Politifact has a bit of a problem is distinguishing facts and opinions, as well as manipulating any ambiguitities to come out with whatever they politically favour at the time.
Then why don’t the 50% of Americans who don’t pay any “pay their fair share”?
“Wealth” is different than “income”. For normal people, the wealthiest have the lowest incomes. They are known as retirees.
Otherwise, the fact is that the truely rich make their money from dividends and capital gains. This is actually a debate worth engaging in . Dividends and stock gains have already been taxed at the corporate level. The most recent thing I read was that it actually works out to a total of over a 50% tax rate when you combine the corporate and personal taxes. It’s the same profits being taxed again for no other reason than it is changing hands. I think there should be a premium to reflect that corporate stock (as opposed to owning a proprietorship or partnership interest) is a limited liability investment. It’s a weird sort of insurance policy that people should pay for.
[QUTOE]Double Edit: There is an overwhelming scientific consensus about global warming, with the dissent mostly coming from economic rather than scientific sources (though economists such as Stern have compiled a report in its favour). The wiki I linked has several scientific papers you may want to peruse.
[/QUOTE]
Wikipedia and Politifact simply don’t cut it here. More recently there have been geoscientists and solar researchers telling us what we have known all along: the sun and the earth matter.
Plus, that is beside the fact that we have not seen any warming in 15 years.
Global warming ceased to be a scientific question years ago; it is now a political debate. The number of useful idiots one side or the other can muster doesn’t mean squat.
Dude, “society” had it’s say but millions of citizens have been dictated to by a few robed wizards in the courts.
Not that I concede the point, but just to give you the chance to agree with the present dictatorship.
That particular issue will go to the Supreme Court and if the citizenry lose, then don’t start complaining when someone like Rick Santorum takes the Presidency, stacks the courts with his ideological peers, and then rams a federal consitutional amendment through.
'Cause hey, in your world, principles are second to politics. Historical truths are mere inconveniences, right?
Denying a majority the ability to oppress a minority isn’t much like a dictatorship in my book, especially when there is absolutely zero real stakes for the majority in maintaining its oppression. In fact, that’s basically one of the basic premises of the constitution.
In any event, this is some significant thread drift. Hey, let’s try to prove whether abortion supporters are smarter than pro-lifers. We’ve already hit on AGW and gay marriage indirectly.
The conclusion in the post that swing states are actually the smartest ones is illuminating.
I still stick to my own contention that Democrats have a bifurcated support among the best and worst minds. Overall, the average intelligence is the same for Democrats and Republicans.
They do, just not the income tax. As a group, they receive such a minuscule fraction of GDP, our representative democracy has determined they are not subject to the income tax, though that does not excuse them from all the other taxes that provide revenue for government services.
It’s interesting Falun Gong is oppressed, but they have it better than gays in a majority of this country since they can marry freely. Do you think they would choose parades over the ability to marry? You just defeated your own argument.
They still pay a lower percentage of all federal taxes. See #109
If you have an issue with the regressive nature of state and local taxes, take it up with your state and local tax entities. Don’t try to make up for it on the federal level.
i.e. Don’t complain to the electric company about your water bill.
I’m for gay marriage. I think it should be dealt with on the state level, because it will take less time for gay marriage to be nationwide. If it was a federal issue it would take longer and no gays could get married in the meantime. I’ve written a thorough explanation here.
Homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals, when it comes to marriage. Anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex, with a few reasonable limits on age and relatives. What they want, and I want for them, is a new or different right. I’m sure someone is screaming “They want to marry the person they love! That’s not different!” at their screen as they read this. It is different. Rephrasing ‘someone of the same sex’ to ‘the person they love’ only changes the phrase, not reality. Dogs and cats are pets, but calling a dog a ‘pet’ doesn’t make it the same as a cat.
And to be clear, they pay a lower percentage of their income not just a lower share of the tax load, on the federal level. I’m sick of all the lies about that. Sound fiscal policy is not based on envy and lies. If you want to convince a rational person that taxes on higher incomes should be raised, talk about revenue and finding the top of the Laffer Curve. If you absolutely cannot make a rational argument based on facts and reason, talk about how they can afford to pay more. Do not whine about a lie.
I don’t care. I was having a discussion with 66Scorpio about fairness. You responded to one of my comments to 66Scorpio about fairness. If you don’t want to talk about fairness, or you don’t want others to mistakenly conclude you are talking about fairness, then kindly refrain from hijacking other’s conversations.
I’ve yet to find an actual rational person who didn’t realize that it’s a concept based on a curve. I’ve found plenty of irrational people who’re convinced they’re rational for rejecting something they misunderstand. The Laffer Curve is not a line that shows less taxes always equals more revenue and higher taxes always equals less revenue. It is a general idea that states that tax rates that are too high or too low reduce revenue and that there is a ‘sweet spot’ for maximum revenue.
Do these so-called rational people believe that a 100% tax rate would maximize revenue, or do they misunderstand the idea of the Laffer Curve?
