Biggest Historical Myths

atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Biggest Historical Myths

by myths i don't mean actual myths or legends, but more along the lines of conventional wisdom about history

for instance:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

herbert hoover cause the great depression with laissez-faire capitalism and FDR saved the economy with interventionism- again, couldnt be farther from the truth, hoover was anything but a free market capitalist, he started the interventionist policies that FDR continued, FDR didnt save the economy, unemployment was high throughout his terms and the economy didnt recover until after the war and the markets were allowed to function

 

those are just some i could come up with, both US history, but pretty egregious and taught in schools as the gospel truth

toss in any suggestions you may have


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
Your corrections of the

Your corrections of the "myths" you presented are myths.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Myths and legends

 

Harold Holt was not just clearing his head when he went body bashing at portsea. He was in league with the russians and was later picked up by a red submarine and whisked off to the black sea where the shore break bored him to an untimely death.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Alternatively

 

jesus was the son of god


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:abraham

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

i suppose, in a sense.  it depends on who you compare him to.  if you're using someone like ceausescu or kim il sung as a frame of reference, this statement is patently ridiculous.  but yes, lincoln did take unprecedented executive measaures, like suspending habeas corpus.  however, i would argue this is precisely what made him a great president, because wars can't be won without strong executives, especially wars on one's own home turf, civil or otherwise.  that's why the romans created the office of dictator.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:that's why the

iwbiek wrote:
that's why the romans created the office of dictator

Or, indeed, the Greek the office of Tyrant.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
The fact that Jesus or Moses

The fact that Jesus or Moses actual walked on earth.   It is VERY CLEAR they are mythical figures if people actually bothered studying history.

Read the links in my signature to find out the TRUTH!!

 

 

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:Your

nutxaq wrote:

Your corrections of the "myths" you presented are myths.

 

nope

all truth


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:atomicdogg34

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

i suppose, in a sense.  it depends on who you compare him to.  if you're using someone like ceausescu or kim il sung as a frame of reference, this statement is patently ridiculous.  but yes, lincoln did take unprecedented executive measaures, like suspending habeas corpus.  however, i would argue this is precisely what made him a great president, because wars can't be won without strong executives, especially wars on one's own home turf, civil or otherwise.  that's why the romans created the office of dictator.

 

yeah a disregard for the constitution and civil liberties are a wonderful thing arent they

unbelievable


nutxaq
nutxaq's picture
Posts: 399
Joined: 2008-04-06
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:nutxaq

atomicdogg34 wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

Your corrections of the "myths" you presented are myths.

 

nope

all truth

Maybe in Libertarian fantasy land, where people who clawed there way to the top on the backs of people more qualified and honest than themselves can always be trusted to do the right thing.

"Faith, Faith is an island in the setting sun,
but proof, proof is the bottom line for everyone."
Proof, Paul Simon

Nothing this hard should taste so beefy.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jesus was the son of god

 

The simplicity of this caught me off guard, and I admit, I laughed out loud.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

nutxaq wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

Your corrections of the "myths" you presented are myths.

 

nope

all truth

Maybe in Libertarian fantasy land, where people who clawed there way to the top on the backs of people more qualified and honest than themselves can always be trusted to do the right thing.

 

Ouch. Laughing out loud

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
JFK was an asshole who

JFK was an asshole who tested chemical weapons in Canada on Canadians and involved the US illegally in Cuba. 20 cheers for his killer.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:iwbiek

atomicdogg34 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

i suppose, in a sense.  it depends on who you compare him to.  if you're using someone like ceausescu or kim il sung as a frame of reference, this statement is patently ridiculous.  but yes, lincoln did take unprecedented executive measaures, like suspending habeas corpus.  however, i would argue this is precisely what made him a great president, because wars can't be won without strong executives, especially wars on one's own home turf, civil or otherwise.  that's why the romans created the office of dictator.

 

yeah a disregard for the constitution and civil liberties are a wonderful thing arent they

unbelievable

wow, what a perfectly constructed argument.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:by myths

atomicdogg34 wrote:

by myths i don't mean actual myths or legends, but more along the lines of conventional wisdom about history

for instance:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

herbert hoover cause the great depression with laissez-faire capitalism and FDR saved the economy with interventionism- again, couldnt be farther from the truth, hoover was anything but a free market capitalist, he started the interventionist policies that FDR continued, FDR didnt save the economy, unemployment was high throughout his terms and the economy didnt recover until after the war and the markets were allowed to function

 

those are just some i could come up with, both US history, but pretty egregious and taught in schools as the gospel truth

toss in any suggestions you may have

 

Did you have a point, or did you just want to get into an argument about politics?

All you did was state two opinions that are obviously open to debate, and when others disagreed you said, "I'm right and you're wrong, neener-neener".

There is a politics forum you know...

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:atomicdogg34

mellestad wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

by myths i don't mean actual myths or legends, but more along the lines of conventional wisdom about history

for instance:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

herbert hoover cause the great depression with laissez-faire capitalism and FDR saved the economy with interventionism- again, couldnt be farther from the truth, hoover was anything but a free market capitalist, he started the interventionist policies that FDR continued, FDR didnt save the economy, unemployment was high throughout his terms and the economy didnt recover until after the war and the markets were allowed to function

 

those are just some i could come up with, both US history, but pretty egregious and taught in schools as the gospel truth

toss in any suggestions you may have

 

Did you have a point, or did you just want to get into an argument about politics?

All you did was state two opinions that are obviously open to debate, and when others disagreed you said, "I'm right and you're wrong, neener-neener".

There is a politics forum you know...

 

i didnt start any argument, i just gave 2 examples (first ones that popped into my head), it was others that called me on the veracity of them


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:atomicdogg34

mellestad wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

by myths i don't mean actual myths or legends, but more along the lines of conventional wisdom about history

for instance:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

herbert hoover cause the great depression with laissez-faire capitalism and FDR saved the economy with interventionism- again, couldnt be farther from the truth, hoover was anything but a free market capitalist, he started the interventionist policies that FDR continued, FDR didnt save the economy, unemployment was high throughout his terms and the economy didnt recover until after the war and the markets were allowed to function

 

those are just some i could come up with, both US history, but pretty egregious and taught in schools as the gospel truth

toss in any suggestions you may have

 

Did you have a point, or did you just want to get into an argument about politics?

All you did was state two opinions that are obviously open to debate, and when others disagreed you said, "I'm right and you're wrong, neener-neener".

There is a politics forum you know...

 

wasnt trying to make a point, just was pointing out examples of historical myths and what i thought was the truth


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:atomicdogg34

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

i suppose, in a sense.  it depends on who you compare him to.  if you're using someone like ceausescu or kim il sung as a frame of reference, this statement is patently ridiculous.  but yes, lincoln did take unprecedented executive measaures, like suspending habeas corpus.  however, i would argue this is precisely what made him a great president, because wars can't be won without strong executives, especially wars on one's own home turf, civil or otherwise.  that's why the romans created the office of dictator.

 

yeah a disregard for the constitution and civil liberties are a wonderful thing arent they

unbelievable

wow, what a perfectly constructed argument.

 

thanks

atleast im not the guy who thought that suspending habeas corpus makes a president great, and then add on that thats why the romans came up with a dictator, as if that was a wonderful idea


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
nutxaq wrote:atomicdogg34

nutxaq wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

nutxaq wrote:

Your corrections of the "myths" you presented are myths.

 

nope

all truth

Maybe in Libertarian fantasy land, where people who clawed there way to the top on the backs of people more qualified and honest than themselves can always be trusted to do the right thing.

 

shows how much you know about libertarianism or the free market, just par for the course though i guess

cant dispute the facts then totally misrepresent the oppositions opinion

http://mises.org/story/2902

should help set you straight on hoover, search around that site for more on lincoln if you wish

 

 

 


atomicdogg34
atheist
atomicdogg34's picture
Posts: 367
Joined: 2009-12-26
User is offlineOffline
as an add on so people dont

as an add on so people dont think im all about the political:

 

the myth that this country is a christian nation

alot of the founders were in fact deists, including: george washington, thomas jefferson, benjamin franklin (who may have been an atheist), thomas paine, and others

 

and it was jefferson who came up with the idea of the separation of church and state and used the term " a wall of separation"


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:iwbiek

atomicdogg34 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

i suppose, in a sense.  it depends on who you compare him to.  if you're using someone like ceausescu or kim il sung as a frame of reference, this statement is patently ridiculous.  but yes, lincoln did take unprecedented executive measaures, like suspending habeas corpus.  however, i would argue this is precisely what made him a great president, because wars can't be won without strong executives, especially wars on one's own home turf, civil or otherwise.  that's why the romans created the office of dictator.

 

yeah a disregard for the constitution and civil liberties are a wonderful thing arent they

unbelievable

wow, what a perfectly constructed argument.

 

thanks

atleast im not the guy who thought that suspending habeas corpus makes a president great, and then add on that thats why the romans came up with a dictator, as if that was a wonderful idea

well, it really isn't worth talking about if you just stick to subjective terms like "great," "wonderful," "tyrant" (in the sense you used it), etc., without even defining them.  i mean, if your idea of "exposing historical myths" is just to say, "lots of people think so-and-so was an admirable guy, but no, he was an asshole," then the only thing a person can say to that is "ok."

i never called the veracity of your ideas into question.  all i did was point out the need for you to give a frame of reference for how you apply ideas like "great" and "tyrant."  i submitted that, in my opinion, one of the qualities of a "great" president is that he can preserve the integrity of the nation and its borders against clearly evident internal and/or external threats.  after all, as commander-in-chief, this is one of the president's constitutional duties, and if a president fulfills his duty--i.e., "does his job"--then he is at least on his way to becoming "great."  

apparently your criteria for "great" are different.  fair enough.  present them and make your argument.  but don't be a fucking asshole.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:the

atomicdogg34 wrote:
the separation of church and state

 

OK, now there's a myth for you. The uncritical belief that this ever was a good idea.

The church and the state was separated in medieval times - and it created a situation where the church had as much, if not more, political power than the actual states. This grip on the minds and souls of the "congregation" would have been much tempered if the church and the state were seen as different sides to the same thing. Had there been a "Church of America" which served as a ceremonial institution for various events that people like to add some bells and whistles to; such as funerals, marriages or child namings; things would have probably looked a lot different today.

I do not think that "The Founding Fathers" were the sages of undefiled wisdom that so many Americans seem to believe. As far as I can see, they were a bunch of half-drunken, low educated buccaneers with the political vision of motherfucking moles. Ideology is all good and well when you are discussing over a bottle of wine or making speeches before a gullible audience, but at the end of the day, politics is - and always was - about doing the best out of what you've got, to serve the public interests, within the limits of what is realistically possible, given the situation you're in.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


Abu Lahab
Superfan
Abu Lahab's picture
Posts: 628
Joined: 2008-02-29
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:I do not think

Marquis wrote:

I do not think that "The Founding Fathers" were the sages of undefiled wisdom that so many Americans seem to believe<SNIP>

 

Thanks for your input, Marquis de Fraud.

How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Abu Lahab wrote:Marquis

Abu Lahab wrote:

Marquis wrote:

I do not think that "The Founding Fathers" were the sages of undefiled wisdom that so many Americans seem to believe<SNIP>

 Thanks for your input, Marquis de Fraud.

 

Awwww... poor baby... is your pussy hurting much?

BTW, that's supposed to be "Freud". You know, the German word for mirth.

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
 I know this isn't what you

 

I know this isn't what you meant but Jesus and Moses and TOTALLY MYTHICAL in every way and the historical record is clear on that.

We have several writers/historians living during those 33 years the bible CLAIMS Jesus lived but not only is there no account of the resurrection, parting of the red sea, or any of the supposed miracles he performed but the word Jesus even exist in the historical records from that time!!

Neither does the word Moses exist in the historical records of Egypt or Palestine!!


HOW FREAKIN OBVIOUS IS IT THAT CHRISTIANITY IS PURE MYTH??

Click on the links in my sig. to find out more.

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Going with the original

Going with the original theme... Presently, the biggest lie being told, and unfortunately believed by a lot of people because Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the ones telling it... is that the Founding fathers were *ALL* devout Christians, and that the Constitution was written on Judeo/Christian "Principles"...

 

This is despite there being *NO* mention of God or jesus in the constitution, and that many of the Founders have written things in direct contrast.... Not to mention that in 1776, you didnt have  too many jews involved in founding the united States...

 

The *really* frightening part is that Beck & Palin actually believe this...


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Wow...

About WW2:

atomicdogg34 wrote:
the economy didnt recover until after the war and the markets were allowed to function

Ummm... no. The reason the economy picked back up was because the rest of the world had been devastated from the war, with America being pretty much untouched, leaving the American economic system in a state of near monopoly-esqe power globally. It had nothing to due with "markets being allowed to function".

nutxaq wrote:
Maybe in Libertarian fantasy land, where people who clawed there way to the top on the backs of people more qualified and honest than themselves can always be trusted to do the right thing.

atomicdogg34 wrote:
shows how much you know about libertarianism or the free market, just par for the course though i guess

So, with free markets, the people who get rich did all the work to get there huh? Like building every single product/ transporting all of them/ producing all the materials? No they don't. Most are born into it and most of the others exploit people to get ahead.

 

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
 Actual history testifies

 

Actual history testifies that not only were "white people" responsible for slavery but so were many africans who actually sold their own people into slavery..not only to the white people but to their own people as well.

 

Yes, we did lie to the indians..a lot. We lied to them so much they finally stopped believing but by then it was too late for them to really do anything.

 

There is no real documented evidence that jesus ever existed.

 

I'll think of more later ><

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, I will play this game.

OK, I will play this game.

 

Myth: A flat tax would be fair. Sure, it would be fair to whomever would benefit the most from the idea. However, somebody always gets the shaft on any tax plan.

 

Myth: Bill Clinton's impeachment was about a blow job. Yah, sure. Hence the reason that he was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice.

 

Myth: Monica Lewinsky saved the presidential cum stain for...well, I have no fucking clue. Certainly she did not intend to show it to her grand kids. Really, what the fuck was wrong with her. Every other woman with that kind of a mess goes to the dry cleaner.

 

Myth: There was a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” against Clinton. Really, after eight years of people hating Bush 43, do you think that the other side had a “Vast Left Wing Conspiracy”? If the left could not put one together despite a much deeper hatred, then how in fuck's sake could the right have done the same thing back in the 90's?

 

Myth: The War on Drugs is a war in the sense that it may eventually be won. Has anyone from either side of Washington DC ever explicitly stated the victory condition? Um, when all drugs are gone? Sorry, people want drugs and people want to make huge amounts of cash for minimal effort. When nobody wants drugs anymore? See above.

 

Myth: Sarah Palin can see Russia from her house. Neither her family home nor the capital of Alaska are anywhere near the coast line. Even if she was standing on the western shore, the curve of the earth would have been a huge issue. She is as dumb as a fence post but even she would not look up to see where the rain is coming from and drown.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3915
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:abraham

atomicdogg34 wrote:

abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

And the slave holders he opposed were not tyrants?

Unfortunately the way the world works is that if you don't oppose violent, irrational people with a taste of their own medicine, nothing will stop them. Slavery was not going to end by playing nice with slaveholders that were making massive profits from the arrangement.

Also, the constitution makes the president the top military commander. So the president can do as he sees fit as long as it is part of a war effort. The people had a chance to vote him out in 1864 if he was such a tyrant, but they did not.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
The church did advocate

The church did advocate random killing. Knights who swore service to the church were allowed to kill but not on sundays or, wednesdays. In return for protection from such knights they were awarded..promises of heaven and cash, taken from the taxed peasants, whom the knights often randomly killed or raped.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Myth: A flat tax would be fair. Sure, it would be fair to whomever would benefit the most from the idea. However, somebody always gets the shaft on any tax plan.

 

 

How do you define fair?

It seems to me that a flat tax is the only method of taxing that doesn't treat anyone unfairly. We just don't use it because our tax system was created with goals other than maximizing fairness.

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I intentionally left that

I intentionally left that vague. Fairness is itself a pretty vague concept.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see everyone pay less tax. The thing is that the people who advocate that a flat tax would be fair are pretty much out for themselves. Those who advocate for a flat tax seem to want to present the idea as, in some way, fair to everyone equally. However, that is really bullshit. What it will do ultimately is be more fair to the people with the most to lose.

 

The way that I see this, the government has thousands of ways of taking money from people. Picking one of those ways and flattening it out might seem like a good idea. However, if we do that, the government is still going to take all of the money that it wants to spend from all of us somehow.

 

So let's say that we have a flat 25% income tax. Where does the government get the money from that it otherwise would not have? Something is going to change and pretty much those who are affected will not like it. There may need to be a 10% federal sales tax on top of everything else. The mortgage interest deduction may be lowered quite a bit. Perhaps some kind of luxury tax?

 

Any way you want to structure taxation is going to suck. The difference with a flat tax is that it sucks differently. It will not suck less.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


JesusNEVERexisted
Superfan
JesusNEVERexisted's picture
Posts: 724
Joined: 2010-01-03
User is offlineOffline
Rich Woods wrote:Going with

Rich Woods wrote:

Going with the original theme... Presently, the biggest lie being told, and unfortunately believed by a lot of people because Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are the ones telling it... is that the Founding fathers were *ALL* devout Christians, and that the Constitution was written on Judeo/Christian "Principles"...

 

This is despite there being *NO* mention of God or jesus in the constitution, and that many of the Founders have written things in direct contrast.... Not to mention that in 1776, you didnt have  too many jews involved in founding the united States...

 

The *really* frightening part is that Beck & Palin actually believe this...

Great points about the constitution as I have stated before but what things have the founding fathers written in direct contrast with Christianity?

Click here to find out why Christianity is the biggest fairy tale ever created!! www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm www.JesusNEVERexisted.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15732
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

jesus was the son of god

FUCK YOU! HE WAS THE SON OF GOD.....I MEAN.....THE SON OF HIMSELF..........I MEAN....HIMSELF......I MEAN....STOP CONFUSING ME!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
Huh?

Whattedeuce wrote:
How do you define fair?

It seems to me that a flat tax is the only method of taxing that doesn't treat anyone unfairly. We just don't use it because our tax system was created with goals other than maximizing fairness.

How is it fair in any way? Take two people, one who makes about 1,000 per/month and another who makes 100,000 per/month. Lets assume that the flat tax is 25%, just for the sake of the argument. After taxes, the rich person makes out with 75,000 left after taxes. That poor person though makes out with a mere 750. Then add in the cost of living, which we will factor as another 50% of their wages, so we get to a point where the poor person is ekking out a living on that 250 yet the rich person still has enough money to buy a jet. When you get to amounts that low, the dollars really need to stretch farther then they can. Unless taxes are based on your income, the poor end up spending a much larger amount of their useable income then the rich person. You can easily make due with the money to buy a jet, it's a lot harder to break even when all you have is the money for a loaf of bread. I guess I feel this way though since I have been a pretty poor working class kid my entire life, learning to improvise, repair and make due with what I had. When you're poor, that 100-200 dollars is the difference between eating, seeing the doctor, paying bills, or not. That rich person taxed the same percentage is still living fat and happy.

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:How is it fair

B166ER wrote:

How is it fair in any way?

It's fair because everyone is treated equally...

B166ER wrote:
Take two people, one who makes about 1,000 per/month and another who makes 100,000 per/month. Lets assume that the flat tax is 25%, just for the sake of the argument. After taxes, the rich person makes out with 75,000 left after taxes. That poor person though makes out with a mere 750. Then add in the cost of living, which we will factor as another 50% of their wages, so we get to a point where the poor person is ekking out a living on that 250 yet the rich person still has enough money to buy a jet. When you get to amounts that low, the dollars really need to stretch farther then they can. Unless taxes are based on your income, the poor end up spending a much larger amount of their useable income then the rich person. You can easily make due with the money to buy a jet, it's a lot harder to break even when all you have is the money for a loaf of bread.

 

All you have done is say that rich people have more money than poor people. The fact that the rich person has more money does not come from taxes. It comes from the amounts of money the two people make in their salaries.

 

B166ER wrote:
I guess I feel this way though since I have been a pretty poor working class kid my entire life, learning to improvise, repair and make due with what I had. When you're poor, that 100-200 dollars is the difference between eating, seeing the doctor, paying bills, or not. That rich person taxed the same percentage is still living fat and happy.

I'm very sorry that you are poor. However, I don't see how it affects the fairness of a flat tax rate. I realize that different people make different amounts of money, but that discrepancy is not caused by the tax system.

 

BTW, I also never said that I though a flat tax system is the best one, I only said it was the fairest.

edit: the only way I can see arguing that a flat tax is unfair is to say that the money has different marginal values for people who have different amounts of wealth. Then you would say that instead of taxing money, the government should be taxing the individual's personal evaluation of how much s/he cares about that money. The main problem I see with this is that all the money goes to the same government. The government has one single standard for the value of money. The marginal value of money is the same to government regardless of where it comes from.

 

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
atomicdogg34 wrote:abraham

atomicdogg34 wrote:
abraham lincoln was a one of the greatest presidents in history- couldnt be farther from the truth, lincoln was a tyrant

 

Those are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Despite that you are pitting opinions against opinions here, which is a foolish thing to do in general, he could easily be both even in a single person's eyes.

Your comments on economy are at least more objective.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
flat tax

B1GGER wrote:

How is it fair in any way?

Whatthedeuce wrote:

BTW, I also never said that I thought a flat tax system is the best one, I only said it was the fairest.

 

I view the flat tax as "fairer" than the current system in the US.  All I have is anecdotal evidence.

It's the mid-1980s.  I was a student, newly married, three children.  We made about $25,000 that year.  We paid over $7000 in federal income taxes.  We both had taxes taken out of our salaries, but had to pay about $1000 in April.  A good thing I usually do taxes early so we had time to scrounge the money.

My husband's boss' father died that year.  The boss' mother sold her house in New Jersey and moved to Tucson.  The deceased was not on the billionaire list, but he had electronic patents, a pension the widow qualified for a piece of, a life insurance policy she cashed and the house on the lake she sold.  She hunted around and found a tax lawyer that got her tax bill down to $600.  No, I am not missing some zeros, that was six hundred dollars.

My beef with the current tax structure is the deductions are all geared towards people who have money.  Working poor take the standard deductions, because that is all they have.  You usually rent so there is no mortgage interest deduction.  Minimum wage jobs don't usually have employment expenses you can deduct.  Unless you are chronically ill or have been hospitalized, your medical expenses are usually less than the minimum amount you have to accrue through the year before you can deduct a percentage of your costs.  You probably don't have losses on the stock market, so no capital losses to deduct.  If anything was stolen, it was probably not worth enough to bother itemizing on your return.  And you probably have no uncollected loans to deduct as you don't have the money to loan out.

At least with a flat tax, you know wealthy people and corporations have to pay something.  For that year in the mid-80s?  25% of $25,000 = $6250.  I would have paid less in taxes with a flat rate.  If I recall correctly - this was in the early 1990s during Bush I - the estimate was a flat rate of 14% would bring in revenue equal to the current amount of income tax revenue with a little left over.  Even better.  The flat tax was defeated because the "middle class" - those with home mortgages - threw a hissy fit and flooded congress with protests.  If most of them had calculated the actual taxes they would have paid under a flat tax, they may have had a different opinion.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:My beef with the

cj wrote:

My beef with the current tax structure is the deductions are all geared towards people who have money.

Not to mention capital gains. Warren Buffet likes to say that he paid a lower percentage of his earnings in taxes than his secretary did. He isn't joking. The way capital gains works, he pays a flat tax on his senselessly massive earning. He secretary's income tax is taxed under a 'progressive' scheme that hammers her. There is effectively one standard for the mega-wealthy and another far harsher standard for the plebes. Somehow this is always referred to as 'progressive' in a truly Orwellian choice of words.

You wanna get raped on taxes? Have the government consider you to be self employed. If I wasn't self employed, I wouldn't pay an income tax. But since I do contracting work and technically (only in a technical IRS designation) don't have an employer, no one pays a pay roll tax for my earnings. And so I pay income tax on an annual income so low that I would be exempted from the income tax otherwise. This is some bullshit. But, tax law wasn't written with me in mind. It was written for the ultra-wealthy. Let's say you are mega-rich and you have a lot of long term investments that are the source of most of your income. That is a "long-term capital gain". Guess what the tax rate on that is? It is a 15% flat tax. It's good to be on top.

 

Quote:

Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night:  Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Misconceptions of the US Tax System

As someone who prepares 100s of tax returns every year for one of the major tax preparing companies I'd like to point out several misconceptions that have been presented here:

 

First:

 

cj wrote:

My beef with the current tax structure is the deductions are all geared towards people who have money.

Clearly deductions only apply to those who actually have income what else could they be? Credits can apply to anyone depending. Consider the following:

1-The 2009 tax season just ended recently with this statistic - approximately 47% of US taxpayers paid no Federal Income taxes in 2009. This does not refer to other payroll taxes such as Social Security & Medicare which are not an income tax.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

2-Number of taxpayers who received part of $49 Billion in EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for 2008 was 24 million.

The EITC is one of the most misused, misunderstood, and largest redistribution method of wealth in the tax codes. Over 7 million more households qualify and never take the credit. Many illegals find a way to claim this credit illegally though the IRS has cracked down hard on this especially for the 2009 tax season.

EITC is a refundable credit, meaning even if you owe no tax you get the money. Nonrefundable credits are only applied against taxes owed and you do not get the difference as a refund.

3-Child tax credits - The US tax system essentially pays you to have children. This is done in 2 ways. EITC previously mentioned and Child Tax Credits.  The Child Tax Credit itself is a non-refundable credit up to $1,000 per child which phases out with increased income. The best deal is for a Head of Household, (essentially a single parent). If you have no income or little income then you don't get this credit but you probably qualify for the Additional Child Tax Credit which is also $1,000 per child and is a refundable credit.

I did uncounted returns this year where the taxpayer had minimum income (or none) and they received $6,000 to $12,000 on tax refunds.

These people probably are also receiving other government support as well as child support in some cases (if lucky) none of which is taxed.

4-Home buyers credit. This began under Bush with up to $7500 credit for new home buyers which was essentially a loan payable each tax year starting in 2010 for 15 years. It was 1st changed in early 2009 up to $8,000 credit with strings that made it a cash giveaway not a loan. However those who got the deal for $7500 were stuck with it as a loan. It was changed in late 2009 to also give up to $6500 to existing homeowners who buy a new replacement home who met certain conditions and was again a cash give out.

5-In 2009 there was a credit that was up to $400 called Make Work Pay. As you made over a certain amount it was phased out and increased as you made no income to the maximum.

Generally all credits have income limits and phase out as you make higher levels as they are used for wealth redistribution in most cases.

 

Next:

Jormungander wrote:

Not to mention capital gains. Warren Buffet likes to say that he paid a lower percentage of his earnings in taxes than his secretary did. He isn't joking. The way capital gains works, he pays a flat tax on his senselessly massive earning. He secretary's income tax is taxed under a 'progressive' scheme that hammers her. There is effectively one standard for the mega-wealthy and another far harsher standard for the plebes. Somehow this is always referred to as 'progressive' in a truly Orwellian choice of words.

The US Tax structure is really a massive method for redistribution of wealth and not just a means to collect revenue. The poor aren't the only ones that gain under this system. One can argue whether or not its fair or not but it's not as simplistic as you suggest. There are several things going on at once and lumping it altogether is incorrect. Not that I'm defending the major loopholes that allow such disparity it's just not that simple.

Jormungander wrote:

You wanna get raped on taxes? Have the government consider you to be self employed. If I wasn't self employed, I wouldn't pay an income tax. But since I do contracting work and technically (only in a technical IRS designation) don't have an employer, no one pays a pay roll tax for my earnings. And so I pay income tax on an annual income so low that I would be exempted from the income tax otherwise. This is some bullshit. But, tax law wasn't written with me in mind. It was written for the ultra-wealthy. Let's say you are mega-rich and you have a lot of long term investments that are the source of most of your income. That is a "long-term capital gain". Guess what the tax rate on that is? It is a 15% flat tax. It's good to be on top.

Capital gains taxes  again are not as simplistic as you present

Depending on your marginal tax rate the following applied in 2009 and to 2010:

10% tax rate - long term gain rate = 0% - yeah ZERO %

15% tax rate - long term gain - again = 0%

25% to 35% tax rate - long term gain = 15% for 2008 to 2010

Beginning with 2011 tax year the following applies:

10 and 15% revert to 2002 levels  or 10% as do the others unless the tax cut is continued.

 

28 to 39.6% tax rates - long term gain rate = 20%

Also note the marginal rates change beginning with 2011 returns:

from 15% to a maximun of 39.6%

 

As someone who has been self employed for over 20 years I understand your frustration. I owned tanning salons until the economy took away all the disposable income of my customers, caused by $4/gallon gas, home foreclosures, mortgage payments that went up by 100 to 150% in less than 5 years, and loss of jobs. I live in Orlando, Florida. Now I'm a self employed manufacturing rep which makes me very little cash right now among other self employed activities I pursue. I do taxes because I have a MBA in Finance & Accounting and it's a way to make enough to eat. The tax preparer job is the only thing I do that essentially involves an employer.

There are several parts to the taxes you pay and it's not all income tax. The greatest majority of taxes you are paying are probably Social Security and Medicare which together are 15.3% of your income after you deduct your business expenses. When the tax cuts were handed out in recent years those of us that derived most of our income from self employment saw absolutely no change generally because we were making so very little in the 1st place and most of the taxes we pay were Social Security taxes. Example - net after expenses for my business of $10,000 means I owe $1,530 X .9235  or $1,413 in self employment taxes approximately.

So if this were the case in 2009, we have this:

Adjusted Gross Income  $10,000

less standard deduction - $5,700 (or itemized deductions)

less 1 exemption            - $3650 (for 2009 changes almost every year higher)

Taxable Income   $650

 

Income Taxes -  $0.00

Self Employment Tax $1,413

Credits

EITC $200

Make Work Pay $400

Total Credits $600

 

Amount you owe $813

So this is 8% of your income. Is this rape? Is it fair? Fairness depends on your perspective doesn't it?

 

 

As you apply expenses against your gross income you can reduce not only what is taxed for income but what is taxed for self employment taxes. I don't know what you do and why your customers or more likely a tricky employer has you as a contract worker. Most of the time people are incorrectly classified as contract workers though they are really employees. This is probably an employer who is giving you 1099s so they can save their half of the Social Security Tax and avoid paying unemployment taxes and workers comp which saves them a lot and costs you. See tests that determine if you are an employee at the IRS website.

 

Quote:

Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

Interesting report from the Hillary Clinton fundraiser last night:  Warren Buffet complained that he paid a 17.7% tax rate on his $46 million of taxable income in 2006, while his employees paid an average 32.9% tax rate (his receptionist's tax rate was 30%).

So if his employees are taxed for income tax at 32.9% (really 33% in 08 or 09) this means they are making over $164,000 if single, $208,000 if married or $190,000 if Head of Household. Probably this is not what was meant at all as the Social Security & Medicare taxes were likely included meaning the real marginal tax rate was 25% and they made over $33,000 single, $67,000 married, or $45,000 head of household. Misunderstanding of tax rates also apply to what rate you are actually paying too. You pay the rate up to the limit for each marginal rate then get taxed on the next amount at the next marginal rate. This means each marginal rate is applied as you make more money. So for a single person after all deductions for example, up to $8,350 is taxed at 10%, $8,351 to 33,500 is taxed at 15%, $32,501 to $82,250 is taxed at 25%, $82,251 to $171,550 is taxed at 28%. So for example the real tax rate for someone making net after deductions:

$25,000 - 13%

$50,000 - 18%

$100,000 - 22%

$200,000 - 26%

$450,000 - 30% which is what Buffet's receptionist tax rate is claimed to be in the quote. What does she do for $450,000 a year?

If the claimed tax rate wrongly includes social security & medicare taxes (7.65%) she is still making between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.

 

 Sources - Irs.gov and one of the major tax preparer companies reference manuals.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:As

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As someone who prepares 100s of tax returns every year for one of the major tax preparing companies I'd like to point out several misconceptions that have been presented here:

 

First:

 

cj wrote:

My beef with the current tax structure is the deductions are all geared towards people who have money.

Clearly deductions only apply to those who actually have income what else could they be? Credits can apply to anyone depending. Consider the following:

1-The 2009 tax season just ended recently with this statistic - approximately 47% of US taxpayers paid no Federal Income taxes in 2009. This does not refer to other payroll taxes such as Social Security & Medicare which are not an income tax.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Nearly-half-of-US-households-apf-1105567323.html?x=0&.v=1

2-Number of taxpayers who received part of $49 Billion in EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit) for 2008 was 24 million.

The EITC is one of the most misused, misunderstood, and largest redistribution method of wealth in the tax codes. Over 7 million more households qualify and never take the credit. Many illegals find a way to claim this credit illegally though the IRS has cracked down hard on this especially for the 2009 tax season.

EITC is a refundable credit, meaning even if you owe no tax you get the money. Nonrefundable credits are only applied against taxes owed and you do not get the difference as a refund.

3-Child tax credits - The US tax system essentially pays you to have children. This is done in 2 ways. EITC previously mentioned and Child Tax Credits.  The Child Tax Credit itself is a non-refundable credit up to $1,000 per child which phases out with increased income. The best deal is for a Head of Household, (essentially a single parent). If you have no income or little income then you don't get this credit but you probably qualify for the Additional Child Tax Credit which is also $1,000 per child and is a refundable credit.

I did uncounted returns this year where the taxpayer had minimum income (or none) and they received $6,000 to $12,000 on tax refunds.

These people probably are also receiving other government support as well as child support in some cases (if lucky) none of which is taxed.

4-Home buyers credit. This began under Bush with up to $7500 credit for new home buyers which was essentially a loan payable each tax year starting in 2010 for 15 years. It was 1st changed in early 2009 up to $8,000 credit with strings that made it a cash giveaway not a loan. However those who got the deal for $7500 were stuck with it as a loan. It was changed in late 2009 to also give up to $6500 to existing homeowners who buy a new replacement home who met certain conditions and was again a cash give out.

5-In 2009 there was a credit that was up to $400 called Make Work Pay. As you made over a certain amount it was phased out and increased as you made no income to the maximum.

Generally all credits have income limits and phase out as you make higher levels as they are used for wealth redistribution in most cases.

 

In the mid-80s, the only one of these that existed was the EITC.  Also, back then, $25000 was not bad for the year.  Now, we would be homeless on that income and the kids are all grown up not living at home.

This year, we have a mortgage and we qualified for MWP, and I got more back than I expected since they changed the rules on cashing out your 401K.  The others - no children living at home so no EITC and no CTC, and no new house this year. 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

Capital gains taxes  again are not as simplistic as you present

Depending on your marginal tax rate the following applied in 2009 and to 2010:

10% tax rate - long term gain rate = 0% - yeah ZERO %

15% tax rate - long term gain - again = 0%

25% to 35% tax rate - long term gain = 15% for 2008 to 2010

Beginning with 2011 tax year the following applies:

10 and 15% revert to 2002 levels  or 10% as do the others unless the tax cut is continued.

 

28 to 39.6% tax rates - long term gain rate = 20%

Also note the marginal rates change beginning with 2011 returns:

from 15% to a maximun of 39.6%

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

So for example the real tax rate for someone making net after deductions:

$25,000 - 13%

$50,000 - 18%

$100,000 - 22%

$200,000 - 26%

$450,000 - 30% which is what Buffet's receptionist tax rate is claimed to be in the quote. What does she do for $450,000 a year?

If the claimed tax rate wrongly includes social security & medicare taxes (7.65%) she is still making between $100,000 and $200,000 per year.

 

 Sources - Irs.gov and one of the major tax preparer companies reference manuals.

 

I think Jormugander's point was that capital gains tax is less than income tax.  I think your numbers support this?

My husband does some small business consulting type work.  Yeah, Schedule C sucks.  Filling it out is worse.  And being taxed on what little you do manage to make after expenses sucks.  But you know, this was designed for guys who are construction managers and lawyers and doctors and such.  You know, people who have an office or shop and they employ people and so on.  Wasn't the idea to pay yourself a "salary" and pay personal income tax on that and ensure you have no profits on the business tax forms?  Hard to do if you are working out of your home.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: In the mid-80s,

cj wrote:

 

In the mid-80s, the only one of these that existed was the EITC.  Also, back then, $25000 was not bad for the year.  Now, we would be homeless on that income and the kids are all grown up not living at home.

This year, we have a mortgage and we qualified for MWP, and I got more back than I expected since they changed the rules on cashing out your 401K.  The others - no children living at home so no EITC and no CTC, and no new house this year.

There were other great loopholes in the 80s such as income averaging on Schedule G. If you were self employed or even if you got a huge pay increase you could use it to average over the previous years. This was a great thing for small business and went away in one of the tax revisions. 

My point to you was regarding your statement regarding deductions. A deduction is only useful if you have income over the standard deduction. Since most lower income people don't,  deductions are useless to them. Credits began as you correctly point out in the mid to late 90s (1997 I think in regards to the child tax credits) Since like you by then my children were over the age limits they were no help to me either. Historically deductions have always been developed for people with money and lower income people don't benefit.

 

 

cj wrote:

I think Jormugander's point was that capital gains tax is less than income tax.  I think your numbers support this?

My husband does some small business consulting type work.  Yeah, Schedule C sucks.  Filling it out is worse.  And being taxed on what little you do manage to make after expenses sucks.  But you know, this was designed for guys who are construction managers and lawyers and doctors and such.  You know, people who have an office or shop and they employ people and so on.  Wasn't the idea to pay yourself a "salary" and pay personal income tax on that and ensure you have no profits on the business tax forms?  Hard to do if you are working out of your home.

Correct, capital gains taxes are lower than the marginal rates for regular income, which is not a bad thing even for regular taxpayers.

Lower capital gain taxes also benefit people who have invested over their working years and begin to sell off these investments when they retire. Granted when people retire they are usually in lower tax brackets anyway but the investment income is treated differently than regular taxable income and will benefit you at that point. 

Yes those who engage in only investment activity and keep their holdings over a year get a lower tax rate. Very few of them do this as they trade constantly and are paying short term gains at regular tax rates.

Schedule C is no worse than any other IRS form, you just need to keep records and detail as needed. Agreed, it was originally for the small business owner with a bricks & mortar location,  but these days many of us don't have a location. Doctors and lawyers all seem to be LLC or LLP these days and previously were either schedule C filers or in a partership. My current self employment is a manufacturer's rep and I have no location either. Any time I travel from my tax home all is deductible expense. If your husband does any travel at all this can work for your benefit. Even taking the check to the bank from his clients is deductible business mileage.

I'm grateful to the IRS for making taxes a bitch so I can make money doing taxes for others.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 If you haven't already,

 If you haven't already, you should really read The Lies My Teacher Told Me. I found it terribly brilliant.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote: If you

smartypants wrote:

 If you haven't already, you should really read The Lies My Teacher Told Me. I found it terribly brilliant.

 

I endorse this book as well.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Mr. XC
High Level DonorSpecial AgentWebsite AdminPlatinum Member
Posts: 237
Joined: 2006-12-19
User is offlineOffline
Forced Labour in Liberia

robj101 wrote:
Actual history testifies that not only were "white people" responsible for slavery but so were many africans who actually sold their own people into slavery..not only to the white people but to their own people as well.

For later examples, see forced labour in Liberia.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberia/history.html

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. ..." -- Thomas Jefferson


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Mr. XC wrote: For later

Mr. XC wrote:

 

For later examples, see forced labour in Liberia.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberia/history.html

  Liberia, wasn't that an African nation that was named for the repatriated slaves who were supposed to make a new start there ?  What a f**king joke.

  ( Liberia, a hell hole of drugged up sociopaths who comprised an "army" under *Charles Taylor...a friend of *Pat Robertson and his diamond mines...       Similar to the military conflict in Sierra Leone in the sense that "warfare" consisted mostly of armies of young teenagers who went around mutilating and torturing anything that was alive and could feel pain. )

  edit: sorry XC, I posted before I read your link, my observations are redundant

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


James Myers (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Lets get down to the truth.

  I am a visitor to this website probably for reasons that many of you will never truly understand. I am a follower of Jesus Christ, an avid one at that, one whom knows without question that He was and still is the Savior of this world. I am not here to start a riot nor am I here to hammer and force you to sway toward my way of thinking. However, what I am here to do is start an open conversation with anyone interested in knowing the truth. I will acknowledge your stand points and your counter arguements but I know without doubt that my hold of the truth of God will trump any and all challenges. This website and others like it are an avenue for a new open way of thinking presumably. I will add that I see it is as the cultivation of a generation away from true realization and opening them to new ways of subjegation. Know this and know it well, I truly do love you all as fellow creations of a magnificent God and am only here to try and plant a seed that may or may not change your life. My e-mail is [email protected]. I look foward to any correspondence with you guys. From what I have read there are some very intelligent and well purposed people here. I hope to hear from you soon....and whether you appreciate it or not....God Bless.


Zeeboe
Posts: 335
Joined: 2007-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I am currently reading "The

I am currently reading "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo. It's a fascinating read. I think it proves Lincoln is not perfect and not the God like figure so many people just assume him to be. Heck, I was one of them for a long time. I still have nothing against him either. I think the book proves that for a long time now, politicians have lied in order to get political support. I think these days, it's a lot harder because today with the internet and TV, there is no way Lincoln could get away with things he said to one audience and then to another. I think a politician lying is like a cop being rude, or a car salesman being pushy or a stripper being friendly: It's all just business.