You might have noticed that I asked gonzomax what he thought, not Buffet. It grabs these little snippets and glues together some odd position that never holds up to scrutiny. Notice that he didn’t answer.
Wow, you might just be as dumb as the idiot that goes by the name gonzomax. First of all, the idiot gonzomax is the one that seems to not have grasped the two different concepts. Second, you seem to think I advocate zero taxes, which makes you, of course wrong. Oh wait, you’re merely using hyperbole to create a strawman. Another idiotic tactic of the idiot, adopted now by you. My, what a good little idiot acolyte you are.
You know, if you’re so easily swayed by what others spout and so willing to play second banana, you might want to choose to follow a banana that isn’t as mush-headed as the gonzomax. But you both seem to share a penchant for shallow thinking and spouting nonsense, so I do understand the attraction.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
**Define rich. Is that the same rich that Buffet is referring to? **Are we talking $25 billion+ rich or $250,000 per year rich?
[/QUOTE]
(bolding mine) Well, look at that: I was, in fact, asking what gonzo’s defintion of rich. So, I had a better grasp of what I was asking something than you did. Wonders never cease.
[QUOTE=magellan01]
Xanax, man. Look into it.
[/QUOTE]
Try rereading the exchange, Kreskin. You’re the one who decided to spout idiocy out of the blue.
Let’s say gonzo posted a recipe for “Really Good Muffins.” You pop in and ask him to define what makes a muffin good. I point out that it’s in the recipe, and you “retort” that you were asking gonzo, not the recipe. Does this make any sense to you? How on earth can you overlook the fact that he was the one who posted the recipe (or Buffet’s piece detailing appropriate actions vis-a-vis the rich) in the first place?
Whatever. You and gonzo are clearly involved in some epic, thread-spanning pissing match, and I don’t want to get wet. See ya.
MAGELLAN is a road bump. He is a practitioner of name calling and insults. In other words a right winger. That is how they “win”. Victory is achieved by changing the subject and calling the opposite side names. FOx comes to the DOPE. Limbaugh and Beck come to the DOPE. This is not new.
I was talking about the Ontario credit re:Property Tax, etc. Since we do our taxes at the same time in Canada, it is easy to get confused. It’s been a long time since we were making so little as to qualify.
(I can only dream of being able to claim mortgages the way the US does.)
Excellent. Maybe in the future you won’t be so quick to follow someone’s lead. Especially a nitwit of his caliber.
As far as the original question, it stands still stands. Gonzomax was offering his opinion, using Buffet for general support. I notice he still hasn’t answered. Which might be a good thing for non-idiots everywhere. Less nonsense to digest.
Notice the little squiggles at the end of the first two sentences. They’re called question marks. As far as name calling, there’s none here, unless you consider that the original post had your name in it as the quoted party. And it is true that “gonzomax” has become synonymous with nitwittery and weakmindedness.
So, how about answering? Or should readers just assume you’re talking out of your ass as usual?
Don’t need it. Gonzomax’s idiocy defines the term well enough. And now we have contributions from you (not that he needs the help). But you’ll have to dial of the stupidity a notch or two if you want to be top mush head. But you know what, based on the little I’ve seen, with a little effort (more posts), by golly I think you can unseat the gonz. It seems like you have the raw talent, anyway.
Some people can nail down and fixate on stupidity. good job MAGELLAN.
All we would have is I actually bothered to deal with you, would be an argument about defining rich. I suspect Buffet qualifies. I suspect his article is clear for most people.
I also suspect it would be fruitless dealing in a discussion like that with another right wing suck up.
Rich would be a floating figure just a bit ahead of anything, anyone would offer. It would be another silly discussion with a clueless righty. I don;t want to play. You are too small a person to warrant that time.
Ha! You’re so lame. The question isn’t if Buffet is rich, you halfwit. You whine about the rich not paying enough taxes, that they should pay more. And for support you point to a multi-billionaire’s opinion. So, I ask you—gonzomax—what YOU consider rich. It’s one thing to claim that billionaires can or should part with more money, it’s another to hold the position that a couple making $250,000 living in a place like NY or SF should. So, if you claim to have a position on this, that the topic actually interests you enough to post about it in multiple threads, doesn’t seem like much to ask that you state what your opinion actually is, instead of spouting vague generalities.
Not much to ask of most posters anyway. So, you go right on working hard to not answer questions about your position. Makes perfect gonzomax sense.
You are a genius. I believe it was Buffet who whined about the rich not paying their share of taxes. Couldn’t you get anybody to read the article to you?
I agree with him. There are lots of statistics that prove it to anybody who does not see blowing the rich as their lives calling.
You know, this really shouldn’t be that hard. I’m asking YOU what YOU think constitutes “rich”. You seem to think “the rich” should be taxed more. I’m just asking you to define a term you are using. Really, it shouldn’t be that hard to parse your own opinion. Even for you.
$318,762.49. Did I get that right? Please. I know how marginal tax rates work. $0. The point is that it’s very easy to point to “the rich” and Buffet and have agreement to the meaning of the term. But then the argument shifts. Even Obama is guilty of this, every time he claims something like “I don’t think its unreasonable to have millionaires pay a little more in taxes”, then seeks to conflate people making $200,000 with "millionaires.
So, conflation with those making $250,000/yr aside… is it unreasonable to have millionaires pay a little more in taxes? What about people making $750,000/yr? $500,000/yr?
Really, I have no idea where the idea that the current tax rates are sacrosanct and cannot be adjusted (except downward, of course!) came from. Taxes haven’t been this low since, what, the Truman era? They’re not set in stone – nor should they be – and you’d have to do a lot to convince me that our current levels are magically the most fair.
Lets remove all doubt because you are trying to get me into an argument about what is rich. here is the wealth accumulation of the top 1 percent. I am sure ,even you, can accept them as being rich. This shows 15 charts demonstrating the dropping taxes, exponential salary increases , and accumulation of wealth for the super wealthy and the rest. There should be someone there who can explain them to you. SHRUG
No it is not that simple to define rich. Even the rich can not do it. It appears most people of means define it as double what they make.