Obama Lays-Out $1.5T in New Taxes

[mrplunkey]

Obama draws battle line over $1.5T in tax hikes - CBS News

Just the threat of that should freeze the economy for the next one or two years.

Maybe conservatives should give him free reign to increase taxes more like $3T and see how that works out.

Good times.

 

[ledhead]

Obama draws battle line over $1.5T in tax hikes - CBS News

Just the threat of that should freeze the economy for the next one or two years.

Maybe conservatives should give him free reign to increase taxes more like $3T and see how that works out.

Good times.

I'm sure Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx would have been proud to see this day arrive. I wish he would recite the "Communist Confession of Faith," and get it over with.

Communist puke!

 

[PICK3]

I knew this thread was serious when I read you referred to him as "Obama" and knot "Barry"



just sayin'

 

[mrplunkey]

I knew this thread was serious when I read you referred to him as "Obama" and knot "Barry"



just sayin'

I'm just worried about you having to pay for all this shit.

 

[PICK3]

I'm just worried about you having to pay for all this shit.

Paying for all this shit is knot congruent with my sense of entitlement


just sayin'

 

[Arabian]

Obama is absolutely the worst president we have ever had. He has done nothing but double the National debt, since he took office. Instead of cutting jobs and ditching programs that are not working such as the USPS our government just writes checks that no one will cash anymore to cover the debt.

 

[miplank]

Obama is absolutely the worst president we have ever had. He has done nothing but double the National debt, since he took office. Instead of cutting jobs and ditching programs that are not working such as the USPS our government just writes checks that no one will cash anymore to cover the debt.

Pretty sure this isn't the fault of just one man...



Just sayin'

 

[Arabian]

Pretty sure this isn't the fault of just one man...



Just sayin'

Your correct however instead of going along with the same routine of every other president, he made promises that he would not do the same thing as presidents in the past and he has increased the national debt and is now raising taxes. My point is we need to elect a CEO to run this country not another LAWYER with no business experience.

 

[miplank]

Your correct however instead of going along with the same routine of every other president, he made promises that he would not do the same thing as presidents in the past and he has increased the national debt and is now raising taxes. My point is we need to elect a CEO to run this country not another LAWYER with no business experience.

You mean a politician said something to get elected and never followed through with it? Well, that's never happened before...

 

[PICK3]

I'm sure glad I'm a broke ass bitch



just sayin'

 

[Mr. dB]

Obama draws battle line over $1.5T in tax hikes - CBS News

Just the threat of that should freeze the economy for the next one or two years.

Maybe conservatives should give him free reign to increase taxes more like $3T and see how that works out.

Good times.

Returning to the same tax rates as the last time America was still prosperous? How is that a problem?

 

[75th]

Returning to the same tax rates as the last time America was still prosperous? How is that a problem?

lol @ this freezing the economy.

Maybe Paul Ryan is right...we should just increase the taxes on the middle class?

 

[75th]

Your correct however instead of going along with the same routine of every other president, he made promises that he would not do the same thing as presidents in the past and he has increased the national debt and is now raising taxes. My point is we need to elect a CEO to run this country not another LAWYER with no business experience.

Last I checked, when running a nation one of the least of your concerns should be increasing the bottom line for shareholders.

 

[bren565]

Last I checked, when running a nation one of the least of your concerns should be increasing the bottom line for shareholders.

shareholders are the american people so yeah actually it would be a pretty good fuckin idea.

also just a thought, how is increasing the deficit going to help anyone? i mean i never understood this, im sure some keynesiest can step in and explain how increasing agregate expenditure artificially through infrastructure spending actually helps people?


when clearly investment and growth via savings are imperative to growth....

i mean, spending isnt everything... especialyl on things that the gov forces the spending on? only to cause a bubble and have it collapse, yeah that makes fucking sense, in canada up here, we are becoming more business savy, and its helping everyone, mixing socialism with liberty doesnt fucking work, infact it makes the liberty look like it doesnt work!

its an infectious culture that is killing your economy, look at europe.. socialism doesnt FUCKING WORK. its finally caught up to the older generations, they are the ones to blame.


rant over.

 

[-SD-]

If "no new taxes" sunk Bush Sr., i wonder how this will affect obama

 

[PICK3]

If "no new taxes" sunk Bush Sr., i wonder how this will affect obama

Barry's platform = no new taxes (except for Plunkey)

 

[EnderJE]

shareholders are the american people so yeah actually it would be a pretty good fuckin idea.

also just a thought, how is increasing the deficit going to help anyone? i mean i never understood this, im sure some keynesiest can step in and explain how increasing agregate expenditure artificially through infrastructure spending actually helps people?


when clearly investment and growth via savings are imperative to growth....

i mean, spending isnt everything... especialyl on things that the gov forces the spending on? only to cause a bubble and have it collapse, yeah that makes fucking sense, in canada up here, we are becoming more business savy, and its helping everyone, mixing socialism with liberty doesnt fucking work, infact it makes the liberty look like it doesnt work!

its an infectious culture that is killing your economy, look at europe.. socialism doesnt FUCKING WORK. its finally caught up to the older generations, they are the ones to blame.


rant over.

The American people aren't shareholders.

He should have just cut the social spending, deplete the military, and kept healthcare and medicaid; but that would not likely happen because there are special interest groups tied to each one of those things.

 

[bren565]

The American people aren't shareholders.

He should have just cut the social spending, deplete the military, and kept healthcare and medicaid; but that would not likely happen because there are special interest groups tied to each one of those things.

good answers, agreed.

but thats the problem with socialism, it infects and creates an entitlement culture,

 

[javaguru]

Returning to the same tax rates as the last time America was still prosperous? How is that a problem?

I remember the 1990's with our .99 cent gas, Clinton claimed drilling in America was pointless because it wouldn't yield results for a decade and we had really cheap energy, making 65k a year with an MCP in Toledo..that's a 100k+ salary in major metro areas....and the tech bubble...where pets.com was worth more than coca cola.

It ain't the 1990's anymore when China was jockeying for most favored nation trading status, so they could export to the United States, which the Clinton admin gave them along with countless military secrets.....Oh, for the "good old days."

Can I queue up some Queenesryche? It was all the rage in the early 1990's but not so much since...there is a lesson in that....

 

[EnderJE]

good answers, agreed.

but thats the problem with socialism, it infects and creates an entitlement culture,

I don't think that it creates an entitlement culture in the same fashion that I don't see the mass advertising create the consumerism culture. Hells bells! I could start blaming the fat kids on McDonald's and the lending on the banks (vs the ones taking the bad loans), no?



It's a sad state of affairs when the heads are SO polarized where anything that is cut causes people to say that XXX (insert blame group) is the devil / Nazis / terrorists.

 

[javaguru]

I don't think that it creates an entitlement culture in the same fashion that I don't see the mass advertising create the consumerism culture. Hells bells! I could start blaming the fat kids on McDonald's and the lending on the banks (vs the ones taking the bad loans), no?



It's a sad state of affairs when the heads are SO polarized where anything that is cut causes people to say that XXX (insert blame group) is the devil / Nazis / terrorists.

Getting a government check that is guaranteed is very different than someone spending their money on a product they were convinced to buy...My ex-wife didn't buy a coach bag until she got a promotion at UPS. I can go down to the central bus station tomorrow and get .50 cents on the dollar for a welfare card..great benefit for me but the person I bought it from is probably going to use the money to buy illegal drugs, cigarettes and alcohol...

 

[mrplunkey]

Returning to the same tax rates as the last time America was still prosperous? How is that a problem?

You cite this like a broken record and I can't tell if you don't understand it, or you are just sticking to your talking points.

Let's try it one more time.

Yes, tax rates were 39%. And we were also experiencing the ramp-up of a world-changing technology (the Internet). And on top of that, there was an additional $5T of fake, speculative money that didn't really exist caught-up in the Internet bubble.

Context matters. If it didn't, I could solve the entire unemployment problem with one big idea:

The last time we spent 36% of our GDP on defense and had only 1.1% unemployment. Why don't we just raise defense spending so we'll practically have no unemployment? Oh yeah, it was during 1943. Was anything else happening back then?

 

[75th]

shareholders are the american people so yeah actually it would be a pretty good fuckin idea.

also just a thought, how is increasing the deficit going to help anyone? i mean i never understood this, im sure some keynesiest can step in and explain how increasing agregate expenditure artificially through infrastructure spending actually helps people?


when clearly investment and growth via savings are imperative to growth....

i mean, spending isnt everything... especialyl on things that the gov forces the spending on? only to cause a bubble and have it collapse, yeah that makes fucking sense, in canada up here, we are becoming more business savy, and its helping everyone, mixing socialism with liberty doesnt fucking work, infact it makes the liberty look like it doesnt work!

its an infectious culture that is killing your economy, look at europe.. socialism doesnt FUCKING WORK. its finally caught up to the older generations, they are the ones to blame.


rant over.

When did I claim raising the deficit was a good idea? It's not something I look forward to, but one only has to look at the events of the past 6 months to prove to themselves that our financial situation isnt nearly as dire as it's been made out to be. What are the interest rates on Treasury bonds again? Exactly.

 

[75th]

He should have just cut the social spending, deplete the military, and kept healthcare and medicaid; but that would not likely happen because there are special interest groups tied to each one of those things.

Funny thing is - you get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and get unemployment back down to 4.5% and you'll see that deficit erode pretty quickly.

Although I dont agree with the jobs bill (or much Keynesian spending at all), I see where Obama's head is at. And if it is going to go through, Id rather the wealthy pay a 25% effective tax rate to make it happen as opposed to the middle class getting hammered.

 

[Whiskey]

Under which president were taxes the highest? F-it, I say lets take it back to those levels, but only as long as some programs are cut back. I'm tired of hearing about people around here getting 3-400 a month on thier link card for groceries when they don't need it

Whiskey

 

[musclemom]

Under which president were taxes the highest? F-it, I say lets take it back to those levels, but only as long as some programs are cut back. I'm tired of hearing about people around here getting 3-400 a month on thier link card for groceries when they don't need it

Whiskey

OMG, where do you live! The letter my stepdaughter got back from public welfare said that she qualifies for no aid other than medical assitance:
1. Because everyone in the household was not a seasonal or migrant worker.
2. Because the household has more than $100 cash and all monthly income before expenses was more than $150 (and they don't count car payments or insurance, groceries or any expenses OTHER than mortgage/rent, physicians/prescription meds, and utilities as expenses).
3. The total household income before expenses (and see what they don't count) is equal to or more than monthly shelter expenses.

 

[Whiskey]

MM, sadly smack dab in the middle of IL. I swear if it wasn't for the low cost of living and a good job my arse would be outta here

Whiskey

 

[mrplunkey]

When did I claim raising the deficit was a good idea? It's not something I look forward to, but one only has to look at the events of the past 6 months to prove to themselves that our financial situation isnt nearly as dire as it's been made out to be. What are the interest rates on Treasury bonds again? Exactly.

Treasury rates remain low because even as much as we suck, Europe sucks even harder. They've made many of the same terrible decisions we have (and continue to make) -- they're just a little ahead of us.

It's like being the thin person at the All-You-Can-Eat Great American Buffet. I'm not sure that's much of an achievement.

 

[75th]

People could have poured their money into Australian or Swiss debt. Remember how an S&P downgrade would make Treasury rates shoot up to 10%?

Despite the rhetoric, were still the wealthiest country in the world and the safest bet in town. The bond market tells no lies.

 

[bren565]

People could have poured their money into Australian or Swiss debt. Remember how an S&P downgrade would make Treasury rates shoot up to 10%?

Despite the rhetoric, were still the wealthiest country in the world and the safest bet in town. The bond market tells no lies.

your right.. the us % is like 2 on a ayield andsome europe bonds are 35 + (something outrageous)

but this cant last forever there needs to be some kind of plan to get things back to a reasonable level.

 

[mrplunkey]

We are the safest bet.

Like in a bar full of 300lb plumpers, the 250lb chick looks like a great catch.

 

[-SD-]

Teh deuce and a half chick looks good irregardless of proper surroundings

 

[redsamurai]

here's the problem..the wealthy in this country want everything cut that doesn't affect them. Corporate wellfare? uh uh, can't touch it...we're talking hundreds of millions if not billions in subsidies and other ways our govt. hands taxpayer money to business's. As long as none of those cuts are on the block...you will fucking pay up!! How does welfare for dirt poor people and benefits for teachers get demonized and put on the chopping block when govt. subsidies are not even mentioned? Everyone's talking about solyndra but if GE had gotten a 500m loan for a new energy project and it bombed hard...anyone think it would make the news? Bet your asshole it wouldn't.

 

[Mr. dB]

Under which president were taxes the highest?

Truman and Eisenhower.

 

[75th]

your right.. the us % is like 2 on a ayield andsome europe bonds are 35 + (something outrageous)

but this cant last forever there needs to be some kind of plan to get things back to a reasonable level.

Indeed - the point is that low information folks like. Think this is some pressing issue that is going to cause the downfall of the US next month. It's an issue that needs to be dealt with, but it's not as dire as said low information folks make it out to be.

 

[mrplunkey]

here's the problem..the wealthy in this country want everything cut that doesn't affect them. Corporate wellfare? uh uh, can't touch it...we're talking hundreds of millions if not billions in subsidies and other ways our govt. hands taxpayer money to business's. As long as none of those cuts are on the block...you will fucking pay up!! How does welfare for dirt poor people and benefits for teachers get demonized and put on the chopping block when govt. subsidies are not even mentioned? Everyone's talking about solyndra but if GE had gotten a 500m loan for a new energy project and it bombed hard...anyone think it would make the news? Bet your asshole it wouldn't.

1) There are plenty of upper income people against corporate welfare. I don't know of a single subsidy or hand-out I support.

2) GE is better connected than Solyndra. Instead of getting loan guarantees, GE goes straight for subsidies (google GE Wind).

3) The bigger problem with Solyndra is the widespread knowledge that the company was going to fail. They even told the WH when the specific month -- and sure enough, that's when it happened.

 

[redsamurai]

1) There are plenty of upper income people against corporate welfare. I don't know of a single subsidy or hand-out I support.

2) GE is better connected than Solyndra. Instead of getting loan guarantees, GE goes straight for subsidies (google GE Wind).

3) The bigger problem with Solyndra is the widespread knowledge that the company was going to fail. They even told the WH when the specific month -- and sure enough, that's when it happened.

No we agree on Solyndra, but you seem to think GE going after subsidies somehow exemps them...it doesn't. You're tripping again if you think GE wouldn't try to bury some politician if he stood up and said why are companies like GE recipients of a single U.S taxpayer dollar when they take jobs overseas and pay zero taxes all the while rolling in money? So in essence you are for corporate subsidies and either you don't know or won't admit it. I'll bet your own company has probably at the very least indirectly benefitted from govt expenditures...you manufacture health care equipment right? Prostetics and whatnot?

 

[redsamurai]

1)

2) GE is better connected than Solyndra. Instead of getting loan guarantees, GE goes straight for subsidies (google GE Wind).

.

Not being "connected" shouldn't negate a company from getting help..it's about the idea. If being "connected" was all that ever mattered, which it pretty much is anyway, we'd have an even more stagnant market then we already do. In a really free market most of the companies, perhaps even GE, would have been forced to fold long time ago and the fresh new ideas injected into the market. That's the dirty little secret here ins't it? Quasi free market. So when we say "govt. needs to get smaller" i concur to a point, as long as we're talking about EVERYTHING and not just social netting. Our govt. has ruined our capitalist environment by propping up the old dinosaurs like maybe GE. Certainly the car companies and i think even you would agree with me on that. THe big three should have died decades ago.

 

[ledhead]

Truman and Eisenhower.

Wrong! Hoover raised the top bracket to 63% then FDR raised it to 70%. Actually, Roosevelt tried to raise the top bracket to 90% but Congress balked at that. The top bracket stayed at 70% through Truman's and Ike's administrations until JFK lowered the taxes back to 63%.

 

[mrplunkey]

No we agree on Solyndra, but you seem to think GE going after subsidies somehow exemps them...it doesn't. You're tripping again if you think GE wouldn't try to bury some politician if he stood up and said why are companies like GE recipients of a single U.S taxpayer dollar when they take jobs overseas and pay zero taxes all the while rolling in money? So in essence you are for corporate subsidies and either you don't know or won't admit it. I'll bet your own company has probably at the very least indirectly benefitted from govt expenditures...you manufacture health care equipment right? Prostetics and whatnot?

No, I completely object to what is happening with GE. I'm 100% against it, even as a former employee and current holder of their stock (but in all fairness, it's a very modest amount).

 

[kx250rider]

Pretty sure this isn't the fault of just one man...



Just sayin'

True.... It's the whole system, and Pelosi her gang, and the voters who don't want to lose their free medical and welfare and food stamps. I doubt if we had any other president in office; Democrat, Republican, or Independent, that there would be any better policy coming out, as long as the rest of the bureaucracy is in place as it stands.

Obama draws battle line over $1.5T in tax hikes - CBS News

Just the threat of that should freeze the economy for the next one or two years.

Maybe conservatives should give him free reign to increase taxes more like $3T and see how that works out.

Good times.

That would sure tell the truth! I don't know how much more suffering the hard workers are willing to put up with to prove a point, but if the Left really thinks in their wildest dreams, that bankrupting "the rich" and "the evil corporations and oil companies", is going to do anything but totally destroy every job in the USA, maybe we need to let it happen, like we needed to let Pearl Harbor happen before the American public was willing to admit that we were in danger from World War II.

Charles

 

[Mr. dB]

...but if the Left really thinks in their wildest dreams, that bankrupting "the rich" and "the evil corporations and oil companies", is going to do anything but totally destroy every job in the USA, maybe we need to let it happen, like we needed to let Pearl Harbor happen before the American public was willing to admit that we were in danger from World War II.

Who said anything about bankrupting them? How many of "the rich" went bankrupt the last time the taxes were at the proposed rate?

 

[digimon7068]

let unemployment go back to 26 weeks and make all the lazy fucks go back to work! what? you say you're going to make less money than you did before? boo-fucking-hoo! join the gawddamn club! what? you say you might have to move? i'll pay for your moving van, now stfu and gtf back to work you fuckin' fuck!

 

[mrplunkey]

let unemployment go back to 26 weeks and make all the lazy fucks go back to work! what? you say you're going to make less money than you did before? boo-fucking-hoo! join the gawddamn club! what? you say you might have to move? i'll pay for your moving van, now stfu and gtf back to work you fuckin' fuck!

+1,000,000

You're touching on a very important point. During downturns, people do have to take jobs that pay less than their previous one. The problem is, 99 weeks of unemployment encourages people to hold out. So instead of the market for labor re-equilibrating, unemployment remains high and people don't get a fresh start to work their way up the ladder.

 

[SpyWizard]

I'm starting a non profit

taxthe51%.org

have the paperwork in..

 

[redsamurai]

+1,000,000

You're touching on a very important point. During downturns, people do have to take jobs that pay less than their previous one. The problem is, 99 weeks of unemployment encourages people to hold out. So instead of the market for labor re-equilibrating, unemployment remains high and people don't get a fresh start to work their way up the ladder.

In theory this may be correct but from what you see and hear everyday is that people just want jobs. True, they look at jobs that are related to their skillset...but they're taking what they get now even if it pays less.

 

[ceo]

How fitting is it that shortly after America gets its first black President...





our fucking credit gets downgraded!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Whiskey]

^^^Oh snap!!

And I agree with cutting back on the unemployment. Even if it went back to 26 weeks, if say, after a month or two of still not finding work, okay maybe they can get another 12-26 weeks...

Whiskey

 

[digimon7068]

In theory this may be correct but from what you see and hear everyday is that people just want jobs. True, they look at jobs that are related to their skillset...but they're taking what they get now even if it pays less.

not where i live...at least a dozen times in the last year i've heard this same story from my clients and other business contacts..."i interviewed and hired 3 people yesterday...they were to start work on monday...2 of them called me the next day and said that they sat down and figured out that they have 6 weeks of unemployment left, so they aren't going to come to work on monday." all of my clients, particularly the manufacturers, are looking to hire...many are significantly understaffed, with many current employees getting lots of overtime...it's VERY disappointing to see so many people that weren't raised to have some pride.

when i was a kid, my dad was a crane operator and there were many times when there just wasn't work in our area and he had to work out of town for extended periods of time...he missed numerous sporting events that my brothers and i were in and numerous other family fucntions...and, if we would have had to move (which was contemplated over the years) we would have...period...that's just what you did...and that's the way i was raised/trained...anyone that wasn't? they are inferior to me...plain and simple...and, push-come-to-shove, i would eat their lunch because my mindset makes me a superior worker/employee...it's a new world order...time to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get out there and figure out the new rules...or be left behind...to wallow in mediocrity...waiting for some son-of-a-bitch like me to come along and take your lunch money.

 

[robertfhub]

Amen to that. The strong will survive. I don't mind helping the less fortunate. As a matter of fact I down right feel good about it. But how many people are less fortunate so they can stay on the govt tit forever.
I worked ford years near nyc public housing. I defenitly would not call that poverty...


Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[redsamurai]

Well it's just one of those things that you'll never know i guess. I mean when you see people on tv shows being interviewed they're talking about having applied for jobs that don't just pay a little less...but pay 10's of thousands less. And these are people at job fairs. Secrataries talking about applying to jobs completely out of their skillset and pay but they have no choice. They could be lying or they could be lying or they could be overexaggerating things, i don't know. I think in a normal downturn what you and plunkey talked about probably does happen, I just don't think it's happening now. But who knows, you might be right. You can't really take a good sample on that one. But just off the top the story you told about manufacturing clients looking to hire doesn't sound right and you have to understand that. People are practically fist fighting for manufacturing jobs so someone saying we can't find enough people, well it just doesn't sound right to what you hear is going on. You mind if I ask where you live that there's so much manufacturing jobs?

not where i live...at least a dozen times in the last year i've heard this same story from my clients and other business contacts..."i interviewed and hired 3 people yesterday...they were to start work on monday...2 of them called me the next day and said that they sat down and figured out that they have 6 weeks of unemployment left, so they aren't going to come to work on monday." all of my clients, particularly the manufacturers, are looking to hire...many are significantly understaffed, with many current employees getting lots of overtime...it's VERY disappointing to see so many people that weren't raised to have some pride.

when i was a kid, my dad was a crane operator and there were many times when there just wasn't work in our area and he had to work out of town for extended periods of time...he missed numerous sporting events that my brothers and i were in and numerous other family fucntions...and, if we would have had to move (which was contemplated over the years) we would have...period...that's just what you did...and that's the way i was raised/trained...anyone that wasn't? they are inferior to me...plain and simple...and, push-come-to-shove, i would eat their lunch because my mindset makes me a superior worker/employee...it's a new world order...time to pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get out there and figure out the new rules...or be left behind...to wallow in mediocrity...waiting for some son-of-a-bitch like me to come along and take your lunch money.

 

[SpyWizard]

So?? what gives?? I thought barry was going to spread it around, make things a level playing field??

then why are black males unemployed at 46% vs general population??

I guess i need to do more digging to find out what that employment rate is under bush, or any other president..

Anyone want to help out the family farm?? NO?? cause the larger outfits can produce the product faster, better and cheaper...

Why does that not apply to "Jobs" ???

If you can't change, retrain, or adapt people are doomed to fail, starve and whine...

Can't find a job in your skill set?? You better change..

I'll hire anyone that can show up 5x week at 8am-5pm... @ $25 per hour.. any takers??


































1st question everyone asks me is ????? What do i have to do??

What does it fucking matter, are you eating beans?? NO?? then maybe you need to eat some beans then you won't care and I can begin to retrain you into a skill set someone is willing to pay you for..

 

[digimon7068]

Well it's just one of those things that you'll never know i guess. I mean when you see people on tv shows being interviewed they're talking about having applied for jobs that don't just pay a little less...but pay 10's of thousands less. And these are people at job fairs. Secrataries talking about applying to jobs completely out of their skillset and pay but they have no choice. They could be lying or they could be lying or they could be overexaggerating things, i don't know. I think in a normal downturn what you and plunkey talked about probably does happen, I just don't think it's happening now. But who knows, you might be right. You can't really take a good sample on that one. But just off the top the story you told about manufacturing clients looking to hire doesn't sound right and you have to understand that. People are practically fist fighting for manufacturing jobs so someone saying we can't find enough people, well it just doesn't sound right to what you hear is going on. You mind if I ask where you live that there's so much manufacturing jobs?

northcentral pa...powdered metal manufacturing and secondary manufacturer's abound...and they're all busier than hell, but i have business contacts around the country that are telling me the same story...are some of the metropolitan areas suffering? probably. so, maybe it's time for a move?? that's what people used to do when they needed to find work...they moved or worked out of town and had no life...sometimes for extended periods of time...no one ever guaranteed that you would be able to have leisure time or that you would get a raise every year or that you would even make the same amount of money every year or that you wouldn't have to go backwards or that you wouldn't have to learn how to live with less and still be happy or that you wouldn't have to reassess your definition of "success".

you know what will happen if people in general end up making less money? shit will end up costing less...look at the prices of real estate around the country...do you think that shit is going to come back anytime soon?? haha, not a chance! nope, things have changed...in many cases, probably forever...wrap your arms around it...hug it...get comfortable with it...change is upon us...lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[BlueBird]

Can you see how disappointed I am because this thread isn't about salt and vinegar potato chips?

 

[kx250rider]

Who said anything about bankrupting them? How many of "the rich" went bankrupt the last time the taxes were at the proposed rate?

That's exactly what the problem is. Some people on the Left, don't understand the mentality that makes a person or a company, have money in the bank in the first place. The way it is now, and the Dems think it's OK, I guess, is to keep big corporations just barely making enough money to keep afloat, and to pay their stockholders a modest amount. To a corporate leader, "just getting by" is bankruptcy in a sense. But the problem is, how will the corporation grow, if it's just getting by? It needs extra profits to put aside for later, and when investors see those profits sitting safely in the bank, they will come up to invest more and more money in that company, and with all that money, the corporation can grow and hire more people, and pay them nicely.

Let's use an example: A person makes $100K/year, and keeps $55K after taxes and social security. After expenses and daily living, let's say they have $10K to put away or spend. They probably, if they're wise, will not go out and hire a maid or a gardener, and they'll wait 'til they've put that $10K a year away for several years, and have enough in the bank for about 3 years expenses saved up. But if, let's say they were able to keep $90K of that $100K earned, then no problem hiring a maid, a gardener, and probably go buy a new car too. Now we have two people with jobs, and a car sold, and a happy homeowner with bills paid to date, and still putting away for the future, so he/she won't be racing to the welfare office if something goes wrong later.

That's how it is proven to work, but people just won't do that, and the government won't see it either, and they keep thinking that by keeping middle and upper middle income taxes high, somehow people will magically get jobs. Not gonna happen!!!!!!

And another major gripe I have with the Left: Why should it bother anyone if a CEO does something right, and gets a $5mil bonus? I'm not talking about cheaters, and the media loves to report on the Bernie Madoffs of the world, and he belongs in prison. But he's not the average CEO or average billionaire. He's a crook, and putting all "rich" people in his category is pure bigotry.

How about a Google search on a man named Levi Smith, of Texon, TX; founder of Big Lake Oil Co. He was a multi,multimillionaire Texas oilman, and when you read what he did for people, you'd feel bad you ever said anything negative about oilmen. He discovered oil in the Permian Basin in West Texas, and ultimately is one of the founders of Texaco and Marathon Oil, and Halliburton, Inc. Then you can Google J.B. Chilton, of Comanche, TX. A multimillionaire Texas banker and cattleman, who started the Comanche National Bank, and ran it on good conservative principles. It was the ONLY BANK in the State of Texas, not to fail during the Crash of 1929. And he accomplished that by being honest and ridiculously generous. You'll never hear about good "rich" people and good "big corporations" in the news. It doesn't sell.

Charles

 

[Mr. dB]

And another major gripe I have with the Left: Why should it bother anyone if a CEO does something right, and gets a $5mil bonus?

Why should it bother anyone if the CEO practically bankrupts the company, has to receive federal bailout money, and still takes a $5mil bonus?

Why should it bother anyone if the CEO lays off a hundred $50K/year workers, and takes a $5mil bonus?

 

[75th]

and they keep thinking that by keeping middle and upper middle income taxes high, somehow people will magically get jobs.

You do realize that, right now, the GOP wants to increase taxes on the middle class (via expiration of the payroll tax cut) whereas Obama only wants to raise taxes on those with income over $1 million, and even then he simply wants to make sure they pay at least 25%.

Is a 25% effective tax rate too much for someone who makes more than $1 million annually?

 

[ceo]

isn't the top tax bracket right now 35%? So 25% sounds like a tax cut?

 

[mrplunkey]

You do realize that, right now, the GOP wants to increase taxes on the middle class (via expiration of the payroll tax cut) whereas Obama only wants to raise taxes on those with income over $1 million, and even then he simply wants to make sure they pay at least 25%.

Is a 25% effective tax rate too much for someone who makes more than $1 million annually?

If it's on income that's already been taxed, then a 25% (or 20% or 15%) double tax is insanely too high. We need to dispense with the ridiculous concept of taxing something that's already been taxed.

 

[ceo]

California taxes your state income tax refund as income.

 

[ceo]

So it's more than a concept really. What about inheritance taxes? Taxing stuff that's already been taxed?

They tax it when you make it, they tax it when you save it, they tax it when you spend it, and they tax it when you die.

 

[ceo]

and still our credit gets downgraded!!!




(lol @ people avoiding that comment - poosies)

 

[75th]

isn't the top tax bracket right now 35%? So 25% sounds like a tax cut?

Effective tax rate. Technically although their tax rate is 35%, via loopholes, deductions, making $ off of carried interest, etc the average million dollar + earner paid an effective tax rate of 16.5% (thereabouts) in 2009.

All that The Buffet Rule is saying is that if your tax rate is 35% and youre going to take advantage of all the deductions and loopholes that are out there (which one is free to do), you should at least pay 25% instead of 16.5%.

I dont see how anybody could argue against that. Logically, at least.

 

[75th]

If it's on income that's already been taxed, then a 25% (or 20% or 15%) double tax is insanely too high. We need to dispense with the ridiculous concept of taxing something that's already been taxed.

Who's talking about taxing income thats already been taxed?

You understand that nobody is proposing an additional 25% tax on top of income that you've already paid taxes on, right?

 

[75th]

So it's more than a concept really. What about inheritance taxes? Taxing stuff that's already been taxed?

I'm torn on the estate tax. I dont have a problem with it existing, but if it does I would prefer it being at a higher level. Having a tax on estates valued at over $1 million, for instance, is way too much. These days, depending on where you live, simply owning your primary residence will get you 50-75% of the way there.

 

[kx250rider]

You do realize that, right now, the GOP wants to increase taxes on the middle class (via expiration of the payroll tax cut) whereas Obama only wants to raise taxes on those with income over $1 million, and even then he simply wants to make sure they pay at least 25%.

Is a 25% effective tax rate too much for someone who makes more than $1 million annually?

Yes, it's too much. 25% of take-home money maybe, but not 25% gross. A private investor, such as a landlord or anyone who uses his/her money to make money as a career, is being raped by today's tax schedule. A sole proprietorship, as most small businesses are, is taxed on gross income just like s wage earner. So if a grocery store owner or an insurance agent makes $1 million, and is taxed 25% on that million, that's totally a ripoff. If he/she is only pocketing $35K, that's what should be taxed at 25%, and even then I think a 10% flat tax on everybody from Buffett to the local church janitor. Yes there are writeoffs for the costs of operating the business, but it's tiny amounts, and capped off very low. Maybe 10c on the dollar up to $1K, say. There are hundreds of different tax rates, and only a CPA can figure it out, so I'm just giving hypotheticals here.


Oil companies pay tax three or more times on the same income too. It amounts to about 85% total of original gross value. Just a little factoid there... Bottom line, if someone is smart enough, and courageous enough to stick his/her neck out, potentially losing everything with one mistake, they deserve to keep the rewards, and not be punished for doing that.

Charles

 

[youpissmeoff]

Effective tax rate. Technically although their tax rate is 35%, via loopholes, deductions, making $ off of carried interest, etc the average million dollar + earner paid an effective tax rate of 16.5% (thereabouts) in 2009.

All that The Buffet Rule is saying is that if your tax rate is 35% and youre going to take advantage of all the deductions and loopholes that are out there (which one is free to do), you should at least pay 25% instead of 16.5%.

I dont see how anybody could argue against that. Logically, at least.

Those are Obama's numbers. Unfortunately, the treasury department does not calculate it the same.

I hate it when facts get in the way of a good story.

 

[TableFun]

Those are Obama's numbers. Unfortunately, the treasury department does not calculate it the same.

I hate it when facts get in the way of a good story.

Your third post in a couple years. Funny this thread attracts you...

 

[digimon7068]

California taxes your state income tax refund as income.

only if you took a deduction for those taxes on the return that you filed the year before...if you take a deduction for state income taxes that saves you taxes, then any state tax refund you get is included in your taxable income...that one actually kinda makes sense to me.

 

[miplank]

Your third post in a couple years. Funny this thread attracts you...

it's really not that funny

 

[mrplunkey]

Effective tax rate. Technically although their tax rate is 35%, via loopholes, deductions, making $ off of carried interest, etc the average million dollar + earner paid an effective tax rate of 16.5% (thereabouts) in 2009.

All that The Buffet Rule is saying is that if your tax rate is 35% and youre going to take advantage of all the deductions and loopholes that are out there (which one is free to do), you should at least pay 25% instead of 16.5%.

I dont see how anybody could argue against that. Logically, at least.

It's yet another AMT-style tax, which becomes its own political tool for issuing handouts and political favors. Congress has been screwing with devices like these since the 60's and they are a categorically terrible idea unless you are a tax attorney or a tax lawyer.

And no, it's very easy to argue against this ridiculous new rule.

Let's look at someone who owns a 50% of a C-corporation in California. They don't work for or pay themselves out of the business.

The company earns $1M in pretax profit. So they'll pay $350,000 in federal income taxes and 88,400 in California income taxes for a total of $438,400 -- that's 43.8%. Note this ignores property taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, use taxes, licenses, etc. etc. This a pure income tax calculation.

Then, the 50% owner takes their 50% of the earnings ($219,200) as their sole source of income. Even now, that money is ridiculously re-taxed at 15% ($32,880). So under Barry's new rule, that double-taxed money now gets hit at 25% (54,800).

So let's get this straight:

$1M earned
$438k income taxes paid at the corporate level
$109.6k paid by the stockholders in "Barry Taxes"
--------
547,600 in income taxes alone

So under the old system, the income was taxed effectively at 50% -- which is ridiculous in the first place. Now, under Barry's system, the income is taxed effectively at 55%.

Double taxation of dividends has already been a problem and Barry is using class warfare to make a bad thing worse. This sounds familiar.

 

[75th]

Those are Obama's numbers. Unfortunately, the treasury department does not calculate it the same.

I hate it when facts get in the way of a good story.

lol @ Obama's numbers. Those numbers came from a small organization called the IRS.

Yes, facts getting in the way does indeed suck.

 

[mrplunkey]

So it's more than a concept really. What about inheritance taxes? Taxing stuff that's already been taxed?

They tax it when you make it, they tax it when you save it, they tax it when you spend it, and they tax it when you die.

That's another ridiculous element of our tax code. There should be absolutely zero inheritance tax on assets that have already been singly or doubly-taxed already.

 

[75th]

Bottom line, if someone is smart enough, and courageous enough to stick his/her neck out, potentially losing everything with one mistake, they deserve to keep the rewards, and not be punished for doing that.

Been listening to Rick Perry a lot recently? And lol @ taxes being a "punishment." Death and taxes - the only thing we need to discuss is what's appropriate.

Personally, I've been advocating on here for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan since it was proposed (25%, 17%, and 12% rates I believe with no deductions + lowering corporate tax rates to 15-20%(?) with no loopholes).

The wealthiest paying a higher percentage than the middle class doesnt bother me.

 

[miplank]

Been listening to Rick Perry a lot recently? And lol @ taxes being a "punishment." Death and taxes - the only thing we need to discuss is what's appropriate.

Personally, I've been advocating on here for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan since it was proposed (25%, 17%, and 12% rates I believe with no deductions + lowering corporate tax rates to 15-20%(?) with no loopholes).

The wealthiest paying a higher percentage than the middle class doesnt bother me.

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes ? USATODAY.com

 

[mrplunkey]

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes ? USATODAY.com

Good article.

 

[cindylou]

lol

 

[75th]

Fact check: The wealthy already pay more taxes ? USATODAY.com

lol

Nobody is saying the wealthy dont pay more.

Hence the use of the term "effective" in my argument.

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.

Loopholes can and do benefit taxpayers at every level (hence the meme of 50% of the country paying no federal income taxes). Nobody is arguing that. What's being argued (at least on my end) is the effective rate the top 1% are paying.

Hence the support for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan - or any tax plan that lowers rates, simplifies the code, and eliminates deductions and loopholes.

Douche.

 

[SpyWizard]

that's why a flat tax is the only real way to spread around the taxation needs of the country..

 

[ceo]

Effective tax rate. Technically although their tax rate is 35%, via loopholes, deductions, making $ off of carried interest, etc the average million dollar + earner paid an effective tax rate of 16.5% (thereabouts) in 2009.

All that The Buffet Rule is saying is that if your tax rate is 35% and youre going to take advantage of all the deductions and loopholes that are out there (which one is free to do), you should at least pay 25% instead of 16.5%.

I dont see how anybody could argue against that. Logically, at least.

Good points brought up in here. Are we talking about 25% of gross? What if your net was less than that?

How could you argue for that, in a case like that? Logically, at least.



Maybe we should look at a federal sales tax instead of an income tax?

 

[75th]

that's why a flat tax is the only real way to spread around the taxation needs of the country..

Id get behind that as long as it would be based on income, not wages.

 

[redsamurai]

Yeah i have family in and around Newcastle. And that's where i hear alot of stuff from. Hands are gettin thrown over manufacturing jobs. And the whole moving around thing, i understand and agree to a point...but you also have to remember that stable cohesive family units are not born from the pack up and move every 3 years lifestyle. So those that are proponents of that will also have to understand the changes that will happen socially in this country when we move to the migratory work system...which i concur is coming. Meh, maybe people not settling down and having 10 children is a good thing. I personally was not planning on every having children so it's not big deal to me but it will be to others for sure.

northcentral pa...powdered metal manufacturing and secondary manufacturer's abound...and they're all busier than hell, but i have business contacts around the country that are telling me the same story...are some of the metropolitan areas suffering? probably. so, maybe it's time for a move?? that's what people used to do when they needed to find work...they moved or worked out of town and had no life...sometimes for extended periods of time...no one ever guaranteed that you would be able to have leisure time or that you would get a raise every year or that you would even make the same amount of money every year or that you wouldn't have to go backwards or that you wouldn't have to learn how to live with less and still be happy or that you wouldn't have to reassess your definition of "success".

you know what will happen if people in general end up making less money? shit will end up costing less...look at the prices of real estate around the country...do you think that shit is going to come back anytime soon?? haha, not a chance! nope, things have changed...in many cases, probably forever...wrap your arms around it...hug it...get comfortable with it...change is upon us...lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[75th]

Maybe we should look at a federal sales tax instead of an income tax?

Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation

 

[redsamurai]

that's why a flat tax is the only real way to spread around the taxation needs of the country..

goddammit yes....fuck this whole tax business is annoying as sin. I have this suspicion that the complexity of the tax code is a product of the IRS coming up with a new ngr tax every year to keep up with the people trying to exploit loopholes. Just shut the loopholes and revise everyones taxes to a base rate and be done with these complications instead of layering tax code ontop of tax code every fucking year. If we shut down loopholes and hold people to the fire if they don't pay their fair rate seems pretty fucking reasonable to me. I mean how did GE get away with whining about taxes for so long when they were dodgin em the whole time? I agree corp tax is too damn high in this country but fuck companies will whine about 10%.

Or, jsut abolish all income tax and have the govt simply make it's money off of sales tax, that way all they have power to do is regulate and can't raise an army or give billions to the jews. That works for me too.

 

[miplank]

lol

Nobody is saying the wealthy dont pay more.

Hence the use of the term "effective" in my argument.



Loopholes can and do benefit taxpayers at every level (hence the meme of 50% of the country paying no federal income taxes). Nobody is arguing that. What's being argued (at least on my end) is the effective rate the top 1% are paying.

Hence the support for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan - or any tax plan that lowers rates, simplifies the code, and eliminates deductions and loopholes.

Douche.

lol...i don't even know what that article was about. Someone just asked me to post it up.

lollololol

 

[Mr. dB]

that's why a flat tax is the only real way to spread around the taxation needs of the country..

Flat tax will be a tax increase for 90-95% of the people.

As was pointed out last month, on the only credible news source on TV (The Daily Show ), if you confiscated 100% of the wages of the lower 45% of the adult population, and also confiscated 100% of their assets, that still wouldn't raise as much money as just undoing the Bush tax cut on the top tax bracket.

Spreading the tax burden around with a "flat tax" is just a feel-good proposal for Conservatives, it won't tap into some huge new reservoir of tax revenue. It won't solve any problems, it just appeals to one particular view of supposed "fairness".

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

 

[redsamurai]

Spreading the tax burden around with a "flat tax" is just a feel-good proposal for Conservatives, it won't tap into some huge new reservoir of tax revenue. It won't solve any problems, it just appeals to one particular view of supposed "fairness".

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

I'm not a conservative but a flat tax still makes sense to me....obviously for people making something like 10-15k you would work something out. And a flat tax was never about tapping into anything, it's about setting a figure and adhering to it....and if the govt wants to do stuff and doesn't have the money for it, then tough. If it's "really" important they can come to the american people and ask us if we want to fund something.....like a war for instance. We would have been out of Iraq years ago if the american tax payer was able to withdraw support for that bullshit. I'm right sick and tired of american politicians starting shit in and/or with other countries where we don't belong. If you were to ask the average american tax payer we would never have supported this fucking idea of the U.S being the worlds policemen. This was tax dollars basically usurped by private interest groups over the decades.

 

[75th]

The country can still issue debt, so theoretically a flat tax wouldnt prevent any ill advised wars.

 

[75th]

lol...i don't even know what that article was about. Someone just asked me to post it up.

lollololol

 

[miplank]

lolololololol

 

[mrplunkey]

Flat tax will be a tax increase for 90-95% of the people.

It may not be as high as 90%-95%, but you are touching on a point that is absolutely correct: In general, higher income earners don't consume proportionally more than lower income earners. So what do they do with what's left over? Since the high income earners aren't consuming it, they have only one other choice: Invest it -- and God knows we don't need any more of that here in the US.

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

That's an incredibly perverted view. If you were even mildly interested in "fair", you'd want people taxed when they consume income -- not when they created it. I'd much rather tax a two income family that burns through two professional incomes per year than a business owner who saves every penny he can earn to expand operations and create jobs.

 

[ledhead]

Yeah i have family in and around Newcastle. And that's where i hear alot of stuff from. Hands are gettin thrown over manufacturing jobs. And the whole moving around thing, i understand and agree to a point...but you also have to remember that stable cohesive family units are not born from the pack up and move every 3 years lifestyle. So those that are proponents of that will also have to understand the changes that will happen socially in this country when we move to the migratory work system...which i concur is coming. Meh, maybe people not settling down and having 10 children is a good thing. I personally was not planning on every having children so it's not big deal to me but it will be to others for sure.

You have to be kidding me??? This is freaky, real freaky..

 

[bren565]

Flat tax will be a tax increase for 90-95% of the people.

As was pointed out last month, on the only credible news source on TV (The Daily Show ), if you confiscated 100% of the wages of the lower 45% of the adult population, and also confiscated 100% of their assets, that still wouldn't raise as much money as just undoing the Bush tax cut on the top tax bracket.

Spreading the tax burden around with a "flat tax" is just a feel-good proposal for Conservatives, it won't tap into some huge new reservoir of tax revenue. It won't solve any problems, it just appeals to one particular view of supposed "fairness".

I say it's more "fair" to tax the people who can afford it.

the word fair, is horrifying, in itself, but 'afford' wow.. since people dont vote on taxes, the fact they can be altered is the scariest thing about governement, no voting in a congressman, isnt VOTING, no voting in obama isnt VOTING, people should VOTE on the tax code, the people should be notified,

also.. AFFORD.. well?

you can afford to live in a mud hut
you can afford to have no car
you can afford to be slapped every day when you wake up
you can afford to be beaten once in a while by your spouse
you can afford 10$ a gallon to get to work
you can afford to be in fear all your life
you can afford to have 10 kids and not feed them because of welfare..
and you can afford to have all of your money taken away except 100$ a week for bread and water.

the phrase " tax who can afford it ", is the most fucked up logic i have ever heard, because guess what? if taxation, liscensing, and fees were low..then EVERYONE COULD AFFORD SHIT!

because the free market provides real wealth by making living cheap. being a butt pirate like barry wont help anything, hes either a complete moron, or is a masochist and gets sick pleasure, from stirring up trouble

 

[digimon7068]

Yeah i have family in and around Newcastle. And that's where i hear alot of stuff from. Hands are gettin thrown over manufacturing jobs. And the whole moving around thing, i understand and agree to a point...but you also have to remember that stable cohesive family units are not born from the pack up and move every 3 years lifestyle. So those that are proponents of that will also have to understand the changes that will happen socially in this country when we move to the migratory work system...which i concur is coming. Meh, maybe people not settling down and having 10 children is a good thing. I personally was not planning on every having children so it's not big deal to me but it will be to others for sure.

get out! i used to work for carbis walker in new castle! anyway, new castle is a tough ass town, and it has been significantly economically blighted since way back before we even went through the "prosperous" clinton years...but, if you look just a little ways outside of new castle to areas like sharon and hermitage and meadville to the north or cranberry and pittsburgh to the south, you'll find economically stable, prosperous areas that were largely untouched by the downturn in the housing market (for example)...hell, you wanna talk blight, look across the border to youngstown for chrissakes! now there's a town that hasn't caught a break for years! i guess my point is that new castle isn't my idea of a litmus test for the health of the economy and the job market...that town has been on its knees for a while now...long before any of this bad shit happened.

but, where i live now is north and east of there and this town and the ones around it are busier than hell (industry-wise) and the only people that are unemployed (and there's quite a few) are the ones that want to be...it ought to be a crime.

 

[youpissmeoff]

lol

Nobody is saying the wealthy dont pay more.

Hence the use of the term "effective" in my argument.



Loopholes can and do benefit taxpayers at every level (hence the meme of 50% of the country paying no federal income taxes). Nobody is arguing that. What's being argued (at least on my end) is the effective rate the top 1% are paying.

Hence the support for the Bowles-Simpson tax plan - or any tax plan that lowers rates, simplifies the code, and eliminates deductions and loopholes.

Douche.

You did not read the article - average family making over 1 million pay 29% in taxes.

 

[jnevin]

I don't think that it creates an entitlement culture in the same fashion that I don't see the mass advertising create the consumerism culture. Hells bells! I could start blaming the fat kids on McDonald's and the lending on the banks (vs the ones taking the bad loans), no?



It's a sad state of affairs when the heads are SO polarized where anything that is cut causes people to say that XXX (insert blame group) is the devil / Nazis / terrorists.

I did loans for 10 years and the majority of loans that went "bad" were conforming conventional loans approved through Fannie/ Freddie/ FHA (HUD) guidelines set by the gov't. People would be too stubborn to go from 5.75% to 6.5-8% even if it would erase their debt, fix their credit, and save them hundreds or thousands of dollars per month. Back then 2 years was more than enough to fix credit. Subprime loans were actually hard to get. You had to build a case to an underwriter to get one through and you never knew if it'd go until the last minute. Yeah, people got gouged if they went through the wrong guy, but just about every lender I dealt with had a financial benefits worksheet that had to be filled out to see if a higher rate would actually benefit them.

 

[brownbrown]

the word fair, is horrifying, in itself, but 'afford' wow.. since people dont vote on taxes, the fact they can be altered is the scariest thing about governement, no voting in a congressman, isnt VOTING, no voting in obama isnt VOTING, 1. people should VOTE on the tax code, the people should be notified,

also.. AFFORD.. well?

you can afford to live in a mud hut
you can afford to have no car
you can afford to be slapped every day when you wake up
you can afford to be beaten once in a while by your spouse
you can afford 10$ a gallon to get to work
you can afford to be in fear all your life
you can afford to have 10 kids and not feed them because of welfare..
and you can afford to have all of your money taken away except 100$ a week for bread and water.

2.the phrase " tax who can afford it ", is the most fucked up logic i have ever heard, because guess what? if taxation, liscensing, and fees were low..then EVERYONE COULD AFFORD SHIT!

because the free market provides real wealth by making living cheap. being a butt pirate like barry wont help anything, hes either a complete moron, or is a masochist and gets sick pleasure, from stirring up trouble

1. That is one of dumbest ideas yet. The first thing that would happen is the rich would vote for the poor to pay all teh taxes and vice versa. Tell me what giving more power to the banks has done? Leaving them to their own devices was the main cause of this mess.
2. It's not that hard to understand. If someone makes 20k a year and pays 10% more in taxes, it affects them MORE than if someone that makes 1.5Million gets taxed 10% more.
The acutal dollar value of a loaf of bread is the exact same for both of them. BUT that loaf of bread is MORE expensive to the person that makes 20k because it take a lager percentage of their income. The millionaire can AFFORD to buy 5 loafsm and throw 4 away. the person making 20K can not AFFORD to do that and still pay rent, get gas for their old car, ect.
If the blinders are on that tight then We are Doomed as a Country if the idiologs get the reigns.

 

[rappert]

You guys are against people making a million a year or more paying more in taxes??? Really?

Why should they pay less than me..I bust my ass for a lousy 50k a year. Why does warren buffets secretary pay more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Many of the people who would be most affected by these tax proposals are on board with them (see: buffet, gates etc)

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

 

[mrplunkey]

You guys are against people making a million a year or more paying more in taxes??? Really?

Why should they pay less than me..I bust my ass for a lousy 50k a year. Why does warren buffets secretary pay more in taxes (percentage wise) than he does. Many of the people who would be most affected by these tax proposals are on board with them (see: buffet, gates etc)

Posted with my Droid EO Forum App

You fell for the talking point. No one is advocating the rich pay less taxes. They already pay the most at the highest rate.

This talking point is a trick to force people who receive money that had already been taxed to be taxed again at 25% instead of 15%, when the right answer should be zero.

 

[ledhead]

You fell for the talking point. No one is advocating the rich pay less taxes. They already pay the most at the highest rate.

This talking point is a trick to force people who receive money that had already been taxed to be taxed again at 25% instead of 15%, when the right answer should be zero.

LOl... and lol@ the rest of these people who do not know what this dude is really doing. It is called a Undistributed Profit Tax, that is the correct economic rhetoric..

I wonder who influenced him?? The Revenue Act of 1936.