Taxes

mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
edited March 2012 in A Moving Train
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38378992/ns/politics/


anyone have any thoughts on this... I am all for someone paying less in taxes, I just find it funny that people who talk about taxing the rich more do whatever they can to avoid paying taxes.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • normnorm Posts: 31,146
    hypocrite

    Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
    Pronunciation: \ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Anglo-French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritēs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
    Date: 13th century

    1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
    2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
  • inmytreeinmytree Posts: 4,741
    this happens all the time...it's the American way...as a tax hater, I figure you'd be in support of this...

    with that said, I think kerry is a jackass...
  • LMAO

    Kerry is a douche
    "Can't fuckin' Twitter, hate that shit" - EV
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    inmytree wrote:
    this happens all the time...it's the American way...as a tax hater, I figure you'd be in support of this...

    with that said, I think kerry is a jackass...


    that is why I said I didn't care if someone does whatever they can to avoid taxes, but it is more the idea that he wants rich people to be taxed more, just not him. that bothers me.
    Like Warren Buffet for example. he does what ever he can to get out of paying higher taxes, but then turns around and talks about how rich people don't pay enough in taxes. I don't get it. Am I missing something.

    Why do people always want to spend someone else's money?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • __ Posts: 6,651
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    that is why I said I didn't care if someone does whatever they can to avoid taxes, but it is more the idea that he wants rich people to be taxed more, just not him. that bothers me.
    Like Warren Buffet for example. he does what ever he can to get out of paying higher taxes, but then turns around and talks about how rich people don't pay enough in taxes. I don't get it. Am I missing something.

    Why do people always want to spend someone else's money?

    Could you please provide a source for that claim about Warren Buffett? I'm pretty sure he spends his own money, by the way.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    scb wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    that is why I said I didn't care if someone does whatever they can to avoid taxes, but it is more the idea that he wants rich people to be taxed more, just not him. that bothers me.
    Like Warren Buffet for example. he does what ever he can to get out of paying higher taxes, but then turns around and talks about how rich people don't pay enough in taxes. I don't get it. Am I missing something.

    Why do people always want to spend someone else's money?

    Could you please provide a source for that claim about Warren Buffett? I'm pretty sure he spends his own money, by the way.


    there are numorous sources, it was at a fundraising dinner for Clinton during the presidential campaign. Not sure which one you would like, the washington times is one of the first that pop up for google.

    Buffett is a rare breed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETgTNflAyo4

    no one is stopping him from paying more in taxes. I am sure if he offered it up, the government would take as much as he would give them

    edit: also look at his letter to his shareholders. His taxes are being paid. Some by him, and others by his company in the form of corporate taxes. He is clearly ommitting this when he talks about his tax rate to prove his point. I don't want this to turn into a thread on buffett, if you care to discuss his policies further SCB i will gladly PM with you. this is about a democrat in the senate trying to spend someone else's money while getting out of paying his own way. I shouldn't even have brought up buffett. Just read about what he calls look-through earnings.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Nothing hypocritical about Kerry or Buffet (assuming Warren Buffet actually said that -- I don't know if he did or didn't). The only thing they're obligated to do is pay taxes in accordance with the tax code or other state and federal law. If loopholes were closed and/or taxes were raised on the rich, they'd be obligated to comply with the changes. You'd have to be an idiot to not take advantage of whatever tax breaks you can legally claim. It's not like people should be donating extra money to the treasury. Plenty of corporations and wealthy people don't pay any taxes at all. People with very little money bear a disproportionate part of the tax burden. It's the law, not Warren Buffet's tax return or John Kerry's dock, that needs to be changed.
  • KDH12KDH12 Posts: 2,096
    on the surface it seems he did nothing wrong

    he bought it RI and parked in RI.


    that is more then people around here do, we go to Indiana to buy cheap shit on a lower tax rate and bring it back to Illinois
    **CUBS GO ALL THE WAY IN......never **
  • gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 23,303
    KDH12 wrote:
    on the surface it seems he did nothing wrong

    he bought it RI and parked in RI.


    that is more then people around here do, we go to Indiana to buy cheap shit on a lower tax rate and bring it back to Illinois
    yea, and people who live in missouri buy cars in illinois and have illinois registration yet still live in missouri. they do this to avoid paying annual personal property taxes to missouri...
    "You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry."  - Lincoln

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    I'd probably have a little problem with it if he was a state legislator who voted for that tax. But he is a US senator that had nothing to do with the law.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    Rich democrats like John Kerry don’t actually want to raise taxes on the rich and redistribute it (from a personal stand-point). But they understand that supporting a legislation that increases the tax burden on the rich and (supposedly) provides tax relief to the poor and middle class will buy a lot of votes. Votes will keep him them in office and increase their cash flow. It’s all about winning the popular(ity) vote.
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    Since we are on the topic of yahts. I thought I would post this. Isn't funny how the MSM didn't even report on this. A double standard maybe ? Naaaaaaaaaaa :roll: :roll:


    Jeff Greene denies his anchor damaged Belize reef


    Belize said Jeff Greene's yacht damaged a coral reef, racking up $1.87 million in unpaid fines.
    BY ADAM C. SMITH

    ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

    On a Tuesday morning five years ago, Summerwind, a three-story, 145-foot luxury yacht, maneuvered above the celebrated barrier reef that lines the coast of Belize.
    There it dropped anchor -- and plunged into controversy over severe damage to a coral reef system officially recognized by the United Nations as one of the world's most magnificent and irreplaceable treasures.
    ``The guys from the area told me they were beside the boat before it dropped anchor, and they were yelling and waving their hands, shouting, `No! No, don't drop here,' '' recounted Melanie McField, a marine scientist with the Smithsonian Institution who surveyed the reef soon after the incident. ``It was bad. There was a lot of damage.''
    The owner of that yacht? Billionaire Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jeff Greene.
    The real-estate mogul from Palm Beach was not aboard the boat at the time. And, oddly, Greene today says the incident never happened, despite extensive publicity about it at the time (including statements from his representatives), eyewitness accounts, scientific surveys of the damage and an extensive case file at the country's Department of Environment.
    ``Jeff Greene doesn't take a penny of special interest money, so career politicians are attacking him with ridiculous stories about something that didn't even happen five years ago on a boat he wasn't even on,'' said campaign spokesman Luis Vizcaino.
    `THAT'S OUR QUOTE'
    Asked how he could say it never happened when Greene's own employees at the time acknowledged a problem on the reef with Summerwind, Vizcaino declined to comment further: ``That's our position. That's our quote.''
    Greene bought Summerwind in 2003, registering it in the Marshall Islands, a well-known tax haven.
    The yacht has traveled across the world, hosting Greene, family members and celebrities, including Lindsay Lohan. He brought it to Nantucket last weekend to crash a meeting of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee where only his Democratic rival, Kendrick Meek, had been invited to speak.
    Summerwind -- like a 14-story building turned on its side -- accommodates about 10 guests in five suites.
    Greene boasted to Forbes in 2008 that he practically stole it for $6 million in 2002. It may have been a bargain purchase price, but it costs about $100,000 to fill up the tank on Summerwind, which burns about 50 gallons of fuel per hour.
    Like a second home, such luxury yachts often are docked well away from their owners when not in use, which appears to be what happened in this case.
    In Belize, the chief environmental officer of the Department of Environment, Martin Alegria, thumbed through a two-volume file on the Summerwind case in response to questions from The St. Petersburg Times.
    The case remains officially open, Alegria said in a phone interview, and if Greene or the Summerwind's then-captain returns to Belize they face fines of up to $1.87 million, given the amount of reef damage caused.
    Belize became much tougher on those who harm or pollute the 175-mile reef after the Summerwind incident occurred, Alegria said, but at the time local authorities failed to seize passports or press charges before Summerwind left.
    LARGE GASH
    Billy Leslie, president of the San Pedro Tourist Guide Council in Belize, said he saw the damage soon after the incident and closely followed the investigation. Summerwind's anchor caused a swath of destruction on the living reef 50 feet by 200 feet, he said.
    ``It was a very big deal at the time, but the police made mistakes in that they didn't apprehend anyone soon enough,'' he said. Summerwind representatives ``were very clear they were willing to pay to get this resolved, but by the time the order finally came to apprehend someone, they had taken off and never paid a penny.''
    Various news accounts at the time said the yacht's captain was interrogated but after several days passed without further action, Summerwind took off.
    ``My recollection is that the vessel was manned with the permanent crew at the time of the reported incident and that there were no guests onboard. The captain at the time had indicated to me that he had cooperated fully with the local authorities, including making a formal statement at a local police station,'' said Rupert Connor, who at the time worked as Greene's yacht manager.
    The boat left Belize as it was scheduled to, he said, ``and my office received no notification from the Belize authorities of any claim against the vessel or its environmental insurance policy.''
    `A LOST CAUSE'
    Alegria, Belize's chief environmental enforcement officer, said he may take a closer look at the case now that it has been brought to his attention, but in 2005 the matter effectively ended when Greene's yacht left.
    ``It's still an open case, but it was a lost cause after they left Belize,'' said Alegria, noting that Belize authorities have been much more successful punishing people responsible for major reef destruction in recent years.
    Adam C. Smith can be reached at <!-- e --><a href="mailto:asmith@sptimes.com">asmith@sptimes.com</a><!-- e -->.


    Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/07/23/1 ... z0uo08mVnx
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Since we are on the topic of yahts. I thought I would post this. Isn't funny how the MSM didn't even report on this. A double standard maybe ? Naaaaaaaaaaa :roll: :roll:


    Jeff Greene denies his anchor damaged Belize reef

    Maybe the MSM didn't report on this because no one knows who the hell he is... I never heard of him so I looked him up, and he's a democrat running for the US Senate, and not even leading in the polls... why exactly would the MSM care about him?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    The only thing they're obligated to do is pay taxes in accordance with the tax code or other state and federal law.
    Compliance with the law does not necessarily relieve someone of the burden of moral or philosophical hypocrisy per se. Standing on a platform of wealth redistribution whilst simultaneously squeezing every thin penny out of tax loopholes smacks of two-faced hypocrisy, legality be damned.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    MotoDC wrote:
    The only thing they're obligated to do is pay taxes in accordance with the tax code or other state and federal law.
    Compliance with the law does not necessarily relieve someone of the burden of moral or philosophical hypocrisy per se. Standing on a platform of wealth redistribution whilst simultaneously squeezing every thin penny out of tax loopholes smacks of two-faced hypocrisy, legality be damned.

    Since when is voting for taxes a couple percent higher than the other party "standing on a platform of wealth redistribution"? And docking your boat down the road a few miles is using a tax loophole?
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    Call it what you like, BRY; going out of your way to avoid doing X while speaking/voting/standing up for increasing X in general is hypocritical, yes. In our case, X = taxes.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Why is it that everyone holds everyone else's foot to the flame when it comes to stuff like this, yet it's fairly obvious no one would go out of their way to pay more than their fair share? If you go to a store, do you go out of your way to overpay for things? I didn't think so either.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    FiveB247x wrote:
    Why is it that everyone holds everyone else's foot to the flame when it comes to stuff like this, yet it's fairly obvious no one would go out of their way to pay more than their fair share? If you go to a store, do you go out of your way to overpay for things? I didn't think so either.

    Because your argument ignores half the point. Legally avoiding taxes in and of itself is not the issue under discussion -- what irks "everyone" (to quote you) is when people -particularly those in power- support the notion of building a better society through taxation -particularly of a progressive nature- whilst avoiding any and all taxes they can -particularly on notable items of opulence like recreational boats.

    "Particularly" is such a useful word. Provides just the right amount of sass without being rude. ;)
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    So basically, you want to hold people who have more money to higher standards and tougher taxes compared to the rest of society. How is that fair again?
    MotoDC wrote:
    Because your argument ignores half the point. Legally avoiding taxes in and of itself is not the issue under discussion -- what irks "everyone" (to quote you) is when people -particularly those in power- support the notion of building a better society through taxation -particularly of a progressive nature- whilst avoiding any and all taxes they can -particularly on notable items of opulence like recreational boats.

    "Particularly" is such a useful word. Provides just the right amount of sass without being rude. ;)
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    FiveB247x wrote:
    So basically, you want to hold people who have more money to higher standards and tougher taxes compared to the rest of society. How is that fair again?
    MotoDC wrote:
    Because your argument ignores half the point. Legally avoiding taxes in and of itself is not the issue under discussion -- what irks "everyone" (to quote you) is when people -particularly those in power- support the notion of building a better society through taxation -particularly of a progressive nature- whilst avoiding any and all taxes they can -particularly on notable items of opulence like recreational boats.

    "Particularly" is such a useful word. Provides just the right amount of sass without being rude. ;)
    Rich Americans paid much more in taxes until the Reagan administration. That's why there WAS a middle class then and why there isn't one now.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    My point is that many want to create equality by enforcing inequality in the laws. We should simply have a flat tax and there would be no argument.
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Rich Americans paid much more in taxes until the Reagan administration. That's why there WAS a middle class then and why there isn't one now.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    FiveB247x wrote:
    My point is that many want to create equality by enforcing inequality in the laws. We should simply have a flat tax and there would be no argument.
    Jeanwah wrote:
    Rich Americans paid much more in taxes until the Reagan administration. That's why there WAS a middle class then and why there isn't one now.
    A flat tax for all to pay is not fair to the poor.
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    FiveB247x wrote:
    We should simply have a flat tax and there would be no argument.
    :lol::lol::lol::lol:
    That's funny :)
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    How is a flat tax a bad idea? Everyone pays x % on the normal taxable items... how is that unfair?
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • Drowned OutDrowned Out Posts: 6,056
    FiveB247x wrote:
    How is a flat tax a bad idea? Everyone pays x % on the normal taxable items... how is that unfair?
    You know the answer to this: Someone making $100/day and paying $10 tax is at a severe disadvantage in comparison to someone paying $10,000 on $100,000. The disadvantage is even more pronounced in goods and service taxes. Now that I've supplied the answer you knew was coming....let's hear that rebuttal ;)
  • Stypo420Stypo420 Posts: 519
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38378992/ns/politics/


    anyone have any thoughts on this... I am all for someone paying less in taxes, I just find it funny that people who talk about taxing the rich more do whatever they can to avoid paying taxes.

    My thought is RI should raise its damn boat taxes we could use the money. ;)

    Edit- Kerry is a moron.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I believe a flat tax is still the fairest way to do taxes equally and consistently. Any system will discriminate or over/under compensate one group or another in some fashion, so there really is no other perfect answer to rectify such disparity.
    You know the answer to this: Someone making $100/day and paying $10 tax is at a severe disadvantage in comparison to someone paying $10,000 on $100,000. The disadvantage is even more pronounced in goods and service taxes. Now that I've supplied the answer you knew was coming....let's hear that rebuttal ;)
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • JeanwahJeanwah Posts: 6,363
    FiveB247x wrote:
    I believe a flat tax is still the fairest way to do taxes equally and consistently. Any system will discriminate or over/under compensate one group or another in some fashion, so there really is no other perfect answer to rectify such disparity.
    You know the answer to this: Someone making $100/day and paying $10 tax is at a severe disadvantage in comparison to someone paying $10,000 on $100,000. The disadvantage is even more pronounced in goods and service taxes. Now that I've supplied the answer you knew was coming....let's hear that rebuttal ;)
    You must not be poor then.
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    Well is the issue about doing what's best for me in the singular or society as a whole? Anyone can say what helps them best.

    Also - one of my favorite quotes: "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" - Benjamin Franklin
    Jeanwah wrote:
    You must not be poor then.
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • MotoDCMotoDC Posts: 947
    FiveB247x wrote:
    So basically, you want to hold people who have more money to higher standards and tougher taxes compared to the rest of society. How is that fair again?

    You either aren't reading or aren't understanding my posts as I haven't said anything specific about a taxation methodology preference. I'll boil it down: if you're going to preach it, live it. If you're going to preach family values from your soapbox, don't boink the maid. If you're going to preach clean air, don't drive a Hummer. If you're going to preach wealth redistribution and/or increased taxes for the "common good", don't move your $7M yatch to another jurisdiction so you don't have to pay the taxes in your home state.
Sign In or Register to comment.