hey i live there now........Man With No Name wrote:
lol northern virginia is full of liberals lol
Your denial is amusing.Bertster7 wrote:
What massive drop in revenues?lowing wrote:
I guess the fact that the comptroller is a democrat has nothing to do with his conclusions, since admitting that millionaires have left, would strike at the heart of his entire ideology of taxing achievement to reward non-achievement.Bertster7 wrote:
No it didn't.lowing wrote:
The article already admitted that the extreme loss could really only come from the departure of the rich from the area. Allowing that some of it could be economy.2000 returns are in so far. From a total of 6000 affected. Last year 3000 returns were in by now. Until the end of the year this tells us very little.At least part of the drop-off in Marylanders whose returns showed more than $1 million in taxable income was certainly due to the recession and the decline it has brought in earnings from capital gains and real estate. And the figures do not include taxpayers who filed for extensions.
The article highlighted both sides of the argument, yet you have only paid any attention to a single point made by a single individual within it.
Also the massive drop in revenues is forcing them to review this. If they are so convinced that the rich are staying gladly accepting punishment for being rich why the need for a review?
16% drop in revenues is what I read in the article. Which is less than the increase in unemployment. It's big, but not really taking the markets and employment into consideration.
Why have a review? Because there has been a drop in revenues. It only seems prudent.
As I have said before - come back to us with complete figures at the end of the year when everyones tax returns have been filed. At the moment it's mostly just speculation.
Yes, one of the people saying the drop in revenues isn't caused by the tax increases is a democrat, but likewise the one person saying it is is a republican. What's your point? The opposition party opposes it and is quick to criticise it - what a tremendous surprise.
Your "proof", is nothing of the sort.
millionaire filing has dropped by a 1/3 from 3000 down to 2000. in the same time period as the previous year.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#top … rking.html
everyone seems to see it but you. Oh well.
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
Corporations don't pay taxes, the consumer pays them.
Tax those rich corporations! Go on.
Tax those rich corporations! Go on.
What's going to happen when the job market gets flooded, and they'll be able to hire someone to do your job for a fraction of the cost?lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
sigh. why must we continue to correlate how people act according to how the mass media 'boxes' them.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Tax the people who run them. Make laws so that its illegal for them to pass down the burden of paying large amounts of taxes onto consumers...ATG wrote:
Corporations don't pay taxes, the consumer pays them.
Tax those rich corporations! Go on.
In fact, just speaking my mind here, anyone please feel free to challenge me on this, but isnt the biggest problem with todays corporate world is that the people running a corporation are only held accountable for their actions only a fraction of the time they fuck up?
Who are you, Macbeth?FatherTed wrote:
sigh. why must we continue to correlate how people act according to how the mass media 'boxes' them.
How can you punish someone who is practically unpunishable. The rich are never punished.
I think lowing is trying to argue how important it is that the rich continue to piss on the poor in the trickle down effect in economies of scale.
There are lots of rich people who help the poor more than the gov. Sadly, theres not that many of them =/AussieReaper wrote:
I think lowing is trying to argue how important it is that the rich continue to piss on the poor in the trickle down effect in economies of scale.
call it what you want, just get back with me when you start asking poor people for a job.AussieReaper wrote:
I think lowing is trying to argue how important it is that the rich continue to piss on the poor in the trickle down effect in economies of scale.
Get back to me when the rich do nothing but hire the absolute cheapest labour they can find.lowing wrote:
call it what you want, just get back with me when you start asking poor people for a job.AussieReaper wrote:
I think lowing is trying to argue how important it is that the rich continue to piss on the poor in the trickle down effect in economies of scale.
So your "proof" is that self-centered narcissists like to protect their munnies and don't give a flying fuck about the man next to them?
Stop the press!
Stop the press!
I need around tree fiddy.
So 2/3 of the millionaires are still paying the higher rate of taxes in Maryland. Of the other third, no doubt a load of them are simply no longer millionaires. The rest probably moved to another state, who will enjoy an increase in their tax revenues until they also raise their taxes a bit and the Maryland leavers all come back.
How did this not result in more taxes being raised from the rich?
How did this not result in more taxes being raised from the rich?
And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
I don't see the link between the wealth gap and the creation of jobs and the circulation of money in a society.lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
Instead, I see the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as being counterproductive. Spending is reduced and the prospects of growth are narrowed down. It was my understanding that the key to a balanced and flourishing society was a very large and strong middle class.
As for the argument that we're stealing from the rich their incentive to produce, what about the poors' incentive to produce? Is that not taken away when the government (or any other regulating body for that matter) does nothing to narrow the class divide - but instead favors that gap? What would a poor man be working for - or more importantly how - if he knew that the system only favors those who are already rich thus making it even more difficult to better his situation?
ƒ³
you should come out to the bar i work at in Purcellville...usmarine wrote:
hey i live there now........Man With No Name wrote:
lol northern virginia is full of liberals lol
and lowing... you are arguing with idiots... but i'm sure you know that...lol
Love is the answer
The poors incentive to produce is taken away by your insistance that they get paid for nothing, for NOT producing.oug wrote:
I don't see the link between the wealth gap and the creation of jobs and the circulation of money in a society.lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
Instead, I see the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few as being counterproductive. Spending is reduced and the prospects of growth are narrowed down. It was my understanding that the key to a balanced and flourishing society was a very large and strong middle class.
As for the argument that we're stealing from the rich their incentive to produce, what about the poors' incentive to produce? Is that not taken away when the government (or any other regulating body for that matter) does nothing to narrow the class divide - but instead favors that gap? What would a poor man be working for - or more importantly how - if he knew that the system only favors those who are already rich thus making it even more difficult to better his situation?
The rich spend, they spend way more than you do. So you really are suggesting that we live in a country where if you refuse to spend your money it will taken from you and soent for you? How about you? when do we get to come after your investments and savings?
If that were true they wouldn't be rich.lowing wrote:
The rich spend, they spend way more than you do.
Not at all. The REPUBLICANS in Maryland are the only ones saying it's an issue. Which is to be expected. The article says nothing of the sort.lowing wrote:
Your denial is amusing.Bertster7 wrote:
What massive drop in revenues?lowing wrote:
I guess the fact that the comptroller is a democrat has nothing to do with his conclusions, since admitting that millionaires have left, would strike at the heart of his entire ideology of taxing achievement to reward non-achievement.
Also the massive drop in revenues is forcing them to review this. If they are so convinced that the rich are staying gladly accepting punishment for being rich why the need for a review?
16% drop in revenues is what I read in the article. Which is less than the increase in unemployment. It's big, but not really taking the markets and employment into consideration.
Why have a review? Because there has been a drop in revenues. It only seems prudent.
As I have said before - come back to us with complete figures at the end of the year when everyones tax returns have been filed. At the moment it's mostly just speculation.
Yes, one of the people saying the drop in revenues isn't caused by the tax increases is a democrat, but likewise the one person saying it is is a republican. What's your point? The opposition party opposes it and is quick to criticise it - what a tremendous surprise.
Your "proof", is nothing of the sort.
millionaire filing has dropped by a 1/3 from 3000 down to 2000. in the same time period as the previous year.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#top … rking.html
everyone seems to see it but you. Oh well.
Returns filed are down, but since the deadline (with extensions) is not till October, that is meaningless. Especially considering there are 6000 people affected by this, so last year only half the returns were filed by this point anyway, whereas now it is a 3rd. After the deadline is reached then we will see.
You hit the key word, the EARNED it, you didn't. It should not be for you to decide what should be done with others money simply because you don't have it. The rich do enough for society by providing jobs and opportunity for the rest of us. They should not be charged with baby sitting as well. they have lives they wish to get on with, lives they have WORKED FOR and EARNED. Why do you feel they should be obligated to spend their lives looking after the rest of us when they have already contributed MORE than anyone else to the growth of a community? How about you start pulling your own load before you insist on someone else taking up your slackSpark wrote:
And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
Or get it from Daddy.lowing wrote:
You hit the key word, the EARNED itSpark wrote:
And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.lowing wrote:
bottomline is folks, we have got to let the rich be rich, and not steal from them their money or incentive to produce.
We need them to continue to grow their businesses so we can continue to EARN ( note I said EARN) a living from their growth.
All that is happening with taxes such as this is removing the incentive for the rich to produce and grow. Nothing more.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 9#p2637789Bertster7 wrote:
Not at all. The REPUBLICANS in Maryland are the only ones saying it's an issue. Which is to be expected. The article says nothing of the sort.lowing wrote:
Your denial is amusing.Bertster7 wrote:
What massive drop in revenues?
16% drop in revenues is what I read in the article. Which is less than the increase in unemployment. It's big, but not really taking the markets and employment into consideration.
Why have a review? Because there has been a drop in revenues. It only seems prudent.
As I have said before - come back to us with complete figures at the end of the year when everyones tax returns have been filed. At the moment it's mostly just speculation.
Yes, one of the people saying the drop in revenues isn't caused by the tax increases is a democrat, but likewise the one person saying it is is a republican. What's your point? The opposition party opposes it and is quick to criticise it - what a tremendous surprise.
Your "proof", is nothing of the sort.
millionaire filing has dropped by a 1/3 from 3000 down to 2000. in the same time period as the previous year.
http://www.stumbleupon.com/toolbar/#top … rking.html
everyone seems to see it but you. Oh well.
Returns filed are down, but since the deadline (with extensions) is not till October, that is meaningless. Especially considering there are 6000 people affected by this, so last year only half the returns were filed by this point anyway, whereas now it is a 3rd. After the deadline is reached then we will see.
wrong not just republicans
ya mean like Ted Kennedy?Cybargs wrote:
Or get it from Daddy.lowing wrote:
You hit the key word, the EARNED itSpark wrote:
And you haven't yet explained why someone earning a million a year is any less able to do such a thing than someone earning one and a half.
Anyway, it is daddy's money to give, not yours. I sense wealth envy. If you love wealth so much, go earn it, don't steal it.