Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 45
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Drinkin haterade, ridin the hate train through hateville
    Posts
    17,091
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    48516
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    That's as opposed to the gifts of the separate tax struture for capital gains taxes
    The separate tax structure is a reflection on reality. The exact rate is where the gifting comes in.

    You can earn a 4% nominal return saving for retirement, have a real return of $0, but still have to pay taxes under a system treating all forms of income identical to earned income. Hence the reason those who are least likely to earn a return in excess of the inflation hurdle rate currently pay 0% in taxes on capital gains and dividends held long term.

    Higher income earners who earn double the rate of inflation are currently taxed at 30% in real terms. I'm guessing those who earn in excess of that are way more likely to pay an inheritance tax. The real gifts are in deduction loopholes. Mentioning charitable deductions and life insurance benefits is more on point IMO (Mitt Romney plan hint hint).

    FWIW, raising taxes on dividends & capital gains would be the best way to raise my taxes without hurting the economy one bit. They should go up moderately.


    Put some respeck in my paycheck

  2. # ADS
    Circuit advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many
     

  3. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,434
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    2225
    Rep Adjustment Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    If a baby is born in the US to illigal immagrants, the parents can still be deported. They will normally take the child with them. When the kid turns 18, the child can return to the US as a citizen, and then request the legal immigration of their parents, which is still not guaranteed. I just find it very difficult to believe that people have kids in order to legally immigrate to the US 19 years in the future.




    According to the 14th Amendment, if illegals can be prosecuted for violations of drug laws and the like (and thus are subject to our laws), their kids born on US soil will be citizens. Do you really want ot repeal that? Alternatively, do you want to say those illegal immigrants aren't subject to our laws?
    *illegal immigrants

  4. #23
    Senior Member AtheistPreacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Claremont, CA
    Posts
    934
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    2787
    Rep Adjustment Power
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by franklin View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Why do you think what he's saying is so divisive? I don't have the transcripts but what I've seen isn't anything everyone else isn't already saying. In fact, he was very fair and matter-of-fact about it. The Mayor of San Antonio, a democrat and hispanic, was explaining the day after the election how much Obamacare and amnesty means to hispanic voters. Looks to me like Romney is regurgitating that and insinuating his party move toward the center.


    I would expect some Washington Post columnist to spin that into some racist diatribe and that's exactly what they did.


    As far as crying, getting over it, etc., Romney is giving a typical "we lost because" speech to his committee and big donors. The media and liberals are the ones who need to get over Romney and let him go.
    I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat, I just see them as the lesser of two evils. But even with that said, this post is right on. The campaign is over. No need to keep painting the opposing candidate in the worst possible light.
    "Yeah, I got a way to defend it. Bring a bat to the game and kill one of them."
    -Nick Van Exel, on defending the Stockton-Malone Pick & Roll

  5. #24
    Modstapo Lite Nate505's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    7,481
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    14872
    Rep Adjustment Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Serious question on immigration to all that are here.

    Would you take a compromise on immigration that does the following:

    - Truly secure border (fence, national guard...)
    - No more anchor babies for babies born in the future
    - Amnesty (6 month temp status to get the ball rolling) to everyone here right now that is not breaking additional laws such as robbery, rape, murder, drug dealing...
    - Deportation of those here illegally that are breaking other laws
    - Increased legal immigration flow. Streamline process and dramtically increase the flow. Particular emphasis on doctors, engineers, vets and other high skill sets.
    1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-immigration can have that bone if they want it.
    2. Nope. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
    3. Sure.
    4. Sure.
    5. Great idea.
    In Lindsay We Trust

  6. #25
    Modstapo Lite Nate505's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    7,481
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    14872
    Rep Adjustment Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    And this is why I do not have a good feeling about where things are heading.
    Has there ever been a period in history when the Presidential race wasn't a popularity contest? Other than the couple times the guy who won the popular vote lost the electoral college?
    In Lindsay We Trust

  7. #26
    Modstapo Lite Nate505's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Lakewood, CO
    Posts
    7,481
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    14872
    Rep Adjustment Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by AtheistPreacher View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I wouldn't say I'm a Democrat, I just see them as the lesser of two evils. But even with that said, this post is right on. The campaign is over. No need to keep painting the opposing candidate in the worst possible light.
    But it's so much fun dancing on his proverbial political grave. Though I'm far happier than social conservatism took a huge hit this election, thank whatever deity you believe (or not) in.
    In Lindsay We Trust

  8. #27
    Modstapo Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    33,911
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    53877
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Nate505 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    1. Sure, why not, though IMO I don't think it is possible at all to have a secure border when the border is a thousand miles long across fairly rough and desolate terrain. But whatever, the anti-immigration can have that bone if they want it.
    2. Nope. That is blatantly unconstitutional.
    3. Sure.
    4. Sure.
    5. Great idea.
    OK, however you and One Brow still didn't answer the question. Would you take a deal that does all of the above?

    Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?
    #BelieveInLindsey #BelieveInSnyder

  9. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Seeing as you both have a problem with anchor babies. Is that a deal breaker for you?
    I don't have a problem with unicorns, leprechauns, or anchor babies. If what you really mean is anchor babies as I understand the term (babies being had so their parents can stay in the country), no problem for me. Current law makes this impossible anyhow.

    On the other hand, if you mean changing the 14th Amendment (you have not confirmed this, so I'm not sure this is what you mean), I do have a problem. Again, look at the issues Germany had before moving from jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage) to jus soli (citizenship through place of birth).

    Either way, it would really help if you clarified when a baby is an "anchor baby", to you.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  10. #29
    Modstapo Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    33,911
    Mentioned
    97 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    53877
    Rep Adjustment Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I don't have a problem with unicorns, leprechauns, or anchor babies. If what you really mean is anchor babies as I understand the term (babies being had so their parents can stay in the country), no problem for me. Current law makes this impossible anyhow.

    On the other hand, if you mean changing the 14th Amendment (you have not confirmed this, so I'm not sure this is what you mean), I do have a problem. Again, look at the issues Germany had before moving from jus sanguinis (citizenship through parentage) to jus soli (citizenship through place of birth).

    Either way, it would really help if you clarified when a baby is an "anchor baby", to you.
    In this case I was just using the term to describe babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.
    #BelieveInLindsey #BelieveInSnyder

  11. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    9,590
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Total Rep Points
    11039
    Rep Adjustment Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stoked View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    In this case I was just using the term to describe babies born in the US to illegal immigrants.
    No more anchor babies for babies born in the future

    I assume you don't mean it will be illegal for illegal immigrants to become pregnant. Can you be a little more precise? Do you mean these kids, born on American soil, won't be US citizens at all? Will they also be considered illegal immigrants? Would they have a path to citizenship?
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About Us
We are a community of Utah JazzFanz that are passionate about our team. We celebrate the highs that come with last second heroics and (some of us) cry in defeat. Welcome to our community. Be respectful of others and join in to the conversation...
Join us