Sanders just submitted college for all bill.

[Conservative65]

ClosedCaption said unless you're a hedge fund manager, you won't be paying. It still involves the thought process of someone other than the kid's parents doing the paying.

I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says. So again, you nor I will be affected. Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?

wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else

Taxes are force. Dont like taxes? Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.

too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for

Um, no you don't.

Then no one does according to how you think.

 

[Conservative65]

\

easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.

and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end.

Aren't you lefties always talking about equality. If so, why shouldn't everyone be paying the SAME percentage on income. Isn't that equal?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

\

easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.

and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end.

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .

Yes he did.

He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end

How did he raise the lower?

 

[Penelope]

I didnt say that, thats what the bill itself says. So again, you nor I will be affected. Do you want me to shed a tear for the Hedge Fund fuck up's?

wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else

Taxes are force. Dont like taxes? Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.

too bad for you fuckstick i live in a country that allows me to have a say in what we tax and what we pay for

Um, no you don't.

Then no one does according to how you think.

Really I vote all the time, even for mileages , and well I guess I always get the short end of the stick. What am I doing wrong since I no longer even think our vote counts.

 

[Conservative65]

\

and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end.

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .

Yes he did.

He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end

How did he raise the lower?

When Reagan took office, there were a dozen or more brackets for all filing categories. In 1987, it went to five. Based on the consolidation, those on the lower end paid at a lower rate taking into account the income ranges at which each percentage applied.

 

[Penelope]

\

and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end.

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .

Yes he did.

He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end

How did he raise the lower?

I know its wiki but the links check out. We have to remember back then we were yet in growth mode and right now we are not in any growth.


The top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%.[4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Conservative65]

\

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

The top rate went from 39.6% all the way down to 35%. Wow!

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% . He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end.

Imagine it was 70% when Reagan got in and he brought it down to 50% .

Yes he did.

He also lowered he lower bracket as well, but then he lowered the top bracket again and raised the lower in the end

How did he raise the lower?

I know its wiki but the links check out. We have to remember back then we were yet in growth mode and right now we are not in any growth.


The top tax rate for individuals was lowered from 50% to 28% while the bottom rate was raised from 11% to 15%.[4] Many lower level tax brackets were consolidated, and the upper income level of the bottom rate (married filing jointly) was increased from $5,720/year to $29,750/year. This package ultimately consolidated tax brackets from fifteen levels of income to four levels of income.[5] This would be the only time in the history of the U.S. income tax (which dates back to the passage of the Revenue Act of 1862) that the top rate was reduced and the bottom rate increased concomitantly. In addition, capital gains faced the same tax rate as ordinary income.

The rate structure also maintained a novel "bubble rate." The rates were not 15%/28%, as widely reported. Rather, the rates were 15%/28%/33%/28%. As a result, for taxpayers after a certain income level, TRA86 provided a flat tax of 28%. This was jettisoned in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, otherwise known as the "Bush tax increase", which violated his Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

Tax Reform Act of 1986 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.

 

[Arianrhod]

And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.

How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.

How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?

Shortfall? How do you figure?

 

[Arianrhod]

And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.

How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?

Shortfall? How do you figure?

Offshoring mostly:

Walmart: Report On $76 Billion Hidden In Tax Havens 'Flawed'

Then there's the additional $6.2 billion they cost the taxpayer:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

And they're not the only ones (just the most conspicuous). A sampling of S&P 500 companies:

[CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes

But Conservative65 wants to go knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy-banks instead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And today we still have almost half that pay 0%.

How many poor people would you have to tax at what rate (and by what means do you imagine they'd pay it?) to make up the $6 billion shortfall the Waltons incur every year?

Shortfall? How do you figure?

Offshoring mostly:

Walmart: Report On $76 Billion Hidden In Tax Havens 'Flawed'

Then there's the additional $6.2 billion they cost the taxpayer:

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

And they're not the only ones (just the most conspicuous). A sampling of S&P 500 companies:

[CHART] U.S. Corporations That Pay No Taxes

But Conservative65 wants to go knocking on doors in working-class neighborhoods confiscating the kids' piggy-banks instead.

Offshoring mostly:

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Thanks for the links. Do you have any that actually back up your claim?

Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".

Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I live in a blue state...they sheeple what ever the FEDs want...,,,true states rights involves the Feds respecting states and not trying to blackmail them into every hairbrained idea

So education is a "hare-brained idea"? I see.

Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.

I agree. Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea. That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.

wrong everyone is affected once we all agree that it is A-Ok to force someone else to pay for something for someone else

Taxes are force. Dont like taxes? Then move somewhere that doesnt have them, like death.

Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.

Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.

You get something from funding the streets. I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.

No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it. Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it

Actually, if you don't live in my city, you don't fund my streets. If you DO live in my city, then you're using the streets.

Nice hairsplitting, though. The fact remains that streets are public property, and that kid's brain ain't.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Education handed out as a party favor is a hare-brained idea.

I agree. Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea. That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.

Being responsible for funding your own kid's college, don't demand someone else do it.

Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.

You get something from funding the streets. I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.

No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it. Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it

I don't use your streets but I still fund it. That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level. However, I meant streets in general.

I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.

you would get as much as I do by funding your street. Improving America

Wrong. One more time for the thinking-impaired among us: streets are public property. Educations aren't.

 

[Vigilante]

Well, he IS Santa Clause...along with most of the Motley Crew!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree. Education based on academic achievement, however, is an excellent idea. That's the way it used to be, back in the 1950s y'all pine for so much.

Sorry, I dont want to fund your street either but thats not how taxes work.

You get something from funding the streets. I get nothing from funding some kid's college because his parents don't do it.

No I dont, I dont use your street dumbass but I still fund it. Now as soon as you and your neighbors reject funds and manage the maintenance on your street then tell me all about it

I don't use your streets but I still fund it. That makes it a wash if you really want to get to a specific level. However, I meant streets in general.

I get nothing from funding social welfare programs.

you would get as much as I do by funding your street. Improving America

What guarantee can you provide that funding college on the behalf of the lazy pieces of shit that won't do it for their own kids would improve America. I need proof.

They just "know" that sending every dipshit who doesn't want to get a job right after high school to college is somehow going to produce a smarter, more useful populace, all evidence from actually speaking with college kids notwithstanding.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Summary of Sen. Sanders’ College for All Act


Eliminate Undergraduate Tuition at 4-year Public Colleges and Universities. This legislation

would provide $47 billion per year to states to eliminate undergraduate tuition and fees at public

colleges and universities.

Today, total tuition at public colleges and universities amounts to about $70 billion per year. Under

the College for All Act, the federal government would cover 67% of this cost, while the states would

be responsible for the remaining 33% of the cost. (then above it says states get 47 billion a year, so why not have the fed gov to pay the cost)

To qualify for federal funding, states must meet a number of requirements designed to protect

students, ensure quality, and reduce ballooning costs. States will need to maintain spending on their

higher education systems, on academic instruction, and on need-based financial aid. In addition,

colleges and universities must reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.

States would be able to use funding to increase academic opportunities for students, hire new faculty,

and provide professional development opportunities for professors.

No funding under this program may be used to fund administrator salaries, merit-based fina

4

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforallsummary/?inline=filencial aid,

For one thing I do not think colleges should keep raising rates as they are, needs to be a ban placed on the costs, so much of the classroom is done via Skype and well at home on personal computers. I do not believe in tenure either.

also anything free, is well taken for granted.

also a lot of our property tax goes to public schools, the two year college we have and also the 4 year university we have in our county, mileage increases.

Most can't afford higher property taxes, sales tax hikes or state income tax raises, so this is going to affect everyone is it not?

When I went to college, awhile ago, the special interest rate was 9,9% interest on student loans. I'm don't want to go back to that, and I do think college should be affordable to all, but not on the tax payers back.

I'm not understanding this I guess.

How do you propose making college affordable for all? The only proposals I seem to hear form the left involves doing so by making someone else pay for what parents aren't doing.

easy ... you stop waging stupid wars and start making corporations and the top 1% pay the taxes they should and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

funny how the right never thinks there's enough money to do good things but has all the money in the world to subsidize corporations.

and restoring the tax rate that existed prior to shrub becoming president.

Obama brought back the 39.6% bracket already.

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

and I wonder if people like you understand that for most people that was worth a couple of hundred dollars and for the top income earners it was worth a fortune.

If you don't aspire to do more than flip burgers or landscape yards, exactly how much do you expect to get? You weren't having much withheld to start with.

 

[Arianrhod]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.

It means keeping funds in overseas banks. The Caymans are the usual place, but there are others.

Overseas earnings kept overseas aren't a "$6 billion shortfall".

They are taxes that, if corporations actually were "people," would have to be paid.

Because Walmart isn't paying them, the middle-class is.

Welfare paid to employees isn't a "$6 billion shortfall" either.

SNAP benefits are paid for by your tax dollars.

You can dance around the terminology, but the fact is that if corporations find work-arounds, the individual taxpayer who doesn't have the luxury of hiding his assets, pays more. And closing those loopholes would be far less labor-intensive, and result in far more net revenue, than bullying the working poor.

Any thoughts about the chart at the last link?

 

[Cecilie1200]

this move might cost Sanders the nomination. The general folk is too cash strapped right now for this
proposal to fly

IT'S NOT ABOUT "THE GENERAL FOLK," IT'S ABOUT A ONE-HALF PERCENT TAX ON HEDGE FUND TRANSACTIONS!

Trick question: Does anyone here even know what a hedge fund is?

Translated: "You're hurting someone other than yourself, so it's okay!"

Only if you don't understand the issue.

Besides, "end entitlements", "privatize Social Security," "let 'em eat cake," etc., etc. is your party's schtick.

No, Chuckles, I understand both the issue and your drivel. That's what you're saying: we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?

And lower taxes is not an entitlement, unless you're so piss-stupid as to think that A) every dollar a person gets actually belongs to the government, and every dollar not taken in taxes is a "generous gift" from said government, and B) this is a good and positive state of affairs.

 

[Arianrhod]

That's what you're saying: we're not taking it from you, so why should you care?

Unless you're a member of the Walton family, in which case you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When people say that, I wonder if they know ALL tax brackets went down not just the upper ones?

Doesn't fit their narrative.

Or they just don't know.

that's right.. .keep ignoring the actual facts:

False Tax Claims

Almost half of the people in this country that earn an income don't pay income taxes. In fact, many get more back than was withheld when filing a return.

Who? Who is working and not paying taxes, those making min. wage with 4 kids?

Nice try. 46% of households do not pay federal income taxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/09/19/us/politics/who-doesnt-pay-federal-taxes.html?_r=0

Since it's the NY Times, though, note how when they went down to state taxes, they had to switch over to "larger percentage of their income", just so we don't get too clear a picture of how little of the total tax burden most people actually shoulder.