack me. It is your personal immaturity thread.

QUOTE

Maybe you can use 'yo momma' has the best counterargument like the last bitch thread that you started.

Your immaturity was proven right here. Thanks for that.

Whatever you guys have against each other needs to be taken care of either in PMs or someplace else. Not everyone will always agree with each other, and noone is right 100% of the time.

This section is a little more lenient with the bickering between members than any other section on this board. However, this thread is going nowhere, and I feel it was started as a little bit of bait. All the people involved have stated their stance and there is no potential for an agreement with anyone. As such there is no need for this thread to be open any longer.

xboxscene.org forums

Off Topic Forums => General Chat => Politics, News and Religion => Topic started by: BCfosheezy on January 09, 2007, 07:17:00 AM