Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

Nope, turns out he's just another greedy parasite.  He's down on the level of Drunky and thug.

Did he delete some of your comments? I see a lot of replies he made attacking you, but the OP was deleted and there was no "comment deleted" message that I could see, which is what you get when the user and not the channel owner deletes a comment.

[evensgrey]

Did he delete some of your comments? I see a lot of replies he made attacking you, but the OP was deleted and there was no "comment deleted" message that I could see, which is what you get when the user and not the channel owner deletes a comment.

Looks like he deleted a couple.  Not that it helps him look any better.  Stupid, ignorant Keynesian.  Turns out Pooka's no better, either.

Why would ANYONE trust statistics from the Treasury Department about the effects of taxation?

[Gumba Masta]

Comment deletion over a differing view is something that rings unlikely if I were to go by what I know of SiriusMinded.

[evensgrey]

Comment deletion over a differing view is something that rings unlikely if I were to go by what I know of SiriusMinded.

Then where are they?

[evensgrey]

Incidentally, for everyone who bothered to read the comments, I just ran the numbers, and for someone who JUST breasts into the top tax bracket in Canada, the effective total Federal income tax rate is just over 21%, so just over 14% effective tax rate on dividends (and then there's another tax credit on top of that, I think, since I've never earned any dividends it's never come up for me).  Money in the top tax bracket gets a Federal income tax rate of 29%, which is just under 20% effective tax rate on Dividends (and, for that matter, just under 16% and just under 22% for Capital Gains).  Since the top tax bracket was $127 021 for 2010 and $128 800 for 2011, not many people pay a higher rate on dividends than you pay in the US at 15% and the rate isn't all that much higher here.

Incidentally, Canada doesn't have a long/short term Capital Gains distinction, all taxable Capital Gains are taxed as 75% of their nominal value.  So, if you think you can get rich day trading, Canada may be a better place to do it than the US.  Not that any normal person can get rich day trading.

Provincial income taxes are extra, of course, just like State and local ones (poor suckers who live in places with those) in the US.  In Ontario, the rates are much lower than the Federal rates (starts at 5.05% and the top rate is 11.16% for 2011, but the tax brackets are different).  How does that compare to State rates in the US?

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I hit him with the old "Why exactly do the rich owe more in taxes anyway?  It's not like they're getting more roads/courts/military/etc out of the deal." issue.

First he gives me this
"Many of the rich pay less as a percentage of their income than people making less than them. They have a lot of sweet heart tax deals that you and I don't qualify for. When you wake up to that, you'll understand.

Because of the way CGT works, he paid a LOWER percentage in tax than I did last year."

Which isn't an answer at all so I pressed him more and got this.

"He has 100x more at stake, and has 100x more rewarded by the system that allowed him to do so."

....that makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm getting the sense that he's NEVER considered that question before which is worrying.

[AnCap Dave]

I hit him with the old "Why exactly do the rich owe more in taxes anyway?  It's not like they're getting more roads/courts/military/etc out of the deal." issue.

First he gives me this
"Many of the rich pay less as a percentage of their income than people making less than them. They have a lot of sweet heart tax deals that you and I don't qualify for. When you wake up to that, you'll understand.

Because of the way CGT works, he paid a LOWER percentage in tax than I did last year."

Which isn't an answer at all so I pressed him more and got this.

"He has 100x more at stake, and has 100x more rewarded by the system that allowed him to do so."

....that makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm getting the sense that he's NEVER considered that question before which is worrying.

It's not just him. Many people throw similar answers like that at you if you ask them the same question.

[evensgrey]

I hit him with the old "Why exactly do the rich owe more in taxes anyway?  It's not like they're getting more roads/courts/military/etc out of the deal." issue.

First he gives me this
"Many of the rich pay less as a percentage of their income than people making less than them. They have a lot of sweet heart tax deals that you and I don't qualify for. When you wake up to that, you'll understand.

Because of the way CGT works, he paid a LOWER percentage in tax than I did last year."

Which isn't an answer at all so I pressed him more and got this.

"He has 100x more at stake, and has 100x more rewarded by the system that allowed him to do so."

....that makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm getting the sense that he's NEVER considered that question before which is worrying.

Who is 'he' that has so much more?  I have a feeling he's talking about Warren Buffet, who would have paid rather a higher percentage of his income in taxes than Sirius last year and just lied his ass off about it.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I posed to him "If someone has 100x more than you, why does he owe 100x in taxes considering he's not getting 100x more police/courts/etc out of it."

His reply conveniently overlooks the fact that if someone got rich, he ALREADY paid back for it through whatever good or service he provided that made him rich in the first place.  Saying he owes again for that is double dipping.

[evensgrey]

I posed to him "If someone has 100x more than you, why does he owe 100x in taxes considering he's not getting 100x more police/courts/etc out of it."

His reply conveniently overlooks the fact that if someone got rich, he ALREADY paid back for it through whatever good or service he provided that made him rich in the first place.  Saying he owes again for that is double dipping.

He probably assumed (or would at least claim that he assumed) the guy inherited it or some such (in which case society got the benefit of whatever business activity earned the money when it was earned).  If there's inheritance tax (and I don't see how he could not want that as well, no matter how much poverty and unemployment it causes) then he's trying to TRIPLE dip.

[Gumba Masta]

I posed to him "If someone has 100x more than you, why does he owe 100x in taxes considering he's not getting 100x more police/courts/etc out of it."

His reply conveniently overlooks the fact that if someone got rich, he ALREADY paid back for it through whatever good or service he provided that made him rich in the first place.  Saying he owes again for that is double dipping.

Not to mention all that money they spend on supporting politicians that in turn make for legislation that lets them pay even less taxes.

[MrBogosity]

From adamdabester in these comments, excusing a California fire department for letting a house burn:

and it happens in California because of the far right restricting taxation down to starvation levels for the government

Even though the effective tax rate per capital in California is fifth highest in the nation!

[AnCap Dave]

My cousin Jimmy strikes again! Again!

I shared the following picture on Facebook:


My cousin Jimmy gave us this enlightening response:

"Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a U.S. soldier. The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges. The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly, they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation."

Same person. Hitler spoke of peace as well.

[Ibrahim90]

wow... your cousin really is a moron.

Al-Awlaki in your quote was expressing actual Islamic legal jurisprudence on the subject of killing innocent civilians (you simply don't do it). of course what your cousin tried to do was show he didn't really believe that. well, I'm about to ruin that for him (note: not to be construed as defending Awlaki, or approving/defending of Nidal's actions):

because Nidal was known to have passed up opportunities to kill civilians: he was only deliberately targeting people in Uniform, or those who tried to fight back: as a result, all but one of the 13 killed were military men, and most of the wounded were also military (see sources below).


http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/21/nation/la-na-fort-hood-20101021

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/nation-world/nation/20101019-Civilian-nurse-testifies-Maj-Nidal-6201.ece (might have expired since)

[Goaticus]

Same person. Hitler spoke of peace as well.

Hitler also wore khaki pants and ate with a fork. He probably peed standing up too. I always thought the reductio ad hitlerum was a particularly lame fallacy.