Really? Wow! What’s the username?
Trying to remember if I noticed anybody being a total horndog with Doper chiquitas.
Christ. You said that I said I was a lawyer “to bolster my arguments.” In the post you quoted, I said I was a tax lawyer because I was quoting a post where Guinistasia said I was a “finance lawyer.” I was therefore just correcting her on the type of law I practice.
Therefore, neither in that post nor anywhere else have I said I was a lawyer for the purpose of bolstering my argument.
Oh, good! You should be able to answer my question in post #152 then. Thank heavens you wandered along!
By special request 
. . .
The taxes relevant to this discussion are the federal employment taxes that currently have a cap on the “wages” to whch they apply (note that these taxes apply to “wages” technically and not “income,” but for working stiffs like most of us it’s the same thing). Therefore, we’re talking about FICA at least (not sure about FUTA, and I believe the Hospital Tax is not subject to a cap (but it’s really low)). I’d have to check to see which of the others are subject to the cap, but FICA’s the biggest one anyway. City/county commuter taxes are only relevant if their amount is tied to FICA.
Obama has said at various times that he would raise the cap or that he would create a “donut hole” where the cap doesn’t raise but is lifted for people that make over a certain amount ($200k or $250k I believe).
Therefore, by only taking into account income taxes, the table doesn’t show the tax increase that would apply to people with jobs who make an amount over the current cap.
Ok, so the study doesn’t evaluate possible changes in social security taxes for those making over $250,000 / year (see Box 2 of the Tax Policy Center Report). FTR, Obama has not made a specific proposal to raise these taxes, though he’s mentioned this as a possible Social Security fix. This isn’t surprising, as the actuarial figures in Social Security have improved somewhat.
In other words, Obama raises taxes on the $600,000+ set. Those at ~$226,000 and below get a tax cut: those at the top of that range receive higher cuts in absolute terms than those at the bottom (though by percentage it differs).
For those under ~$110,000, Obama delivers a higher tax cut than McCain.
Your comment about employment taxes did not apply. Even if they were raised for those making above $250,000/yr, the original statements still held, since 600,000 > 250,000 > 226,000.
For those who are interested, the Tax Policy Center report can be found here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693
Wrong…again.
No hard feelings. I couldn’t quite figure out what you meant, and I’m still learning what words I can safely use. I dislike being misunderstood, so thanks for the assist.
In the post I was responding to, he said my opinion was worth shit. So I responded by saying that my opinion on certain matters at least was worth a lot.
So, I still have never said I was a lawyer for the purpose of bolstering my argument. I will accept your apology whenever you are a big enough person to apologize.
Another aspect of the post you quoted----I never said iI was a lawyer in that post! Accountants also work at a firm and get paid for their opinions on US FIT matters.
Still a bullshit attempt at argument from authority which is ridiculous on an anonymous medium since nothing you say is verifiable. Here the only thing that matters is the quality of your ideas it really makes no difference who you are. Furthermore the fact that your firm can get suckers to pay $500 for your opinion (which I really doubt) has nothing to do with the actual value of said opinion. Quantum Meruit, Counselor, I get the distinct impression that if applied you would owe a lot of people a lot of money.
So you admit you are a liar?
If this is indicative of your analytical skills you would be overpaid at 500 cents per hour.
I think the point being made earlier on was that you made yourself look ridiculous by fluffing out your resume for all to see, and including how much your firm supposedly charges.
This is the professional equivalent of telling the Internet you work out, have a 10 inch dick and have been with over 900 women. In other words, no one believes you, it actually hurts your credibility, makes you look like a pompous ass, and people either publically or privately point and laugh at you.
If this was your goal, good job. If your goal was a modicum of credibility and respect on the Boards, keep trying.
Askeptic said earlier that I said I was a lawyer to bolster my arguments. He has not shown where I have done that. By SDMB standards, he is a liar.
The point you raise is different. I am aware that saying that makes me look like an internet tough guy or whatever, but I really didn’t mean it that way. I was just responding to the claim that my opinion was worth shit by using the easiest evidence I have to the contrary.
Oh, well, as long as you didn’t intend to sound like a pompous dick-hole while you were sounding like a pompous dick-hole, that makes all the difference.
Still a dumb motherfucker.
Thanks, I’m glad you see it my way.
You understand that your claim is NOT evidence, right?
Any attorney worth more than $15/hr would.
Ok I will post a link to my firm’s standard billing rate chart and executed engagement letters, gimme a sec. :rolleyes:
Actually, bare assertion is fine on the SDMB when McCain is the target, so I thought I would use it too.