It's very clear Kmarion. I'm saying the information is wrong. According to the NY Times article from 5 days ago, the rich increased their incomes more than twice in comparison with the taxes they pay. It's exactly the opposite the WSJ says. And I know you are not a Bush lover.Kmarion wrote:
Serge have you read the law? I like how you tell me to stop trying to sell the WSJ as if I was a Bush Fanboi. Clearly you missed a couple of my post in this thread. I'm not talking about overall dollar amounts. Their taxes paid grew at a faster rate than their income. I can't spell it out any more clearer than that.sergeriver wrote:
The now richer guys are paying more taxes because they are making more money, but the increase in their taxes is half the increase in their profit. It's on the articles I posted, and the last one is from the NY Times 5 days ago, so yes it's from this year. Stop selling the WSJ BS. The rich people are making more money and paying less taxes proportionally. Bush is not doing anything for poor people, he doesn't care. He only cares about his personal Wot and his daddy's and Dick's businesses.
I solved the problem of conflicting data by analyzing the numbers myself. More people have moved up as well.sergeriver wrote:
It's very clear Kmarion. I'm saying the information is wrong. According to the NY Times article from 5 days ago, the rich increased their incomes more than twice in comparison with the taxes they pay. It's exactly the opposite the WSJ says. And I know you are not a Bush lover.Kmarion wrote:
Serge have you read the law? I like how you tell me to stop trying to sell the WSJ as if I was a Bush Fanboi. Clearly you missed a couple of my post in this thread. I'm not talking about overall dollar amounts. Their taxes paid grew at a faster rate than their income. I can't spell it out any more clearer than that.sergeriver wrote:
The now richer guys are paying more taxes because they are making more money, but the increase in their taxes is half the increase in their profit. It's on the articles I posted, and the last one is from the NY Times 5 days ago, so yes it's from this year. Stop selling the WSJ BS. The rich people are making more money and paying less taxes proportionally. Bush is not doing anything for poor people, he doesn't care. He only cares about his personal Wot and his daddy's and Dick's businesses.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
So, what you are saying is the NY Times is lying. They must hate Bush a lot. I wonder how much the WSJ loves him.Kmarion wrote:
I solved the problem of conflicting data by analyzing the numbers myself. More people have moved up as well.sergeriver wrote:
It's very clear Kmarion. I'm saying the information is wrong. According to the NY Times article from 5 days ago, the rich increased their incomes more than twice in comparison with the taxes they pay. It's exactly the opposite the WSJ says. And I know you are not a Bush lover.Kmarion wrote:
Serge have you read the law? I like how you tell me to stop trying to sell the WSJ as if I was a Bush Fanboi. Clearly you missed a couple of my post in this thread. I'm not talking about overall dollar amounts. Their taxes paid grew at a faster rate than their income. I can't spell it out any more clearer than that.
I guess you really aren't too familiar with the NYT. Do yourself and read the tax law . Or maybe ask the Americans in the forum (especially the ones with kids) if they have gotten tax breaks since 2003.sergeriver wrote:
So, what you are saying is the NY Times is lying. They must hate Bush a lot. I wonder how much the WSJ loves him.Kmarion wrote:
I solved the problem of conflicting data by analyzing the numbers myself. More people have moved up as well.sergeriver wrote:
It's very clear Kmarion. I'm saying the information is wrong. According to the NY Times article from 5 days ago, the rich increased their incomes more than twice in comparison with the taxes they pay. It's exactly the opposite the WSJ says. And I know you are not a Bush lover.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Oh, noes, the Times has a liberal bias.Kmarion wrote:
I guess you really aren't too familiar with the NYT. Do yourself and read the tax law . Or maybe ask the Americans in the forum (especially the ones with kids) if they have gotten tax breaks since 2003.sergeriver wrote:
So, what you are saying is the NY Times is lying. They must hate Bush a lot. I wonder how much the WSJ loves him.Kmarion wrote:
I solved the problem of conflicting data by analyzing the numbers myself. More people have moved up as well.
Per the Times themselves http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A9629C8B63 .sergeriver wrote:
Oh, noes, the Times has a liberal bias.Kmarion wrote:
I guess you really aren't too familiar with the NYT. Do yourself and read the tax law . Or maybe ask the Americans in the forum (especially the ones with kids) if they have gotten tax breaks since 2003.sergeriver wrote:
So, what you are saying is the NY Times is lying. They must hate Bush a lot. I wonder how much the WSJ loves him.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Thanks. I know that. That's why I read it.Kmarion wrote:
Per the Times themselves http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A9629C8B63 .sergeriver wrote:
Oh, noes, the Times has a liberal bias.Kmarion wrote:
I guess you really aren't too familiar with the NYT. Do yourself and read the tax law . Or maybe ask the Americans in the forum (especially the ones with kids) if they have gotten tax breaks since 2003.
1. I'm taxed out the ass, and beyond roads, police/fire, and the military I get absolutely nothing from the government.
2. If George Bush cured cancer the New York Times would find a reason to support cancer. They are simply so jaded and close-minded, and so prone to misrepresent anything that doesn't reinforce their beliefs that I refuse to give credence to anything they have to say.
2. If George Bush cured cancer the New York Times would find a reason to support cancer. They are simply so jaded and close-minded, and so prone to misrepresent anything that doesn't reinforce their beliefs that I refuse to give credence to anything they have to say.
satellites?Dersmikner wrote:
1. I'm taxed out the ass, and beyond roads, police/fire, and the military I get absolutely nothing from the government
satellites? Well, I do have DirectTV but I believe they have their own satellites. I'm sure the government satellites for which my taxes pay are somehow part of the military, so I consider them covered in my explanation. I'm sure there are tiny little things that I've left out but in general the rest of the country gets shit from the government that I don't, and I pay more than the average cat. I should get the "free" cheese...
dang me being rich now i have to pay more taxes XD jk jk
Wow, real fucking informed you are.Dersmikner wrote:
1. I'm taxed out the ass, and beyond roads, police/fire, and the military I get absolutely nothing from the government.
2. If George Bush cured cancer the New York Times would find a reason to support cancer. They are simply so jaded and close-minded, and so prone to misrepresent anything that doesn't reinforce their beliefs that I refuse to give credence to anything they have to say.
Bush has NOT cut taxes
Bush's Ten Worst Economics Errors
The last time I spent any considerable amount of time here on bf2s, I was so far right it was ridiculous how neocon I was. Now, I have seen the light thanks to Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and LRC. I am a Libertarian who holds strongly to the Austrian School of Economics.
Bush's Ten Worst Economics Errors
The last time I spent any considerable amount of time here on bf2s, I was so far right it was ridiculous how neocon I was. Now, I have seen the light thanks to Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, and LRC. I am a Libertarian who holds strongly to the Austrian School of Economics.