Hillary Clinton: The RICH aren't paying their fair share, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:30 AM by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by brainwrek



You are welcomed.

As long as you deceptively insist on basing your arguments on semantics and not on the reality of monetary flows, then you will always be stuck in that quagmire of supporting the delusions of the rich played out on you.

Cheers.


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:38 AM by brainwrek
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101



Facts are now considered semantics?

Just out of curiosity, does it rain ice cream cones and puppies in the fantasyworld you live in?



reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:39 AM by ldyserenity
Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to
post by ldyserenity



Well you just posted yourself into a corner.

If your earnings are low enough to qualify for the EITC, you certainly wouldnt have paid income taxes. You may have had them withheld, but you wouldve received a full refund if your earnings were that low, unless there was an outstanding tax burden that you owed.

You are either:

a) lying to sadly try to back up your point (hahaha)

or b) in desperate need of an education on how to do your taxes or find someone actually qualified to do them.


Bottom line: If you received the EITC, you wouldnt have paid any taxes.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by brainwrek]

Not when I didn't have kids not until I had kids, but that is why I said seven years I didn't get nothing back read it more carefully half the time I lived (the seven years) at home so I was still claimed by parents the other half I was on my own but still didn't get stuff back until I had a kid at twenty three. My mother always made too much to get any back but we certainly weren't wealthy not in the least. I knew single parents that their kids had more crap than I did. that'
s because they got money back every year my mother was married so nothing back. At all.


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:39 AM by brainwrek
reply to post by SphinxMontreal



The taxes referenced on that site for the most part are STATE taxes, which is a different topic than what Hillary The Idiot was talking about. That is a state issue, not a federal one.

Should the poor not pay a dime to social security or medicare when they will be receiving those benefits in the future?


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:44 AM by SeekerofTruth101
Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to
post by SeekerofTruth101



Facts are now considered semantics?

Just out of curiosity, does it rain ice cream cones and puppies in the fantasyworld you live in?


Ahh...resorting to ad hominems, now are we?

Facts? Your facts perhaps, but is it REALITY? Do you have a problems accepting and handling reality? Enjoy your blue pill.

Cheers


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:46 AM by brainwrek
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101



Yes, it is reality than the "rich" pay the lions share of the taxes.

Prove me wrong with statistical data


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 12:56 AM by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by brainwrek



No wonder you are so easily fooled. Statistics is NOT science or reality.

But what statistic data you want? I can easily pull and manipulate data just like anyone else to support anything I wish, simply omitting other relevant bits, the way climate scientists did it.


reply posted on 29-5-2010 @ 01:19 AM by sdcigarpig
Gee, I wonder if that means that Hillary would be willing to support that the entire federal government of the US, gets an irs audit, and treated like everyone else. That means fines, late fees, and jail time for tax evasion, having to go through and provide proof of every deduction and every asset.
The other little thing that Hillary tends to forget, and if she looks back to the post depression businesses, and why they got to be sucessful, is alot of companies, were not publically traded. It was alot of partnerships, and the way they ran the businesses were very conservative, there was no taking extrodinary risks and businesses played it on the safe side. You see the difference between a public traded company and a partnership is this: A public traded company, if it fails, it is the stock holders that are left eating the debt and taking the loss. In a partnership, it is the partners that invest the money, and are financially responsible. If the company goes down, then the partners lose their assets, their money, homes, cars, boats, rolexes, everything. If you are running a public traded company and take a hit, you lose nothing. But if you are in a partnership, then you have to explain to the partners why you lost the money as they break out their personal checkbooks and paid off the debts. I think we as a country needs to go back to doing business like that, and the question of bailouts and too big to fail, as well as a business failing would never be a problem.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 18 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 3 days ago with 72 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 14 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 19 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 6 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 12 days ago with 23 member flags