Reply With Quote
Wild Cobra needs context.
I told you cats I own this cuck...he slurping all over my ...so he sends me this PM after I owned him. I think Mid may be a crystal meth user if not it's gots to be crack...
Peace.09-07-2011, 11:19 AM midnightpulp
Sick, sick, sick!
Team: San Antonio Spurs
SpursTalk Cash: $2000
Post Count: 4,945
Appreciate the sincere reply.
Don't mind learning something new. And I also don't mind deferring to someone more knowledgeable than me on a subject. For the record, I always figured you were playing a character and are an intelligent person, despite my "chimp brain" insults.
Our feud no doubt entertains the forum, not to mention myself, which is why I chose to PM you rather than reply in the thread. Doing so, would kill the Koolaid_Man persona you worked so hard to create.
Wild Cobra needs context.
Kool: bad form.
And luva: you didn't survive.
Kool inflates his trolling stats by only going after gnsf and creating massive amounts of threads about the same things over and over. Overrated imho.
Hey, I call 'em as I see him, and you indeed shed your re ed Koolaid_Man persona with that post by writing an articulate, well thought out reply. If anything, you just owned yourself by killing off your character by bringing attention to something no one actually read in the first place. For anyone interested, here's the post in question:
Koolaid_Man is done. Time to register with a new troll. Too bad. I enjoyed the Chimp Brain vs. Midget shtick we had going.I will give you credit for two things. 1.) Trying and 2.) Forcing me to temporarily suspend my posting style while at the same time exposing the fact that I really don't have a chimp brain.
My degree(s) are not in accounting, economics, or international business
Your last post proves my point.
The operative words in this sentence is TAXABLE INCOME; again taxable income is AFTER the numerous deductions and credits that the Federal government allows to offset gross income; since we don’t know Fishers exact tax situation and all the deductions/credits he could possibly take against his adjusted GROSS earnings of $45m, I used an estimated average tax rate which is less than the statutory tax rate of 35% and applied that percentage to the adjusted GROSS income)
I should make you research this on your own but this is a teachable or pimpology moment for Kool. Before you review the Congressional Budget Office data let Chimp Brain Kool walk you through it ( very slowly):
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8...endix_wtoc.pdf
You will want to look at the second set of graphs (on page 12) which relates to households with children. So the very first graph is all federal taxes and the overall effective tax rate by quintile of household income (read the section at the beginning of the graph). The 2nd graph after that relates specifically to individual income tax (i.e. this would exclude social security and any other sources by which the federal government gets tax revenue...those items are broken out separately below the individual income tax graph). But even if you go back to the top and look at the overall (i.e. average among all households those with children and those without (we know children reduce your tax burden even further), the effective for the top (which Derek Fisher is not in) is still less than 20%.
Mid you don’t quite understand effective versus absolute tax rate. Yes, Fisher may be in the 35% tax rate bracket, but as a percentage of his gross taxable income, his actual tax liability is less than 35%
Look closely at the CBO graphs I linked. You will see that the overall (i.e. all federal taxes) for the top 1% of earners (the far right column and which likely includes corporations) is above the 20% but if you go to the middle column (All quintiles which is all tax paying en ies I suppose) and look at the average for 2005 it is just above 20% at 20.5%. However, if you go to the left 2 columns over and look at the 4th quintile (which still might be high for Derek’s income level) it is below 20% and drops from there, and this is looking at the nation as a whole for all federal taxes. If you go to the graph just below it, you will see the same information that relates to individual income taxes only (which is what we're talking about). This shows that even for the top 1%, it is still less than 20%, and if you go to the national average it is under 10%, so from this, my 15% is a conservative number.
You are not alone mid...many people don't understand the difference between marginal and effective tax rates and they don't understand the wide gap between the two. Since you don't understand it you simplify it into marginal-rate comparisons like you've clearly done here. Is it (marginal rates) part of the total tax picture , sure, but it's a poor way to simplify a complex system. You laughed when I first exposed you to effective tax rates but they are a much better measure because they accurately measure what people actually pay.
Obama and his crew totally gets it and I'm on board with what they're trying to do because unlike most people here I actually understand it. Don't get bogged down in wedge issues.
And what's really sad is the obvious education you do have was never actually put to any practical, real world use. If it was, you'd be able to afford paying off a 500.00 bet
And what's really sad is the obvious education you do have was never actually put to any practical, real world use. If it was, you'd be able to afford paying off a 500.00 bet
easy fix......I didn't write that mid...
Kevin
Another gangsta accountant.
If that post proves that Koolaid man's schtick was an act this entire time, doesn't that mean he won? He was obviously very successful at trolling the out of this entire forum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
