MichaelS

I am talking pre 80s. The tax code had nothing to do with the ills of the 80s either. Unless you are talking about all the cuts the actor made that set us down this road of destruction.

Yeah, his "moderate" title kind of took a sharp cut to the right. The truth eventually comes out.

That is a whole different discussion.

You could enjoy the bounty that are the programs for the poor if you wanted to take a pay cut. I hear it is totally worth it.

Top tax rates were significantly higher decades ago and the country was far better off as a whole. That wasn't the only reason but it certainly contributed some. Here is the other thing. As wages have not increased as they did in the past the bottom tier cannot really afford to pay taxes. If you take even 10% from a family of three making a combined $40,000 that doesn't do any of us any good. They now have to likely make choices about food, clothing, shelter etc. Money in the pockets of the poor and middle class drive our economy, not the top. So we have to make a choice as to whether we want the ability to accumulate staggering amounts of wealth in the hands of a few or have the bottom and middle take home more of the pie to then purchase things, save for retirement etc and have our economy growing again. They ARE mutually exclusive. We have tried the staggering wealth concentration for the last few decades and look at where we are.

That is certainly up to each. In this case I am willing to pay a little more in taxes on a percentage basis so the wife can stay at home and us live in a cheaper house. I will most likely up my pretax retirement contributions which will bring down the taxable amount and get it closer. However I am fine with how much I pay in taxes. As I mentioned above, I am nowhere near the amount of money where I would not want more even if it increased my taxes.

I know what the top rate is. But who actually pays that much, pretty much nobody including the guy in your example making $500k. "The richest 1% pay an effective federal income tax rate of 24.7% in 2014; someone making an average of $75,000 is paying a 19.7% rate." To your question about the video. The guy that has the stay at home wife and don't save. They don't have nearly as much income to enjoy. As grumpy cat went into above they don't have the income to enjoy some of the government paid for benefits. It doesn't take into account so many nuances of the tax code. It is just too simple an example to be truthful. Here is a fun example of exactly what myself and others have said. The wife and I when both working paid a lower effective tax rate than with just me working because we no longer have the same level of deductions because we downsized and aren't paying so much in taxes.

I am not in any way saying the current tax system is perfect. By which I mean the amount of paperwork and shenanigans required, deductions etc. Pretty much the opposite however I do not agree that a progressive system is bad.

Where to start. Your effective rate is going to be nowhere near that 40%. Probably more in the 20's. My effective in this scenario is probably 10%. So not as great a difference as you are trying to say. I always find it interesting that people in this country view making enough to pay a significant amount in taxes as some huge burden on them. In countries such as India it is a great honor to be making enough to have to pay taxes. Do you not think the person making $40k would gladly pay more taxes to make $500k? This country does not continue to function in any manner with say a flat 10%. So person making $500k if you wish to continue to live in a country enabling you to make $500k you have to pay more. Or hey you could stop making $500k if you don't want to pay so many taxes and just live off $40k. See how you like that.

My day is now fulfilled.

At the time I had other things going on and was not paying attention to this specific issue. It appears much further back in time Mr. Biden also threatened to try to stop Bush 1 or two I forget and don't care from appointing a justice. As stated 99.99% of politicians are hypocrites. I don't agree with anyone doing it specifically because the other party is in power. These senators have a job to do and that job doesn't include blocking someone simply because the other party is appointing them. They should only be voting no if said person lacks reasonable qualifications. But that wasn't my original point either.

The situation that video is made on is some of the biggest bullshit I have ever heard. That situation is not at all like real life. Clearly a purely propaganda video.

I agree the super delegates being handed to hillary makes this a rigged contest. If Hillary gets nominated because of that I see some defections. I personally would vote for The Donald just because it is such a farce.

Where praytell did I say anything of the sort? I didn't so the asshattery is on you.

I think you are not understanding why I am saying and not the only one saying that Cruz has a conflict of interest. Chuck was not going to potentially have the SCOTUS determine if he could be president.

I don't see how that is the same at all.

Because it isn't? That is how the system works. The only person with a conflict of interest is Senator that nobody likes Cruz.

I saw that. That is just showing off.

Maybe that was why he had to use a machete instead of an assault rifle.

For once I think you and I agree. This is something really not touched on at all in the circus republican debates. Only The Bern really has.

You have to really want to do it if you are going machete. So much more personal.

For this reason, " Instead, the proposed language in the Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas rulemaking simply clarifies the distinction between motor vehicles and nonroad vehicles such as dirt bikes and snowmobiles. " As for makers of after-market parts it is far easier to fine them than try to track down every owner. Should you be able to purchase a kit to remove all the emissions equipment from your street vehicle? No. There was a huge issue with I think it was Edge and their diesel tuners that defeated emissions on trucks that were running on the street. I don't see how it will affect race cars. That isn't their target. Their targets are vehicles with race parts used on the street.

And more writing to dispute the chicken littles. http://blog.caranddriver.com/no-the-epa-didnt-just-outlaw-your-race-car/

It is amazing how cheap you can find baby clothes at some second hand stores. I say some because some of them are still not cheap. You can get many little outfits etc for $20. At first the wife was not too on board with second hand. But once she stopped working and we lost 45% of our income she saw the light.

The thing is who doesn't believe this would be something Clinton and her campaign would be capable of? That is really the issue.