snopes.com Post new topic  Post a reply
search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hello snopes.com » Archived Forums » Politics Archive » Democrats are evil! (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Democrats are evil!
snopes
Return! Return! Return!


Icon 605 posted      Profile for snopes   Author's Homepage   E-mail snopes       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!

Q. Which party took Social Security from an independent fund
and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House
and Senate.

Q. Which party put a tax on Social Security?

A. The Democratic party.

Q. Which party increased the tax on Social Security?

A. The Democratic Party with Al Gore throwing the deciding vote.

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants? That's right,
an immigrant moves to this country at 65 and gets SSI Social
Security.

A. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never
paid any money into it.

Then after doing all this, they turn around and tell you the
Republicans want to take your Social Security.
And the worst part about it is, you might believe it!

The voting for Congressional seats is coming up in just
a few short weeks.
Think about how you want to vote!

Posts: 36029 | From: Admin | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
The Ota Faction
Happy Holly Days


Icon 210 posted      Profile for The Ota Faction   Author's Homepage   E-mail The Ota Faction   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Democrats are Evil!?! Well, you're half right.

--------------------
"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are." - Anthelme Brillat-Savarin
"That lonely recluse who lives down the road is crying out. So is that pregnant teenager. And the prostitute. And the drunkard."
Join the Free State Project - I did!

Posts: 1516 | From: *sigh* Elmira, NY | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
glottis
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
How about...

ALL politicians are EVAL!!!!

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
jobeibi
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glottis:
How about...

ALL politicians are EVAL!!!!

Hey, that looks like something I got via my Yahoo email, only it said "All politicians are REVIEW!!!!" [Big Grin]
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Bill
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
I'll respond to just one for now and save the political discussion for another day:

quote:
Originally posted by snopes:

Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants? That's right,
an immigrant moves to this country at 65 and gets SSI Social
Security.

A. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never
paid any money into it.

This is partly true, some non-citizens can collect SSI but they have to meet certain eligibility requirements that were passed in 1996:

http://www.ssa.gov/notices/supplemental-security-income/spot-non-citizens.htm

And SSI is financed from general revenues, so it's not accurate to say that immigrants on SSI are taking money away from people who "paid into" Social Security.

Thanks.

Bill

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
WildaBeast
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 203 posted      Profile for WildaBeast   E-mail WildaBeast   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Democrats?

This was one of my favorite Simpsons scenes:

Outside shot of the Springfield Republican Party Headquarters. Ominous thunder and lightning.
Mr. Burns: So, what unmitigated act of evil should the Republican Party unleash upon the world this time?
Stereotype Texan: What about the environment? In Texas we got rid of it and we're all happier.
Burns: Excellent. We'll repeal all the environmental protection laws.

WildaBeast -- the tree hugging hippie

--------------------
"Unseasonable is an odd word to begin with. It sounds like it's describing something that it's impossible to sprinkle pepper on." -- Nonny

Posts: 5483 | From: Just south of Folsom Prison, CA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kilrati
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 03 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Q. Which party took Social Security from an independent fund
and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it?

A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House
and Senate.

Not exactly.
In 1969, the fedgov, was running a deficit, Social Security was running a surplus, by combining the two figures, LBJ was able to pretend the budjet had a surplus(lying to the American people is a favorite passtime of the democrats), but, that did not allow the fedgov to tap social security. That was still fobiden, and still is to this day.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pseudo_Croat
Angels Wii Have Heard on High


Icon 204 posted      Profile for Pseudo_Croat   Author's Homepage   E-mail Pseudo_Croat   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
So, we shouldn't vote Democratic because they've allegedly NFBSKed with Social Security. But we shouldn't vote Republican because they allegedly NFBSK up SS. But... we can't vote Libertarian because they'd probably abolish SS outright.

Then...who should we vote for? [Confused]

Maybe we'd be better off not voting at all. [Frown]

- Pseudo "what if they gave an election and nobody came?" Croat

--------------------
"At all events, people who deny the influence of smaller nations should remember that the Croats have the rest of us by the throats." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History

God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts.

Posts: 4578 | From: Sunrise, FL | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Maddog Bill Out in the Midway Sun
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 05 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
On CBS-radio the bowtie guy (whazziname), claimed that the Dems wrote the Medicare-prescriptions bill purposely so all Republicans would have to vote against it. Then in November they can tell the seniors, well we voted for it, it's those darn Reb's who wouldn't, I guess they hate seniors!

Or Republicans get a lot of $ from DrugCo.
Midway "Scott Sullivan in '04, at least we know he can manage a budget [Big Grin] " Bill

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
First of Two
The Bills of St. Mary's


Icon 01 posted      Profile for First of Two   Author's Homepage   E-mail First of Two   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Then...who should we vote for?
Me. [Big Grin] [Big Grin] [Big Grin]

Hey, Here's a better one...

only 5 People have ever been expelled from the House of Representatives. What political party did they ALL belong to?

--------------------
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle

Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr
Happy Xmas (Warranty Is Over)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for AnglsWeHvHrdOnHiRdr     Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
The Social Security Amendments of 1983 began taxation of SS benefits. This site is a pretty good overview of the history of Social Security from its inception to the present.

P.S. It wasn't just Democrats...It rarely ever is.

--------------------
"When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."--George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 19266 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Fed
Happy Holly Days


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Mr. Fed   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Fed   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Is it even accurate to say that the Social Security Fund has been "tapped" or made available to Congress? It is my understanding that for at least the last few decades, the Fund hasn't been a Fund at all - - that is, there's no big bank account floating around out there someplace from which my SS check will be drawn someday, and from which Congress has been stealing.

Instead, at least for the last few decades, it is all funded by present social security taxes - - all that is in the fund is Congress' promise to spend money in the future, not that money itself. Congress is paying past "investors" with investments from today's "investors," which if I tried it would get be prosecuted as a Ponzi artist.

--------------------
With occasional, half-hearted, semi-literate blogging comes great responsibility.

Posts: 1621 | From: Los Angeles | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 99 posted      Profile for Mr. Furious   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Furious   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
only 5 People have ever been expelled from the House of Representatives. What political party did they ALL belong to?

(smilie is Traficant in Prison since he can't wear his rug)

See, I think Traficant should've been booted just for that horrible toupee.

--------------------
"He's not gonna let me in, I'm Mr. Dirty Mouth!"
- Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko), Boston Legal

Posts: 8729 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Kilrati
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 214 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Is it even accurate to say that the Social Security Fund has been "tapped" or made available to Congress?
The only thing SS is authorized to do with itís money (after paying the pensions ) is buy federal bonds, so all the asset of SS is in federal bonds. These are the same federal bonds you might have in your portfolio. The US debt is made of these bonds.

Every year SS receives money from the SS tax, and from bonds purchases in previous years that they can cash with interests. SS then pays checks and buys more bonds with any remaining money. SS has run a surplus 52 of itís 63 first years of existence. The bonds can be used by congress to do all the things congress does (army, schools, NEA, etc..) but then when SS cashes itís bonds they are only two ways to come up with the money: tax the already overtaxed American people, or borrow money(buy bonds).

When SS buys federal bonds this adds to the US debt. This is the internal debt that many people think is just a accounting gimmick, This is real money, that will have to be paid back. Politicians lie about it. Bush said during the campaign that he intended to pay down the debt, but a 200 page report he publish showed he was only talking about the external debt. Both the internal and the overall debt were to increase. Clinton (MHNLIIF) takes credit for balancing the budget, but the debt has increased every year he was in power. Gore is the worst. In his budget proposals, he adds the money paid by SS (the bonds the program buys) but not the money paid to SS by congress (paying back the bonds plus interest).

By the way the treasury keeps track of the debt here:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm
it just keep going up.

So SS pays money to congress every year. Congress will have to pay it back. It has 2 choices:
1)Use the money from SS to pay down the debt. This is called putting SS in a lock box. It does not actually reduce the debt, it only pays one federal bond with another.

2)Spend the money. This is called tapping into SS. It increases the debt (compared with the lock box). This does not endanger SS. It does not reduce the amount of money available for SS. Congress is required by law to pay back all itís bonds. Those on SS do not get a raw deal out of this; Only young Americans who will have to pay back the bonds later.

From the point of view of SS, it does not matter witch of these 2 occur. SS lends money to congress, congress pays back later. What congress does it between will not affect SS. But the lockbox would keep the debt from growing, so in 1999, republican congressman Herger, put a motion to force this, it passed the house 416-12. It then had to be voted on by the Senate. 3/5 of the Senate had to agree to take a vote on it. The motion failed after every republican voted for it, every demoncrat voted against it.

There is only one way to make sure our retirement money will not be squandered by greedy politicians, that decisions that affect it will be made in the interest of the people, not the government or the elite, and that to abolish the SS fraud and let every American plan his own retirement freely.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
D. Dodge Silver
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 303 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Kilrati,

That was the best explanation of that I've ever read.

Sincerely,
D. Dodge Silver

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kilrati:
There is only one way to make sure our retirement money will not be squandered by greedy politicians, that decisions that affect it will be made in the interest of the people, not the government or the elite, and that to abolish the SS fraud and let every American plan his own retirement freely.

Privatizing retirement programs will only increase the imbalance between rich and poor. This will lead to a greater number of elderly people living in hideous poverty -- which is what SS was created to alleviate.

The only real solution is for Americans to stop trying to get something for nothing. We can't have low taxes and a high level of services. We can't enjoy a tax cut and fund a gigantic military.

The real solution is to increase taxes to a level that actually pays for the government that we demand.

(Don't bother to respond; this was merely a pro-forma "showing of the flag" post from the left. Believe me, you're better off than if Pogue Mahone had done it.)

Silas (how I miss Hubert Humphrey!) Sparkhammer

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Moose
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
[QB(Don't bother to respond; this was merely a pro-forma "showing of the flag" post from the left. Believe me, you're better off than if Pogue Mahone had done it.)
[/QB]

I guess that means I'm a leftie as well, Silas, because I agree with everything you've said, and have little to add.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goes-hmmm
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
Hey, Here's a better one...

only 5 People have ever been expelled from the House of Representatives. What political party did they ALL belong to?

Five? Out of how many thousands that have served? I think that is statistically insignificant. I contend there were likely just as many Republicans that should have been expelled from the House over the last two centuries. I find good reason to have most of the House of Representatives expelled. Accepting money from special interest lobbyists, then voting on an issue important to that special interest is sufficient reason for me. A judge would have to recuse himself from any case in which he had accepted monies from either party in a case, even if unrelated to the case at hand. Why shouldn't the same standard be applicable to Congress?

Goes-"Bribery, or treason?"-hmmm

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Goes-hmmm:
I find good reason to have most of the House of Representatives expelled.

The entire House of Representatives is expelled, every two years. We, the People, have a tendency to put them right back again.

The fault is not in our Constitution, but in ourselves.

Silas (I vote strategically) Sparkhammer

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Goes-hmmm
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Goes-hmmm:
I find good reason to have most of the House of Representatives expelled.

The entire House of Representatives is expelled, every two years. We, the People, have a tendency to put them right back again.

The fault is not in our Constitution, but in ourselves.

You can't blame me for that. I've been voting anti-incumbent for years and it hasn't done much good, 95% of the crooked NFBSKers keep getting re-elected. Stupid.

I wonder if the House hadn't expelled Trafficant, would his district re-elect him, or will they in spite of that? Hmmm? Stupid.

I guess I'll fall back on my old saying "We get exactly the government we deserve." Stupid.

You're right though, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, merely the constituents. Stupid.

Goes-"Sick and tired of the stupidity"-hmmm

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Goes-hmmm:
I wonder if the House hadn't expelled Trafficant, would his district re-elect him, or will they in spite of that? Hmmm? Stupid.

I guess I'll fall back on my old saying "We get exactly the government we deserve." Stupid.

You're right though, there is nothing wrong with the Constitution, merely the constituents. Stupid.

Agreed, agreed, and agreed. The ideal of representative democracy is that an enlightened populace can choose its own governance.

The problem is that of a stupid populace....

Actually, I'm still an optimist, and I think that the system -- especially incorporating division of powers -- is just about the best conceivable.

If I were a pessimist, I would emphasize the fact that the vast majority of human beings are short-sighed and base their self-interest on immediate gratification rather than long-term investment.

But as I am not a pessimist, I emphasize the fact that we do, in practice, manage to put a lot of resources into long-term investment.

It the majority of cases... Skyscapers don't fall down. Dams don't break. Cars don't burst into flame. People don't die of starvation. People don't murder each other. People don't rob each other. People don't even defraud each other....

The human instinct toward cooperation, when supported by even the most minimal level of law enforcement, has allowed us to create miracles of progress: gigantic cities, hospitals, universities, an expedition to the moon, etc. etc.

I'm an optimist, simply because I've seen what we actually have accomplished. A pessimist would have denied this was possible...and we've proven that viewpoint wrong.

So: vote for those who promote the minimum regulation necessary. I do!

Silas (my feet really, really hurt...) Sparkhammer

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
Somehow I get the very strong feeling that of the Americans on this board I'm one of the few who leans toward the political right.

Social security was a wonderful idea, to take care of our elderly, but as the number of people drawing on social security grows, the amount needed to fuel it grows as well. The people right now drawing on social security are taking out much more than they ever put into it. Government’s job is not to be our parents, nor make up for poor planning on the part of elderly people.

Food, shelter, and healthcare for all I would support one hundred percent... but the way funds are currently managed its an atrocity.

A quick example: My wife broke her leg 4 years ago (before I met her). She broke it between two jobs as she was returning to school, her old health care had expired a week before, and her new health care did not start for another two weeks. She ended up spending her whole savings on the bills and went into debt that she still has not fully paid off.

She went to the local town hall to look for help while she was unable to work her current job (she was in a cast for 9 months, and a brace for another 5 months) They told her if she got herself pregnant they could help her, otherwise no go.

As for more taxes, I find that somewhat funny. The harder you work, the more of your money you lose right as you earn it. When you spend it, you lose more of it, and when you die, if you had the good sense to save it, you lose even more of it.

Why work harder? Why save for the future? I'm sorry, I think there are more than enough taxes. The "rich" are not some lazy people who live by sucking off the poor. The rich are people who put in 6 or 7 day work weeks, who strive to raise a family, and make sure their kids can do better than they did.

The rich might even be you some day...

Lanny "Who pays half of his bonus for doing a good job, to the goverment" Fox

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
PatYoung
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 01 posted      Profile for PatYoung   E-mail PatYoung   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
The "rich" are not some lazy people who live by sucking off the poor. The rich are people who put in 6 or 7 day work weeks, who strive to raise a family, and make sure their kids can do better than they did.

The rich might even be you some day...

Lanny "Who pays half of his bonus for doing a good job, to the goverment" Fox

Tell it to Ken Lay

--------------------
pat "Megadittoes Rush" young

THUMP, THUMP, THUMP

Posts: 5442 | From: New York | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Spam & Cookies-mmm
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Spam & Cookies-mmm   E-mail Spam & Cookies-mmm   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PatYoung:
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
The "rich" are not some lazy people who live by sucking off the poor. The rich are people who put in 6 or 7 day work weeks, who strive to raise a family, and make sure their kids can do better than they did.

The rich might even be you some day...

Lanny "Who pays half of his bonus for doing a good job, to the goverment" Fox

Tell it to Ken Lay
Ken Lay is not typical. My fellow Burnt Marshmallow, Mr Fox, probably is. See, when the politicians start talking about "the rich", they point to big-timers like Bill Gates and Ken Lay. But when they start making policy, it's the small business owners, and the doctors, and the retirees who they come for.

- Spam & cookies

--------------------
Did you see the Announcement?
There's a new snopes message board!

Posts: 7767 | From: Paradise Ceded | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
Somehow I get the very strong feeling that of the Americans on this board I'm one of the few who leans toward the political right.

You haven't been around long enough if you think that. I've been blasted enough times to know there are many smart conservatives on this board. And damn them! They make me think! [Big Grin]

quote:
Social security was a wonderful idea, to take care of our elderly, but as the number of people drawing on social security grows, the amount needed to fuel it grows as well. The people right now drawing on social security are taking out much more than they ever put into it. Government's job is not to be our parents, nor make up for poor planning on the part of elderly people.
But the whole idea of Social Security is that many people never make enough to save or plan for their future. Unfortunately, that is still the case.
quote:

Food, shelter, and healthcare for all I would support one hundred percent... but the way funds are currently managed its an atrocity.

Hmm. If you're in favor of government sponsored food, shelter and health care, I'm not sure you can call yourself a conservative.

quote:
A quick example: My wife broke her leg 4 years ago (before I met her). She broke it between two jobs as she was returning to school, her old health care had expired a week before, and her new health care did not start for another two weeks. She ended up spending her whole savings on the bills and went into debt that she still has not fully paid off.

She went to the local town hall to look for help while she was unable to work her current job (she was in a cast for 9 months, and a brace for another 5 months). They told her if she got herself pregnant they could help her, otherwise no go.

I'm not sure about your last sentence, and I'll choose not to comment on it. But your anecdote is a perfect example of why we need nationalized health care in this country. Privately funded insurance policies simply do not work, and those who need them most simply cannot afford them.

quote:
As for more taxes, I find that somewhat funny.
How else do you suppose you're going to pay for the increase subsidies for food, shelter and health care without increasing taxes?

quote:
The harder you work, the more of your money you lose right as you earn it. When you spend it, you lose more of it, and when you die, if you had the good sense to save it, you lose even more of it.
You're making the false assumption that people who work harder earn more than those who don't. That, of course, is complete nonsense. The pay scales in this country have little to do with how hard you work.

Otherwise, I think a progressive tax policy is a great idea. Those who make more are in a better position to pay for the government that helped create the society in which they are prospering.

quote:
Why work harder? Why save for the future? I'm sorry, I think there are more than enough taxes. The "rich" are not some lazy people who live by sucking off the poor. The rich are people who put in 6 or 7 day work weeks, who strive to raise a family, and make sure their kids can do better than they did.
The not-so-rich also work 6 and 7 days a week to do the very things you are talking about -- and do it at a lot less salary, with fewer benefits, and at remarkably hard jobs. But tell me this: Why should a corporate executive make several hundred times what the worker on the shop floor makes? Why should a corporate executive have stock options and bonuses that have little to do with how the company performs? Why should a corporate executive be rewarded for laying off thousands of hard-working individuals?

quote:
Lanny "Who pays half of his bonus for doing a good job, to the goverment" Fox
If you live in the United States and you're paying more than half your salary in income taxes, you need a new tax accountant. No one should pay that much because the tax rates simply are not that high.

Pogue "bonus? what's a bonus?" Mahone

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Atlanta Jake
Xboxing Day


Icon 05 posted      Profile for Atlanta Jake   E-mail Atlanta Jake   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
[qb] Lanny "Who pays half of his bonus for doing a good job, to the goverment" Fox

If you live in the United States and you're paying more than half your salary in income taxes, you need a new tax accountant. No one should pay that much because the tax rates simply are not that high.

Pogue "bonus? what's a bonus?" Mahone

I think you missed the point, Pogue. He pays half of his Bonus Check in taxes. I do not work at a job that pays bonuses, but my father-in-law does. He has indeed been hit up for slightly more than half of his bonus money in taxes. Bonuses (as I understand it) are taxed at a much higher rate than salry.

quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
You haven't been around long enough if you think that. I've been blasted enough times to know there are many smart conservatives on this board. And damn them! They make me think! [Big Grin]

Hats off to you, Pogue, for your honest and open-minded response!

But what do I know?.... I'm the ultimate dichotomy: a Libertarian who is a government employee! [Confused]

I consider myself to be just barely right of center... I can understand liberal philosophy, but I don't agree with much of it. On the other hand, I don't have any better solutions to social problems than the ones currently in place!

For instance, the current welfare system is not perfect... in fact I think it stinks. It is a self-perpetuating system that has no incentives for second or third generation welfare recipients to get off the dole... but casting them out into the street does no one any good, and will only harm society in the long run. I wish I had an answer, but I guess I'm just not that smart.

There are many such issues, and they require the wisdom of Solomon to solve them. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the wisdom of Dubya (and the wisdom of Bubba before him).

As far as I am concerned, there is only one major party in this country... I call them the Republicrats. I read messages on this board that say "The Republican do this..." "The Democrats do that..." but as far as I can see, both groups are only trying to do one thing: get re-elected.

Republicans do the things they do to make their constituants happy, not because they (the Senators and Representatives) believe that it is the correct thing to do. Same for the Democrats. In fact, I believe that a large percentage of politicians choose their party (early in their career) based upon the balance of power in their districts, not because they agree with a certain philosophy or party line. This explaines the recent spate of "defections" that we have seen in which a politician changes party with great fanfare. "The demographics at home have changed... If I want to get re-elected, I'd better align myself with the new balance of power in my district".

How refreshing would it be to see someone get elected, go to Washington and vote his convictions and do what is best for the country, no matter what the political fallout at home is?

I do understand that this is a representitive republic, so maybe I'm just having pipe dreams...

Sorry for the rant, Hope I made some sense

Atlanta "don't have all the answers, just a lot of questions" Jake

--------------------
Remember Kids, Don't try this at home!

Posts: 1366 | From: Atlanta, Georgia | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 605 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Atlanta Jake:
I think you missed the point, Pogue. He pays half of his Bonus Check in taxes. I do not work at a job that pays bonuses, but my father-in-law does. He has indeed been hit up for slightly more than half of his bonus money in taxes. Bonuses (as I understand it) are taxed at a much higher rate than salary.

Why? Aren't bonus checks considered earned income? Why would such income be taxed at a different rate than other income?

I still say that even if you add up federal, state and local taxes, it will not come to 50 percent -- unless you like getting a hefty tax refund check every year. Perhaps if you include other dedections, it comes to more than 50 percent. But I can't imagine that just taxes come to that much.

Pogue "mine certainly don't" Mahone

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Lanston Fox
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
A bonus is not earned income, its a bonus. They are taxed different.

In my job certain 'job well done' signs are rewarded with a bonus not related to hours or such. Its not part of salary, nor part of hourly pay... its a bonus. "Job well done Lanny! You did so well for the company we're going to give you 7,000 dollars! Oh but we're giving 3,700 to the government for providing you with the wonderful teaching that got you here!"

As for your points, I am a republican that feels some things everyone *should* have. Food, shelter, and health care.

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
*
But the whole idea of Social Security is that many people never make enough to save or plan for their future. Unfortunately, that is still the case.
*
Why should we reward people for not saving by paying them 10 times what they put into social security? I don't find it an acceptable weight to put on the world. What about those people's children or their church, even clubs they belong to? The answer to every problem is not let the government handle it. If people in general took more responsibility for themselves then the government could use its funds for people who really can't take care of themselves.

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
*
Hmm. If you're in favor of government-sponsored food, shelter and health care, I'm not sure you can call yourself a conservative.
*
So to be a conservative I must believe in starving sick homeless people? I believe everyone has a right to not being out in the cold, to not starve, and to be taken care of when ill. I'm conservative, I'm not a monster.

Let me clear up what makes me conservative. I believe in my right to go out and buy myself a gun, be it recreation gun for hunting or a handgun for self defense.

I believe that a mother's choice is first not to get herself pregnant, and secondly adoption unless her life is in danger.

I support church in people's lives, and people taking responsibility for themselves, not expecting the government to bail them out of life.

My views tend to align themselves with the republican's tradional views. I don't vote straight ticket, but I vote at least 80% of the time republican

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
*
How else do you suppose you're going to pay for the increase subsidies for food, shelter and health care without increasing taxes?
*
IMHO: To put it simply, make a simple, nearly flat tax, with three brackets, under $30,000 per household + 10,000 for every adult living under the roof, Under 200,000, and over 199,999 thousand. 10, 20, and 25% flat tax. (Adjust as you wish to number crunch it) The rich will pay the bulk of taxes as they make a bulk of the taxes, and the poor will still pay very little in taxes. Keep sales tax, keep property tax, and remove the death tax. Trim up the government’s spending by removing many of the social programs, and allow the free market to take over by allowing people to choose to donate a certain percentage of the taxes they owe to a charity of their choice. You might end up with one less artist who specializes in pictures of male genitals hanging from a clothes line... (A local story here...) but overall you would have funding for social programs that people would like to see... My guess is without loopholes you would see a rise in total income for the government.

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
*
You're making the false assumption that people who work harder earn more than those who don't. That, of course, is complete nonsense. The pay scales in this country have little to do with how hard you work.

Otherwise, I think a progressive tax policy is a great idea. Those who make more are in a better position to pay for the government that helped create the society in which they are prospering.
*
I'm sorry; people who work harder AND smarter make more money. Anyone who sacrifices 7+ years to college deserves to make more money than someone who started work right out of high school, or even someone with only 4 years of college. You could make the argument that the person who worked right out of high school did not have the same opportunity as the 7+-year college grad, but this is America. The wonderful great thing about America is anyone willing to work hard can achieve! My brother is not a college grad, had a very troubled youth, but now owns a multi-million dollar a year business! It’s a place where anyone can achieve nearly anything, if not for themselves, then for their kids. (rant, rant, rant...)

Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
*
The not-so-rich also work 6 and 7 days a week to do the very things you are talking about -- and do it at a lot less salary, with fewer benefits, and at remarkably hard jobs. But tell me this: Why should a corporate executive make several hundred times what the worker on the shop floor makes? Why should a corporate executive have stock options and bonuses that have little to do with how the company performs? Why should a corporate executive be rewarded for laying off thousands of hard-working individuals?
*
Purely, to get to a position of power takes work, time, people skills, training, schooling, luck... Show me a CEO who has not worked to get into the position they are. Do they deserve as much as they always get? Maybe not... but they obviously worked very hard and smart to get to where they are.

Its late, I am tired, so my writing is sloppy, and rantish all I am saying is there is no reason that taxes should punish the person who works harder and smarter.

Lanny, Faithful believer in doG, Fox

IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Craig
The Red and the Green Stamps


Icon 01 posted            Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
There are people on the top and people on the bottom. People on the top have something which they want to keep therefore the name conservative. People on the bottom want change therefore the name liberal. Repubicans are conservative. Democrats are liberal. To be on the net you need a computer which is somewhat expensive therefore people of means far out number the poor. I'm surprised the american goverment is as liberal as it is.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
bufungla
Let There Be PCs on Earth


Icon 22 posted      Profile for bufungla   Author's Homepage   E-mail bufungla   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Craig:
There are people on the top and people on the bottom. People on the top have something which they want to keep therefore the name conservative. People on the bottom want change therefore the name liberal. Repubicans are conservative. Democrats are liberal. To be on the net you need a computer which is somewhat expensive therefore people of means far out number the poor. I'm surprised the american goverment is as liberal as it is.

1) If you want to meet row after row of conservative Democrats, just pay a visit to the Deep South.

2) There are a surprising number of "poor" people (or at least people with no jobs or wages so poor that they receive government subsidies to support themselves) who have computers and internet connections. I have no idea how they get them, but they've got them, and a lot of them are online.

buf 'and a lot of them seem to be looking for husbands' ungla

--------------------
"Pardon him. Theodotus: he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature."

George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra

Posts: 4847 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Pogue Ma-humbug
Happy Christmas (Malls are Open)


Icon 605 posted      Profile for Pogue Ma-humbug   E-mail Pogue Ma-humbug   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
A bonus is not earned income, its a bonus. They are taxed different.

No, they are not. At the end of the year, it will go down on your 1040 as wages, tips or other compensation.

Say you earn $30,000 per year, and you get a 10 percent bonus, or $3,000, for a job well done. Your W-2 form will show earnings of $33,000, and it will be taxed the same as your regular salary.

Pogue

--------------------
Let's drink to the causes in your life:
Your family, your friends, the union, your wife.

Posts: 11325 | From: Kentucky | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
abbubmah
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 200 posted      Profile for abbubmah   E-mail abbubmah   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
A bonus is not earned income, its a bonus. They are taxed different.

No, they are not. At the end of the year, it will go down on your 1040 as wages, tips or other compensation.

Say you earn $30,000 per year, and you get a 10 percent bonus, or $3,000, for a job well done. Your W-2 form will show earnings of $33,000, and it will be taxed the same as your regular salary.

This part is true. However, the initial tax withholding on the bonus is at a higher rate. This also applies to overtime wages. Anything that can potentially take you out of your normal tax bracket during the year is assumed to be an increase in overall taxable income. The adjustment is made at the end of the year, and you DO get the tax difference back.

quote:
Posted by Lanston Fox
I'm sorry; people who work harder AND smarter make more money. Anyone who sacrifices 7+ years to college deserves to make more money than someone who started work right out of high school, or even someone with only 4 years of college.

I seriously disagree with this statement, even though you qualified it a little. Just because someone has paid for an education, and gotten good enough grades to pass, does not automatically make them priveleged. Certain things are required to deserve higher pay, such as initiative, knowledge of the job and willingness to do the job. Right now, although college degrees are definitely a plus, there are many degreed people working minimum wage due to a glut of degreed job seekers. There's lots of people with the attitude "I have a degree, so you MUST hire me" who couldn't apply their higher education without someone constantly telling them what to do.

ham "see it every day" bubba

--------------------
Fundamentally Unfundie since 1975

Posts: 7942 | From: Louisiana | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Spam & Cookies-mmm
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 01 posted      Profile for Spam & Cookies-mmm   E-mail Spam & Cookies-mmm   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
A bonus is not earned income, its a bonus. They are taxed different.

No, they are not. At the end of the year, it will go down on your 1040 as wages, tips or other compensation.


Yes, but.

It depends on the company , I suppose, but when I worked for a "Major Corporation," it was company-policy to deduct taxes from bonus checks at the maximum tax rate. So my $1,000 bonus came to a little over $600 after taxes. If it'd been taxed at my actual rate, they shouldn't have taken anything out but Social Security. Yes, I got it all back in my refund, a year later. But that's not nearly as satisfying.

--------------------
Did you see the Announcement?
There's a new snopes message board!

Posts: 7767 | From: Paradise Ceded | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Silas Sparkhammer
I Saw V-Chips Come Sailing In


Icon 504 posted      Profile for Silas Sparkhammer   Author's Homepage   E-mail Silas Sparkhammer   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lanston Fox:
. . . all I am saying is there is no reason that taxes should punish the person who works harder and smarter.

Something I find interesting is the basic fundamental way of thinking. For you, taxes are a form of "punishment." For me, they aren't any such thing at all.

To me, taxes are the "rent" I pay for enjoying citizenship here. Taxes are the "admission cost" to attend the theater of America.

Just like theater tickets, the better seats cost more money. If I want to stay in the cheap seats, I can do that. But if I want the good seats, I know that they will cost more. Same for a bigger house, a bigger car, or other goods: having a higher income is going to cost more.

To me, the idea that it is somehow a "punishment" to pay higher taxes on greater income is as silly as you would find someone saying that it's a "punishment" that a Rolls Royce costs more than a Yugo.

Silas (punish me some more, please!) Sparkhammer

--------------------
When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise,
Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies.

Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
Mr. Furious
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV


Icon 605 posted      Profile for Mr. Furious   Author's Homepage   E-mail Mr. Furious   Send new private message       Edit/Delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer:
Something I find interesting is the basic fundamental way of thinking. For you, taxes are a form of "punishment." For me, they aren't any such thing at all.

To me, taxes are the "rent" I pay for enjoying citizenship here. Taxes are the "admission cost" to attend the theater of America.

Just like theater tickets, the better seats cost more money. If I want to stay in the cheap seats, I can do that. But if I want the good seats, I know that they will cost more. Same for a bigger house, a bigger car, or other goods: having a higher income is going to cost more.

To me, the idea that it is somehow a "punishment" to pay higher taxes on greater income is as silly as you would find someone saying that it's a "punishment" that a Rolls Royce costs more than a Yugo.

I think that's a flawed analogy because if you want the big house and the Rolls Royce, you're paying the premium for them when you make the purchase. Higher income taxes aren't a tax on what you buy but what you're able to buy. The miser gets taxed just as much as the spendthrift.

If I want a house that's worth $500,000 instead of one that's worth $200,000, then I'm paying $300,000 more for it. If I want a Rolls instead of a Yugo, I'm paying however many hundreds of thousands of dollars that the two differ in price.

I agree with your point that taxes are the price we pay for the freedoms and other benefits we enjoy as citizens. But why should my "theatre tickets" cost more than those of the person sitting next to me when we're getting the same view of the show? If I drive a fancy car and have a big house, the entities to whom I paid my taxes certainly didn't provide them for me. I get the same benefits from the government as someone who makes a third of what I do.

[edited to add - if you're talking about more than income taxes, ignore everything I just said]

--------------------
"He's not gonna let me in, I'm Mr. Dirty Mouth!"
- Jeffrey Coho (Craig Bierko), Boston Legal

Posts: 8729 | From: North Carolina | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Codeô is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post new topic  Post a reply Close topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Urban Legends Reference Pages

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2