View Full Version : My God I'm tired of this ridiculous d%#*-measuring contest.
As a doctor and small business owner I am no stranger to how the posturing of Washington politicians can affect my livelihood and that of my 20+ employees. So watching our egomaniacal President and the legislature argue the financial future of our country without actually caring what happens to the US citizens has made me physically ill.
The absolutely terrifying aspect of this is the fact that it truly is obvious that Obama is more than willing to stamp his feet and let us go over the cliff. It isn't going to affect him personally after all.
At least Carter appeared to have the true best interests of the US at heart. He was just a lousy president. Obama is far more dangerous because he just wants his plan passed his way. No compromise. And no understanding of economics whatsoever. Class warfare and Chicago politics at its worst.
woodandsteel
12-31-12, 15:07
I truly believe that President Obama wants to go over the cliff. It'll mean defense cuts and higher taxes. He'll be able to fund his social programs and blame the Republicans for any economic woes.
I truly believe that President Obama wants to go over the cliff. It'll mean defense cuts and higher taxes. He'll be able to fund his social programs and blame the Republicans for any economic woes.
Yup that pretty much nails it.
They could let us go over the cliff and the very next minute, literally, reverse every effect of the "cliff".
This is really much ado about nothing.
Also, I was reading that the "cuts" being discussed are not cuts, per se, but rather a slower rate of growth to the programs.
For example, hypothetically, if Govt Entity #1 had a $40,000,000 budget last year, and they were set to grow by 3%, they would instead only grow by 1%, so instead of 41,200,000 in 2013, they would get 40,400,000. This represents a "cut" of 800,000.
Also, I was reading that the "cuts" being discussed are not cuts, per se, but rather a slower rate of growth to the programs.
For example, hypothetically, if Govt Entity #1 had a $40,000,000 budget last year, and they were set to grow by 3%, they would instead only grow by 1%, so instead of 41,200,000 in 2013, they would get 40,400,000. This represents a "cut" of 800,000.
This is exactly right and something the majority of Americans are not even aware of. Imagine if we could all balance our own books this way. We would end up In prison for this kind of creative bookkeeping.
I truly believe that President Obama wants to go over the cliff. It'll mean defense cuts and higher taxes. He'll be able to fund his social programs and blame the Republicans for any economic woes.
Yep they will be able to buy more votes.
I find it outrageously hilarious that the scum in D.C. think the avg. U.S. citizen is so ****ing stupid they had to call it a "cliff" so the dumb jellyfish could get it.
Well they talk to us like children, maybe thats why we cant have firearms......
I truly believe that President Obama wants to go over the cliff. It'll mean defense cuts and higher taxes. He'll be able to fund his social programs and blame the Republicans for any economic woes.
That is exactly how the liberals intend to buy votes and stay in power.
sinlessorrow
12-31-12, 16:12
That is exactly how the liberals intend to buy votes and stay in power.
Obamas class warfare was worse.
That is exactly how the liberals intend to buy votes and stay in power.
I wonder if anyone's analyzed the net taxpayer cost on a per vote basis. How much does a single vote cost? $200? $2,000? $20,000? :confused:
Just two sides trying to get the most of the pie, for those who bought and own them.
Yep they will be able to buy more votes.
Do you think that every tax paying family is going to see 2K increase in their taxes and take it on a chin?
A potential voter loss due to fiscal cliff can and will dwarf voter loss due to AWB. Each party is trying to allocate blame to an opponent. The only reason administration is staying the course is because they think they'll win the blame game. They see their message more appealing to masses - tax the rich, keep more entitlements; it has worked for them.
At this point there is no clear favorite to win the blame game. Once there is any appreciable shift - the opposing party will fold.
P.S. And, as expected, the GOP, at least the Senate faction, is folding, based on preliminary reports of agreeing to raise the taxes on incomes over 400/450K, and keeping entitlement programs.
Do you think that every tax paying family is going to see 2K increase in their taxes and take it on a chin?
A potential voter loss due to fiscal cliff can and will dwarf voter loss due to AWB. Each party is trying to allocate blame to an opponent. The only reason administration is staying the course is because they think they'll win the blame game. They see their message more appealing to masses - tax the rich, keep more entitlements; it has worked for them.
At this point there is no clear favorite to win the blame game. Once there is any appreciable shift - the opposing party will fold.
Now if only there was a news anchor with the balls to say that on TV.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-31-12, 17:57
Even if this fiscal cliff goes into effect, it still doesn't do anything meaningful to the deficit and debt. It is made out to be this huge thing when in reality it doesn't even come close to solving the problem.
I think it was on "This Week..." that someone said that Obama needs to stop acting like he is from some advanced alien race dispensing advice to lowly humans when it comes to running the govt. That is so true- he always tries to play it as some disinterested third party rather than as a player and a problem in the middle of it.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Congress does not have the working men and women’s best interest at heart. It will be the ruination of this once great nation.
It also amazes me that a body of adult men and women can’t understand that revenue is not the problem.
IT’S THE SPENDING DAMNIT!
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Congress does not have the working men and women’s best interest at heart. It will be the ruination of this once great nation.
It also amazes me that a body of adult men and women can’t understand that revenue is not the problem.
IT’S THE SPENDING DAMNIT!
Some of the people understand, they just do not care -- "Those rich people, who are not liberal douchebags, need to pay more. Period."
If they pay more, then the "little guy" can pay less to the coffers. It has nothing to do with fixing the problem, people want more of their money, in their pockets. If someone else can cover it, so much the better. Those rich white guys are a good bet for covering my share....
Suwannee Tim
12-31-12, 18:20
I wonder if anyone's analyzed the net taxpayer cost on a per vote basis. How much does a single vote cost? $200? $2,000? $20,000? :confused:
I haven't heard of that but I did read that a Federal contract costs 0.1% that is, if you want a million dollar contract you donate a thousand to political campaigns. If you want a hundred million, you donate a hundred thousand dollars.
Quiet-Matt
12-31-12, 18:27
Well they talk to us like children, maybe thats why we cant have firearms......
Good point.
Obama is far more dangerous because he just wants his plan passed his way. No compromise. And no understanding of economics whatsoever. Class warfare and Chicago politics at its worst.
You're just figuring this out now? This has been his mentality all along. He is a spoiled petulant child who lives in his own reality.
You're just figuring this out now? This has been his mentality all along. He is a spoiled petulant child who lives in his own reality.
Not at all. It's always been apparent. Listening to the back and forth all day today and yesterday just finally tore it for me.
CarlosDJackal
12-31-12, 20:27
There is a reason obama has not exerted as much of an effort to come up with an approved budget since he has been in office. A budget dictates just how much you can spend and on what.
This type of measure would limit his ability to provide approved funds for his cronies and the other special interest groups. Makes you wonder just how much less he could have been able to give Solyndra and the other "green" failures had he been held to an approved budget?
I keep wondering how much printed money or Federal Reserve gold he has stashed in Kenya or Hawaii. :p
They simply don't give a **** about their shit that rolls downhill onto us. None of their laws affect them. Nor does this "Crisis" that we're about to be consumed by. They have the luxury of gambling with our lives & there's no consequence for their actions.
Polticians are worth less than the goatee forming on the rim of a public urinal.
"Tyranny cannot be safe without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -James Madison
2/3, and moving in the for kill on the 3rd.
:mad:
Some of the people understand, they just do not care -- "Those rich people, who are not liberal douchebags, need to pay more. Period."
If they pay more, then the "little guy" can pay less to the coffers. It has nothing to do with fixing the problem, people want more of their money, in their pockets. If someone else can cover it, so much the better. Those rich white guys are a good bet for covering my share....
I understand what you are saying.
The little guy making 20k, 30k, 40k, wants the guys making north of $450k to take the hit. Yeah, very civic minded and short sighted.
The politicians are attempting to appease this large voting block. Most of these people do VOTE.
The other large voting block is the “47%ers”. They don’t give a shit because they don’t contribute a damn thing anyway. They are here for the handout and they VOTE.
This is not lost on politicians. They know exactly where their votes come from and pander to these voters.
What is being lost on people that contribute to this country is the bigger picture and, why we, the hard working people of this country, continue to take it is beyond me.
The last I heard was that the proposed solution would raise taxes on most people, whether it was by payroll taxes or income taxes. And, that this would only trim back the deficit, not eliminate it, and do nothing for the national debt.
We still have a fiscal deficit which is adding to the debt. Just what in Satan’s Hell are they accomplishing?
Our government needs to quit spending our money so recklessly (IMO this is the number one issue), balance the fiscal budget where revenue is in excess of expenses, pay down the debt, then, and only then, our taxes could be decreased over the long haul and our economy would prosper.
We have narcissistic dumbasses in Washington.
I got the tar….who’ll bring the feathers?
Do away with anyone getting a refund if they did not pay any taxes. Do away with all of the tax exemptions and simplify the tax code. Everyone should pay a flat 10% Federal tax on their income. If you make $10,000, you pay $1,000. If you make $10,000,000, you pay $1,000,000. That way everyone has skin in the game.
Make people pay user tax on everything but food, utilities and medicine. If you drink more beer, smoke more cigarettes, buy a bigger car, then you pay more. If you are frugal, you pay less.
A lot of money can be save by cutting off funding to second and third generations who have never worked a day in their life. Establish work programs where they can earn their keep. Naturally, we have to take care of the mentally ill and those who cannot physically take care of themselves, but we need to stop spending billions of dollars on able bodied men and women.
A lot of people I know work very hard for their money and feel the same way I do. :angry:
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 11:54
If we had a small constitutional limited government we wouldn't have big government problems where legislators have the power over the populace like this.
Without huge spending cuts, I'm for going over the cliff, balls to the wall.
Since we are clearly headed for a 20+TT debt, everyone needs to start paying the price now. That might be the attitude adjust that generates some fiscal intelligence.
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 13:14
Promised spending cuts are why this was put in place to begin with. Now the Dem's don't want any spending cuts. Big shocker I know! This has been there modus operandi for decades. Tax hikes now, and they promise spending cuts later. When it comes time to cut spending they refuse to do it, and play class warfare games and blame Republicans.
As much as I don't want taxes to go up they need to, and spending needs to go down. We doubled the debt under Bush 2 and will double it again under Obama. This spending needs to STOP!
FlyingHunter
01-01-13, 13:25
"Tyranny cannot be safe without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." -James Madison
2/3, and moving in the for kill on the 3rd.
:mad:
SMETNA as usual, nails this perfectly! Truth.
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 13:33
The bill passed by the Senate is $1 in cuts for every $41 in tax hikes.
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/1/deficit-fiscal-cliff-bill-actually-spends-330-bill/
The Senate passed bill adds $330B in spending. :lol:
Like I said. Dumbasses the whole lot of them.
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 19:58
http://p.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/jan/1/deficit-fiscal-cliff-bill-actually-spends-330-bill/
The Senate passed bill adds $330B in spending. :lol:
Adds 4 trillion to 10 year debt numbers.
How on Earth does deficit reduction turn into 4 trillion in new spending?
Disappointed in RINO McConnell agreeing to this in the Senate. All but 7 Republican Senators voted for it. :rolleyes:
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 22:37
Passed the House with a majority Democrats and 85 Republicans. Way to show solidarity there Republicans!
Boehner needs to go! I don't trust him and he was one of the 85.
Sent from my iPad 4 using Tapatalk
Their tax increases are estimated to bring in an additional $600 billion over ten years. $60 billion a year.
With deficits amounting to $1.1 - $1.4 trillion per year for the past 4 years, and no plan or intention to stop, how in the **** is $60 billion supposed to help?
Belmont31R
01-01-13, 22:46
Maybe 5 people up there want a balanced budget and vote accordingly.
Sent from my iPad 4 using Tapatalk
montanadave
01-01-13, 23:02
On the plus side, there are a bunch of republicans in the House that think they just got rolled by their leadership and are itching to even the score when the next debt ceiling debate raises its ugly head come late February.
Any talk of an AWB is a complete non-starter. They aren't going to give it the time of day.
On the plus side, there are a bunch of republicans in the House that think they just got rolled by their leadership and are itching to even the score when the next debt ceiling debate raises its ugly head come late February.
Any talk of an AWB is a complete non-starter. They aren't going to give it the time of day.
About what I expected to happen. Hope youre right on the AWB.
Sometimes I hate to be right. I knew Boner would fold when his own plan had tax increase on 1 mil.
Having said that, I didn't expect that a bill raising taxes AND increasing spending would clear the House. How the hell can they keep a straight face and say anything about controlling the debt and entitlements when they have just said "we'll bend over any time, just play rough with us"?
I am trying to find who were the 85, and we have to start a grassroots push to never reelect them.
As far as AWB, I have exactly zero optimism, as GOP just showed they can't hold their position on absolutely anything.
And I am sure as hell hope that there is some negative trickle down effect of raising the taxes on 400/450K group.
Belmont31R
01-02-13, 00:23
Boehner needs to lose Speaker for voting with the dems to pass a tax and spending increase. It's obvious the guy doesn't represent a majority of the House GOP and doesn't have either the spine or political know how to stand up to Obama. After the vote tonight I heard from Pelosi and Obama but not Boehner. Hope he slinked off in shame.
Sent from my iPad 4 using Tapatalk
Alaskapopo
01-02-13, 00:27
I understand what you are saying.
The little guy making 20k, 30k, 40k, wants the guys making north of $450k to take the hit. Yeah, very civic minded and short sighted.
The politicians are attempting to appease this large voting block. Most of these people do VOTE.
The other large voting block is the “47%ers”. They don’t give a shit because they don’t contribute a damn thing anyway. They are here for the handout and they VOTE.
This is not lost on politicians. They know exactly where their votes come from and pander to these voters.
What is being lost on people that contribute to this country is the bigger picture and, why we, the hard working people of this country, continue to take it is beyond me.
The last I heard was that the proposed solution would raise taxes on most people, whether it was by payroll taxes or income taxes. And, that this would only trim back the deficit, not eliminate it, and do nothing for the national debt.
We still have a fiscal deficit which is adding to the debt. Just what in Satan’s Hell are they accomplishing?
Our government needs to quit spending our money so recklessly (IMO this is the number one issue), balance the fiscal budget where revenue is in excess of expenses, pay down the debt, then, and only then, our taxes could be decreased over the long haul and our economy would prosper.
We have narcissistic dumbasses in Washington.
I got the tar….who’ll bring the feathers?
Yea those making over 450K can afford to take the hit in fact most pay less taxes as a percent of their income than those little guys making 40K. Because people in this ball park make a large portion of their income from investments which is taxed under capital gains at a lower rate than wages.
I support either a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage or a consumption tax (fair tax) where you pay at point of sale. I also agree with the other poster than you should never get refund that equals to more than what you paid. That is a welfare check from the treasury department.
Pat
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130101/us-house-rollcall-fiscal-cliff/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage
Figure out if your Rep has a spine.
Tom Reed doesn't. Good thing they redistricted this section of NY and I'll have a new Rep in a week.
It appears that the SC republican representatives stood firm and voted no. Although in vain.
The lone democrat, Clyburn, voted yes.
I support either a flat tax where everyone pays the same percentage or a consumption tax (fair tax) where you pay at point of sale. I also agree with the other poster than you should never get refund that equals to more than what you paid. That is a welfare check from the treasury department.
Pat
I would support a flat tax as long it was reasonable. If this tax system was implemented, refunds should stop.
What pisses me off is that we reached this "cliff" because of spending, not insufficent revenue, and now they want to us to help pay for it by increasing our taxes. As Belmont stated, they cut one dollar in spending and added 41 dollars in taxes.
Really? This is your solution? How long will this last until we reach another "cliff"?
Business_Casual
01-02-13, 07:26
The one good thing to come out of this is that Boehner may no longer be speaker.
The one message that conservatives and Republicans need to get from us is that the problem is spending. There is too much spending, no other problem in Washington is as important as not spending so much money.
Washington: Stop Spending.
bc
The one good thing to come out of this is that Boehner may no longer be speaker.
bc
Boehner needs to go. He'll cry but....what the hell.
Yea those making over 450K can afford to take the hit in fact most pay less taxes as a percent of their income than those little guys making 40K.
If the guy making $400k a year is paying what the tax code prescribes as his tax liability for his income level, why would he be demonized for following the law?
If his income is derived from long term capital gains, the % will be lower.
The people not making $400k do not understand tax accounting for that level, or those types of investments and see it as this black and white issue where he should pay "his share".
He is. In fact, in dollars he is probably paying 300% more than the guy making $40k/yr.
brickboy240
01-02-13, 10:21
Taxing wealthy people more will NOT solve our problems.
We have a spending problem....not a revenue problem.
-brickboy240
Eat the Rich:
It won't friggin' work ya'll.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
montanadave
01-02-13, 11:10
We have a spending problem....not a revenue problem.
-brickboy240
We obviously have both. And I say this for the simple reason that we can't pay for the programs we won't give up.
Everybody wants something for nothing. Watch Alan Simpson's interview last month when he was on the Daily Show. He said the nastiest, darn right vile letters he received were from folks his age bitching about anybody laying a hand on their SS or Medicare benefits. And the defense budget? Don't even go there. It's been the GOP's stimulus and jobs program for fifty years but nobody better call them on it or you're branded "weak on defense" and unpatriotic.
So, yeah, everybody says CUT SPENDING! but when it comes to actually cutting the spending that really matters (defense and entitlements), everybody heads for the exits and screams, "Keep your hands off of my piece of the pie."
Neither political party wants to be the one left holding the bag 'cuz the last guy standing has to reach in the bag and tell the American people the bag's empty and there ain't no more. So we play this never-ending game of hot potato, kickin' the can on down the road for another election cycle.
Until we have a couple of statesmen (not politicians) from both parties with the courage to speak the truth to the American people, we will continue to drift towards the point of no return. And, judging from what we just witnessed in the past couple of weeks, I'm not holding my breath.
SH%& JUST GOT REAL!
John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office
"...just hours earlier Reid had called him a dictator on the floor of the Senate, telling the whole country in a widely-televised speech that the Speaker cared more about protecting his job than doing what was right for the American people. And it won't be the first nor the last time a Congressperson swore a fellow lawmaker. Still, it maybe helps explain why the two sides seem more intent on destroying each other than actually passing useful laws."
http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html
We obviously have both. And I say this for the simple reason that we can't pay for the programs we won't give up.
We have hovered around with revenue of 18.xx% of GDP for damn near forever. No matter the rates, the top rate, or really anything else. It would appear the masses know how to keep things on an even keel despite the government intervention.
So if the number is 18.xx% of GDP, independent of rates, etc, and we can calculate GDP fairly closely in advance, we can arrive at what the revenue will bear in terms of programs spending.
So this boils down to a spending problem. Period. We know what the country will generate, usually in advance and we still over-reach.
Belmont31R
01-02-13, 11:57
The dangerous thing here was 85 RINO's voting with the Democrats to pass this.
If Boehner keeps up with his anti-conservative/Tea Party streak he may just very well keep bringing votes up where his RINO followers break with the the majority and vote with the Democrats. They don't need that many GOP House members to break and go left.
Belmont31R
01-02-13, 16:24
Here is my House rep's take on the bill that passed.
John Carter TX 31
In case you missed it, the House of Representatives took a vote on a bill to resolve the “fiscal cliff”. Here is my take on the bill:
Out-of-control federal spending - the root of the nation’s economic troubles - was totally ignored in the Senate-passed “fiscal cliff” legislation, which is why I voted against passage of the bill.
The Democrats have spent America into this mess, and unless we make serious cuts in federal spending we will become Greece. It is an incredible outrage that this so-called compromise included virtually no spending cuts, only tax and spending hikes, which is precisely why we are in this mess to begin with. I am the only member of Republican leadership to vote against both the Bush Administration TARP bailout program and the Obama Stimulus on the same fiscal grounds.
SH%& JUST GOT REAL!
John Boehner Told Harry Reid 'Go F--- Yourself' Outside the Oval Office
"...just hours earlier Reid had called him a dictator on the floor of the Senate, telling the whole country in a widely-televised speech that the Speaker cared more about protecting his job than doing what was right for the American people. And it won't be the first nor the last time a Congressperson swore a fellow lawmaker. Still, it maybe helps explain why the two sides seem more intent on destroying each other than actually passing useful laws."
http://news.yahoo.com/john-boehner-told-harry-reid-f-yourself-outside-103332376.html
Will, this is not meant to be a jab at you, but these folks are like the prosecuter & defenense attorney whom argue & rail each other to no end in court but enjoy a nice scotch at 7 pm every evening at the bar down from the courthouse.
It is all for the most part a show to keep people divided.
Business_Casual
01-02-13, 20:05
Will, this is not meant to be a jab at you, but these folks are like the prosecuter & defenense attorney whom argue & rail each other to no end in court but enjoy a nice scotch at 7 pm every evening at the bar down from the courthouse.
It is all for the most part a show to keep people divided.
Having frequented the Capital Grille on expenses more than once, I can tell you this is true to the point of Senator X's aide being married to Senator Y's aide and both attended the wedding.
Also, while to some people $400K might seem like a lot of money, it goes pretty fast when your property tax is equal to most people's mortgage and you've got two kids in private school.
bc
Alaskapopo
01-02-13, 21:05
If the guy making $400k a year is paying what the tax code prescribes as his tax liability for his income level, why would he be demonized for following the law?
If his income is derived from long term capital gains, the % will be lower.
The people not making $400k do not understand tax accounting for that level, or those types of investments and see it as this black and white issue where he should pay "his share".
He is. In fact, in dollars he is probably paying 300% more than the guy making $40k/yr.
I am not demonizing anyone for following the law. My problem is with the system itself. Captical gains should be taxes taxed at the same rate as wages in my opinion. Its not right that Warren Buffets Secetary pays more of a percentage of her income in taxes than he does.
Pat
Belmont31R
01-02-13, 21:15
I am not demonizing anyone for following the law. My problem is with the system itself. Captical gains should be taxes taxed at the same rate as wages in my opinion. Its not right that Warren Buffets Secetary pays more of a percentage of her income in taxes than he does.
Pat
He already paid taxes on the wages used to invest, and get capital gains in the first place. You're essentially double taxing a person.
Not every person who gets dividends are Warren Buffet rich. That's a straw man argument that make it sound like only rich billionaires are making investment income.
It's also horrific that a government gets to take part of your money when thing's are good but share none of the risk. How many people put money in the stock market only to lose it all?
Whats the percentage supposed to be? 30% 40% 50% 60%?
And guess what? Warren Buffet spends millions of dollars to avoid paying taxes, and has/is had legal issues over it. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is when you are a tax cheat like Buffet or Geithner.
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 00:19
Reading on WSJ the bill that passed had 60 billion in corporate tax credits including $228 million for Hollywood movie production secured by ex-senator Frank Dodd who is now a lobbyist.
Entrenched corruption where the difference between paying taxes or not depends on paying off politicians and giving a few million to former politicians turned lobbyists.
But don't pay for a $200 tax stamp and you're a felon who can serve up to 10 years in jail.
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 00:41
He already paid taxes on the wages used to invest, and get capital gains in the first place. You're essentially double taxing a person.
Not every person who gets dividends are Warren Buffet rich. That's a straw man argument that make it sound like only rich billionaires are making investment income.
It's also horrific that a government gets to take part of your money when thing's are good but share none of the risk. How many people put money in the stock market only to lose it all?
Whats the percentage supposed to be? 30% 40% 50% 60%?
And guess what? Warren Buffet spends millions of dollars to avoid paying taxes, and has/is had legal issues over it. It doesn't matter what the tax rate is when you are a tax cheat like Buffet or Geithner.
Income is income rather its new profit from investments or wages earned due to labor. I don't care if you invest your money to make more money or you invest your labor to get a pay check. I feel they should be taxed the same. Your not double taxing someone as only the profit is taxed not the initial investment. Hence the term Capital GAINS.
The current situation rewards those who already have money and punishes those who have to work for a living and don't have surplus income to invest. I don't blame Buffet or Romney for taking advantage of the current tax structure. I am saying the system needs to change so its more fair for all income earners not just the rich. Which I don't think anyone can argue with our current system that the rich don't get a better deal. Romney for example was paying only 15% on his income overall where a guy like me is paying 28% or so. I also don't agree with a progressive tax. I think the flat tax is the most fair idea out there in my opinion.
Pat
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 00:58
Income is income rather its new profit from investments or wages earned due to labor. I don't care if you invest your money to make more money or you invest your labor to get a pay check. I feel they should be taxed the same. Your not double taxing someone as only the profit is taxed not the initial investment. Hence the term Capital GAINS.
The current situation rewards those who already have money and punishes those who have to work for a living and don't have surplus income to invest. I don't blame Buffet or Romney for taking advantage of the current tax structure. I am saying the system needs to change so its more fair for all income earners not just the rich.
Pat
More fair in what manner?
Even if Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage, due to a difference in how the income is derived, he still pays more in taxes in one year than she will in even EARN in her lifetime.
Make 200 million a year and pay 20%? $40,000,000 million in taxes. Earn 40k, and pay effective tax rate of like 30%? $12,000 in taxes or $39,988,000 less than the guy who paid $40,000,000 in taxes but a 10% lower rate.
It's a garbage argument the 'rich' don't pay enough taxes or the current tax rate is unfair. No one wants to look at the actual dollar amount they are actually paying, and instead use straw man arguments as if the rich are cheating the rest of us when in reality 50% don't pay income taxes, a lot are actually getting more back than they paid in, and the top 10% pay a vast majority of the income taxes collected.
What's unfair is one person actual is a net loss in tax revenue and the next guy is demonized for not paying enough even though he's already paying millions every year, and that's just income taxes. Add in property taxes, payroll taxes, sale's taxes, state income taxes, ect, and a person even at a 20% Federal income tax rate can quickly jump up to nearly 50% or more in an effective tax rate.
A government taking 30/40/50+ % a persons income should be treated as a criminal element.
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 02:58
More fair in what manner?
Even if Buffett's secretary pays a higher percentage, due to a difference in how the income is derived, he still pays more in taxes in one year than she will in even EARN in her lifetime.
Make 200 million a year and pay 20%? $40,000,000 million in taxes. Earn 40k, and pay effective tax rate of like 30%? $12,000 in taxes or $39,988,000 less than the guy who paid $40,000,000 in taxes but a 10% lower rate.
It's a garbage argument the 'rich' don't pay enough taxes or the current tax rate is unfair. No one wants to look at the actual dollar amount they are actually paying, and instead use straw man arguments as if the rich are cheating the rest of us when in reality 50% don't pay income taxes, a lot are actually getting more back than they paid in, and the top 10% pay a vast majority of the income taxes collected.
What's unfair is one person actual is a net loss in tax revenue and the next guy is demonized for not paying enough even though he's already paying millions every year, and that's just income taxes. Add in property taxes, payroll taxes, sale's taxes, state income taxes, ect, and a person even at a 20% Federal income tax rate can quickly jump up to nearly 50% or more in an effective tax rate.
A government taking 30/40/50+ % a persons income should be treated as a criminal element.
The actual dollar amount means nothing at all. If the rich had been paying their fair share we would not be in as much trouble as we are today. Yes the rich pay more in raw money but if they would be paying the same percentage as the middle class we would not be in as bad of shape as we are now. What is garbage in my opinion is to believe that is ok for those who benefited the most from our countries economy should be taxed less than those who are barely scraping by. To put it simply yes the top 10% have been paying a large portion of the overall dollar amount imagine how much more money would be in the tresury if they had been paying 30% instead of 15% of their income like Romney and Buffet. What is also true is the top 1% controls 99% of the wealth. That is not a good thing.
Like tithing in the bible every person is supposed to give up 10% of what they have. Its not hey you have more so you don't have to pay as much in relation to what you have since you give so much compared to the poor guys.
Also all the additional taxes you listed (sales tax property tax etc) I am paying too as a middle class person. I am not shedding a tear for the rich. Sorry not going to do it. I am also not happy that the poor often get more money back than they paid. The middle class is getting screwed.
Pat
ffhounddog
01-03-13, 04:25
The actual dollar amount means nothing at all. If the rich had been paying their fair share we would not be in as much trouble as we are today. Yes the rich pay more in raw money but if they would be paying the same percentage as the middle class we would not be in as bad of shape as we are now. What is garbage in my opinion is to believe that is ok for those who benefited the most from our countries economy should be taxed less than those who are barely scraping by. To put it simply yes the top 10% have been paying a large portion of the overall dollar amount imagine how much more money would be in the tresury if they had been paying 30% instead of 15% of their income like Romney and Buffet. What is also true is the top 1% controls 99% of the wealth. That is not a good thing.
Like tithing in the bible every person is supposed to give up 10% of what they have. Its not hey you have more so you don't have to pay as much in relation to what you have since you give so much compared to the poor guys.
Also all the additional taxes you listed (sales tax property tax etc) I am paying too as a middle class person. I am not shedding a tear for the rich. Sorry not going to do it. I am also not happy that the poor often get more money back than they paid. The middle class is getting screwed.
Pat
I do not think you mean pay their fair share I think you mean government not spending money they did not have or on programs that are full of pork. If you actually look at some bills like the Hurrican Sandy Relief bill they are full of crap for foundation this and reserch on that. If we would stop researching for crap like how many people know how to put a condom on correctly then we would not be in this mess. Also you just paved the roads why are you paving again.
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 04:48
The actual dollar amount means nothing at all. If the rich had been paying their fair share we would not be in as much trouble as we are today. Yes the rich pay more in raw money but if they would be paying the same percentage as the middle class we would not be in as bad of shape as we are now. What is garbage in my opinion is to believe that is ok for those who benefited the most from our countries economy should be taxed less than those who are barely scraping by. To put it simply yes the top 10% have been paying a large portion of the overall dollar amount imagine how much more money would be in the tresury if they had been paying 30% instead of 15% of their income like Romney and Buffet. What is also true is the top 1% controls 99% of the wealth. That is not a good thing.
Like tithing in the bible every person is supposed to give up 10% of what they have. Its not hey you have more so you don't have to pay as much in relation to what you have since you give so much compared to the poor guys.
Also all the additional taxes you listed (sales tax property tax etc) I am paying too as a middle class person. I am not shedding a tear for the rich. Sorry not going to do it. I am also not happy that the poor often get more money back than they paid. The middle class is getting screwed.
Pat
Of course the dollar amount means nothing at all to you because you support a progressive tax system where the richer people pay almost all the taxes, and even though you admitted they do already they still aren't paying enough?
I don't agree with progressive taxes, and I'm a fan of consumption taxes like gasoline taxes to pay for roads or schools.
A good reason capital gains taxes are as low as they are is because there is a lot of risk involved. I find it a crappy deal we get to take all the risk in investing, and then the government is supposed to get what? 30/40/50% of the reward? Thats not how things should work.
Of course you pay those other taxes the rich do but you didn't really answer the question. How much of a persons income should the government be able to take? If someone makes all their money off capital gains, and you tax it at 40%, by the time it's all said and done the person is paying 2/3rds of their income to taxes. Do you think thats acceptable?
And so what if someone benefited? Obviously you think they then 'owe' society a large portion of their income. What is that supposed to be used for? A massive welfare system?
The Christian thing of tithing is 10%, and yet you're supporting percentages much higher than that.
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 05:23
Of course the dollar amount means nothing at all to you because you support a progressive tax system where the richer people pay almost all the taxes, and even though you admitted they do already they still aren't paying enough?
I don't agree with progressive taxes, and I'm a fan of consumption taxes like gasoline taxes to pay for roads or schools.
A good reason capital gains taxes are as low as they are is because there is a lot of risk involved. I find it a crappy deal we get to take all the risk in investing, and then the government is supposed to get what? 30/40/50% of the reward? Thats not how things should work.
Of course you pay those other taxes the rich do but you didn't really answer the question. How much of a persons income should the government be able to take? If someone makes all their money off capital gains, and you tax it at 40%, by the time it's all said and done the person is paying 2/3rds of their income to taxes. Do you think thats acceptable?
And so what if someone benefited? Obviously you think they then 'owe' society a large portion of their income. What is that supposed to be used for? A massive welfare system?
The Christian thing of tithing is 10%, and yet you're supporting percentages much higher than that.
No I support a Flat tax and I am also ok with a consumption tax (fair tax) we are in agreement on that. Either is fine with me. What I don't support is a tax system where the rich pay less. With captical gains taxes as for risk. You play you pay. Just the way it is. You can make it as risky or as safe as you want by changing what you invest in.
Pat
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 06:33
This is madness. Capital gains is an important aspect of investing - there needs to be an incentive to invest versus sitting on the money and protecting it. That is why private money in London tends to go into real estate to protect it and why private money in the USA tends to go into private ventures to earn a return. These private ventures benefit all of us from increased jobs and taxes.
The eat the rich idea will back fire quite badly.
bc
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 06:47
This is madness. Capital gains is an important aspect of investing - there needs to be an incentive to invest versus sitting on the money and protecting it. That is why private money in London tends to go into real estate to protect it and why private money in the USA tends to go into private ventures to earn a return. These private ventures benefit all of us from increased jobs and taxes.
The eat the rich idea will back fire quite badly.
bc
Yea like helping the rich has helped us out so much!! NOT!
We have a shrinking middle class. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is turning into the poor. Trickle down economics does not work. There is still a return on your investment and you don't need to give the rich a huge tax break for them to make money on investments. Capital gains tax rate needs to go up to equal what you would be taxed if you made that money from wages.
Pat
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 07:07
Yea like helping the rich has helped us out so much!! NOT!
We have a shrinking middle class. The rich are getting richer and the middle class is turning into the poor. Trickle down economics does not work. There is still a return on your investment and you don't need to give the rich a huge tax break for them to make money on investments. Capital gains tax rate needs to go up to equal what you would be taxed if you made that money from wages.
Pat
There is no other way to say this, but to say you are foolish. I'm sorry, but your view on investing is too limited and does not encompass the actual reality of how capital markets work. This is your schools' fault for not teaching you.
bc
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 07:19
No I support a Flat tax and I am also ok with a consumption tax (fair tax) we are in agreement on that. Either is fine with me. What I don't support is a tax system where the rich pay less. With captical gains taxes as for risk. You play you pay. Just the way it is. You can make it as risky or as safe as you want by changing what you invest in.
Pat
As whole, the rich pay the highest effective tax rates. You're simply cherry picking one tax form or person to prove a straw man argument.
The pattern of changes in the effective federal tax rate for
all taxpayers is repeated for each income quintile and the
top income percentiles, albeit with slightly different turning points and different degrees of change between 2001
and 2014 (see Table 2). For the bottom four quintiles, the
effective individual income tax rate turns upward in
2004, a year ahead of the rise for the top quintile. All
quintiles experience a jump in their overall effective tax
rate in 2011 following the expiration of EGTRRA. They
also all have a higher effective rate in 2014 than in 2001.
For example, the effective rate for the lowest quintile increases from 5.4 percent in 2001 to 8.3 percent in 2014;
in contrast, the rate for the top quintile climbs from 26.8
percent to 28.8 percent and that for the top 1 percent of
taxpayers rises from 33.0 percent to 33.6 percent over the
same period.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/57xx/doc5746/08-13-effectivefedtaxrates.pdf
There is a chart further down the PDF which lists effective tax rates by income group. The higher up the chain you go the higher the effective tax rates.
The actual dollar amount means nothing at all. If the rich had been paying their fair share we would not be in as much trouble as we are today. Yes the rich pay more in raw money but if they would be paying the same percentage as the middle class we would not be in as bad of shape as we are now. What is garbage in my opinion is to believe that is ok for those who benefited the most from our countries economy should be taxed less than those who are barely scraping by. To put it simply yes the top 10% have been paying a large portion of the overall dollar amount imagine how much more money would be in the tresury if they had been paying 30% instead of 15% of their income like Romney and Buffet. What is also true is the top 1% controls 99% of the wealth. That is not a good thing.
Like tithing in the bible every person is supposed to give up 10% of what they have. Its not hey you have more so you don't have to pay as much in relation to what you have since you give so much compared to the poor guys.
Also all the additional taxes you listed (sales tax property tax etc) I am paying too as a middle class person. I am not shedding a tear for the rich. Sorry not going to do it. I am also not happy that the poor often get more money back than they paid. The middle class is getting screwed.
Pat
You could double the total dollar value of all income taxes (earned and unearned) paid by those earning more than $250k/year and would barely put a dent in the deficit. Those people paid about $400B in income taxes last year. We have a, what, trillion and a half dollar deficit?
I'm for a flat tax system but, it could never be so simple as saying everyone, regardless of the type of income, pays X%.
Business Casual is correct; it would destroy the incentive for investments.
I guess I should have said I would support a simplified tax system. A tiered flat tax for different types of income.
Regardless….revenue is not the issue here. Spending is and our elected officials just do not get it as evidenced by their recent vote.
Some posts in this thread illustrate EXACTLY why this country is ****ed. Absolutely ****ed.
A guy pays $5,000,000 in taxes in a year, and somehow he should be paying more....says the person(s) paying less than $100,000 in taxes per year.
For the people who don't think this all the way through...
If Person A makes 10,000,000/yr and the flat tax is 10%, this person will pay $1,000,000.
If Person B makes 100,000/yr this person will pay $10,000.
Guess what? The government would see bigger deficits because 10% flat is not going to keep the ****ing lights on.
So now we need the % to be 30% flat, from everyone.
The guy making $10,000,000 puts in $3,000,000.
The guy making $100,000 puts in $30,000.
Who feels that pain more? And what did we really change? Make it look fair? Feel fair? The fact is if we get $2,000,000 more from person A, the government will saddle us with that much more spending. Probably spend $2,500,000 of that $2,000,000. Wait wut?
The ratio is not 1:1. We have only had something like eight years in our history where we ran at budget, or in surplus. That means we spend more than we make. That is the real problem. We have plenty of revenue coming in, and we always have.
Right now we are giving too much of it away on government waste and bulk. Period.
montanadave
01-03-13, 10:28
There is no other way to say this, but to say you are foolish. I'm sorry, but your view on investing is too limited and does not encompass the actual reality of how capital markets work. This is your schools' fault for not teaching you.
bc
A bit condescending, don't you think? Raising marginal tax rates pushes the wealthy towards risking capital with the potential for larger returns as opposed to just paying the tax and sitting pat. For that matter, given the ridiculously low interest rates currently available due to fed monetary policy, taking risks by investing capital is the only way to even maintain principal, much less increase capital.
Do you really think the folks with big money are going to say "Hey, capital gains just jumped 5% so I think I'll leave all my money in my ****ing Christmas Club account earning 0.02% interest."
Gimme a break. Folks looking to make money are going to have to risk it in either the markets, real estate, private equity ventures, or the like. There ain't any other game in town.
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 10:56
A bit condescending, don't you think? Raising marginal tax rates pushes the wealthy towards risking capital with the potential for larger returns as opposed to just paying the tax and sitting pat. For that matter, given the ridiculously low interest rates currently available due to fed monetary policy, taking risks by investing capital is the only way to even maintain principal, much less increase capital.
Do you really think the folks with big money are going to say "Hey, capital gains just jumped 5% so I think I'll leave all my money in my ****ing Christmas Club account earning 0.02% interest."
Gimme a break. Folks looking to make money are going to have to risk it in either the markets, real estate, private equity ventures, or the like. There ain't any other game in town.
Well, at least I was condescending and not wrong.
First of all, we are talking about taxing capital gains at the same rate as income - that means the rate would more than double. That, in percentage terms, is not 5%.
Secondly, when you tax at those rates you will see capital flight. Have you heard what is happening in France? Have you ever wondered why so many ethnic chinese live on the west coast of Canada?
This isn't a static, zero-sum game.
bc
montanadave
01-03-13, 11:10
Well, at least I was condescending and not wrong.
First of all, we are talking about taxing capital gains at the same rate as income - that means the rate would more than double. That, in percentage terms, is not 5%.
Secondly, when you tax at those rates you will see capital flight. Have you heard what is happening in France? Have you ever wondered why so many ethnic chinese live on the west coast of Canada?
This isn't a static, zero-sum game.
bc
Under the recently passed "fiscal cliff" tax bill, tax rates on capital gains and dividend income exceeding $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples will increase from 15% to 20%. The rate remains at the current 15% for those below that income threshold.
And France raised individual income tax rates to 75% on income over a million Euros which is a far cry from restoring rates here in the U.S. to the pre-Bush tax cuts level of 39.6% (from 35%) on income over $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples.
A bit condescending, don't you think? Raising marginal tax rates pushes the wealthy towards risking capital with the potential for larger returns as opposed to just paying the tax and sitting pat. For that matter, given the ridiculously low interest rates currently available due to fed monetary policy, taking risks by investing capital is the only way to even maintain principal, much less increase capital.
Do you really think the folks with big money are going to say "Hey, capital gains just jumped 5% so I think I'll leave all my money in my ****ing Christmas Club account earning 0.02% interest."
Gimme a break. Folks looking to make money are going to have to risk it in either the markets, real estate, private equity ventures, or the like. There ain't any other game in town.
No, but there are out of town games, so to speak. We already have a "cash flight" issue in this country. :(
montanadave
01-03-13, 11:22
No, but there are out of town games, so to speak. We already have a "cash flight" issue in this country. :(
Indeed. But when world markets get stirred up and everyone starts running for cover, U.S. sovereign debt is still the default "flight to safety" destination.
This may not continue if we refuse to get our fiscal house in order, but it's the where the game stands today.
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 11:24
Come on bro, a 5% increase on 15% is 0.75%. An increase from 15% to 20% is a 25% increase.
bc
Mauser KAR98K
01-03-13, 11:30
I think many of you are looking at the wrong problem, if not looking at one problem as the primal focus.
NAFTA
Global Free Market
Import-Export
Beginning in the 1950s after WWII, the U.S. has slowly become a service industry economy over a manufacturing economy. Many variables has pushed the U.S. into this: we had a lot of money at the end of WWII, the world economy at the time was crippled after a major conflict, and three, consumer spending sky rocketed.
At the time of the Marshal plan, and other consumable goods, the United States was the top dog in manufacturing due to the rest of the world lacking after the war. But after many of the countries got back on their feet, they began to do something the U.S. was not doing--making things more efficiently. By the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. steel mills were going out of business because it was cheaper to import steel than make it at home. One of the big reasons was that the U.S. steel industry never modernized and was also in competition with itself and not the rest of the world.
Since then, we have taken in more imports than exports. Giving breaks to companies that send jobs over seas to cheaper labor has not helped, the strangle hold of labor unions has crippled and inflated what we expect to be wage and that does not help our plight in the world market, and our lack of charging tariffs. America is in a economic war, but we do not acknowledge that we are.
If we want revenue generation, then we need to manufacture our own goods and do it in house. We need to make it more lucrative to produce here at home. Notice the Japanese are creating car plants in FREE STATES!?
montanadave
01-03-13, 11:40
Come on bro, a 5% increase on 15% is 0.75%. An increase from 15% to 20% is a 25% increase.
bc
Here's what you just posted:
"First of all, we are talking about taxing capital gains at the same rate as income - that means the rate would more than double."
And that is flat-out wrong.
Then you decide to switch gears and start talking in terms of percentage increases as opposed to rates.
Save the smoke and mirrors for somebody else.
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 11:46
OK, I will! Thanks!
By the way, it was AlaskaLenin that brought up the rates, you just stuck your nose in...
bc
montanadave
01-03-13, 11:59
OK, I will! Thanks!
By the way, it was AlaskaLenin that brought up the rates, you just stuck your nose in...
bc
If you're gonna label another member as foolish and ignorant on an open forum while simultaneously talking out your ass and misrepresenting the facts, don't be surprised if you get called on it.
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 12:16
If you're gonna label another member as foolish and ignorant on an open forum while simultaneously talking out your ass and misrepresenting the facts, don't be surprised if you get called on it.
It is foolish to raise those rates, that is a fact. It will not increase the revenue. It will actually decrease the amount collected.
You are the one who is talking out of his ass.
bc
I think many of you are looking at the wrong problem, if not looking at one problem as the primal focus.
NAFTA
Global Free Market
Import-Export
Beginning in the 1950s after WWII, the U.S. has slowly become a service industry economy over a manufacturing economy. Many variables has pushed the U.S. into this: we had a lot of money at the end of WWII, the world economy at the time was crippled after a major conflict, and three, consumer spending sky rocketed.
At the time of the Marshal plan, and other consumable goods, the United States was the top dog in manufacturing due to the rest of the world lacking after the war. But after many of the countries got back on their feet, they began to do something the U.S. was not doing--making things more efficiently. By the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. steel mills were going out of business because it was cheaper to import steel than make it at home. One of the big reasons was that the U.S. steel industry never modernized and was also in competition with itself and not the rest of the world.
Since then, we have taken in more imports than exports. Giving breaks to companies that send jobs over seas to cheaper labor has not helped, the strangle hold of labor unions has crippled and inflated what we expect to be wage and that does not help our plight in the world market, and our lack of charging tariffs. America is in a economic war, but we do not acknowledge that we are.
If we want revenue generation, then we need to manufacture our own goods and do it in house. We need to make it more lucrative to produce here at home. Notice the Japanese are creating car plants in FREE STATES!?
Point well taken.
The tax code needs to be attractive to companies to produce here at home.
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 13:53
There is no other way to say this, but to say you are foolish. I'm sorry, but your view on investing is too limited and does not encompass the actual reality of how capital markets work. This is your schools' fault for not teaching you.
bc
What is foolish is thinking that trickle down economics works. The reason the Republicans are losing is because they have become known as the part for the rich and not the common man. The reason I dropped my Republican affiliation and registered as an independent was because I saw the Republican party doing things to screw over working class folks. But you have a right to your opinion as much as I do to mine.
Pat
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 13:54
OK, I will! Thanks!
By the way, it was AlaskaLenin that brought up the rates, you just stuck your nose in...
bc
Ah the mature name calling and labeling. Let me know when you can have a mature and civil discussion. There is nothing communist about wanting a flat tax where eveyrone pays the same percentage of their income.
Pat
I'm honestly not sure how to have a mature discussion when the entire premise of one side of the argument is that "it isn't fair". :fie:
I believe that with maturity comes the ability to understand that life, itself, is inherently unfair and we really aren't talking about trying to be fair for everyone. We are really talking about being fair to the author's own interests, and perspectives.
If anyone believes that taxing capital gains at the same rate as current income levels is "fair", they've bought the class warfare strategy; hook, line and sinker.
If anyone believes that this country can operate on 10% flat federal tax, they are delusional, and the billionaires would probably embrace that, since they pay more than 10% NOW, with the progressive schemes and capital gains already in place. They would actually keep MORE of their own money with a flat tax, and then we'd come up even shorter on the income to spending gap.
Business_Casual
01-03-13, 14:16
Ah the mature name calling and labeling. Let me know when you can have a mature and civil discussion. There is nothing communist about wanting a flat tax where eveyrone pays the same percentage of their income.
Pat
Perhaps that was uncalled for and I apologize to you.
bc
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 14:31
What is foolish is thinking that trickle down economics works. The reason the Republicans are losing is because they have become known as the part for the rich and not the common man. The reason I dropped my Republican affiliation and registered as an independent was because I saw the Republican party doing things to screw over working class folks. But you have a right to your opinion as much as I do to mine.
Pat
No...the reason you dropped the party affiliation is because you are a leftist who happens to like firearms. You've stated in enough threads over time you support progressive thinking like single payer health care and such. The class warfare argument in this thread alone would not come from a republican.
If you think Democrats care about the 'common man' you are delusional. Contained in the fiscal cliff bill is 60 billion in tax credits to special interest groups yet they let the pay roll taxes increases go up on the rest of us.
The reason Republicans support the rich is because class warfare is not part of conservative ideology or economic theory where higher tax rates = less revenue. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. Taxing the rich does not automatically mean more revenue, and it's simply a method progressives use to feel like they are going after people who had to have screwed them over to become rich or that a wealthy person 'owes' society for their success.
No...the reason you dropped the party affiliation is because you are a leftist who happens to like firearms. You've stated in enough threads over time you support progressive thinking like single payer health care and such. The class warfare argument in this thread alone would not come from a republican.
If you think Democrats care about the 'common man' you are delusional. Contained in the fiscal cliff bill is 60 billion in tax credits to special interest groups yet they let the pay roll taxes increases go up on the rest of us.
The reason Republicans support the rich is because class warfare is not part of conservative ideology or economic theory where higher tax rates = less revenue. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. Taxing the rich does not automatically mean more revenue, and it's simply a method progressives use to feel like they are going after people who had to have screwed them over to become rich or that a wealthy person 'owes' society for their success.
This country is in dire straits as far as class warfare is concerned. It has reached epedemic proportions. Everything wrong is the evil businessman's fault. It's also very partisan along political fault lines. It's bad for Bush, Cheney, etc. to have money, but it's perfectly fine for Gore, Soros, Michael Moore, Hollywood elite, musicians and overpaid sports stars to have millions of dollars. It's repugnant.
I discriminate based on whether you're hypocritical, self-righteous, unscrupulous, Machiavellian in your desire to force others into social strata against their will, willing to **** over your fellow man for a dollar, etc.
I happen to admire people who've made themselves millionaires through building products, services or something people want or need, particularly if they've employed others in their pursuits. Unfortunately this country is no longer able to discriminate good from bad, so they assume all of them are bad. It's pathetic. :(
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 16:17
So when they say that this deal will add $4 trillion to the national debt over ten years, do they in fact mean on top of the $6-9 trillion that was already projected to be added to the debt over those ten years?
Yes...this is a NEW increase in spending over previous projections which was the exact opposite intention of creating the fiscal cliff in the first place to force spending cuts. This makes Boehner and the 84 other GOP House members who voted for it all the more repugnant.
Minus the ~70 billon a year in new revenue this an increase of about 320 billion a year in spending this year alone, and ~4 trillion over 10 years.
Disgusting...
I'm a "Nine-Nine-Nine" guy myself. It would be impossible to get something so simple passed, of course. The part I like the most is taxing at the retail (or wholesale) level - thereby getting a full cut on imports. This of course being offset by lower income taxes.
BTW, Romney was an idiot for suggesting that income from capital gains be tax free (not that I'm for taxing Capitol Gains as regular income). His (and others) mistakes also included trashing Texas voters for allowing in-state tuition rates for children of illegals. Dumb move and no one's business outside of Texas unless you happen to be against States Rights.
Another pet peeve is tax free status on income from muni-bonds, at least over some limit. IIRC, Theresa Heinz Kerry has (or had) a Billion or so working tax free.
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 16:22
I'm a "Nine-Nine-Nine" guy myself. It would be impossible to get something so simple passed, of course. The part I like the most is taxing at the retail (or wholesale) level - thereby getting a full cut on imports. This of course being offset by lower income taxes.
BTW, Romney was an idiot for suggesting that income from capital gains be tax free (not that I'm for taxing Capitol Gains as regular income). His (and others) mistakes also included trashing Texas voters for allowing in-state tuition rates for children of illegals. Dumb move and no one's business outside of Texas unless you happen to be against States Rights.
Another pet peeve is tax free status on income from muni-bonds, at least over some limit. IIRC, Theresa Heinz Kerry has (or had) a Billion or so working tax free.
Why on Earth would they want to do anything to discourage more public debt? lol
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 18:17
No...the reason you dropped the party affiliation is because you are a leftist who happens to like firearms. You've stated in enough threads over time you support progressive thinking like single payer health care and such. The class warfare argument in this thread alone would not come from a republican.
If you think Democrats care about the 'common man' you are delusional. Contained in the fiscal cliff bill is 60 billion in tax credits to special interest groups yet they let the pay roll taxes increases go up on the rest of us.
The reason Republicans support the rich is because class warfare is not part of conservative ideology or economic theory where higher tax rates = less revenue. Tax revenue went up after the Bush tax cuts. Taxing the rich does not automatically mean more revenue, and it's simply a method progressives use to feel like they are going after people who had to have screwed them over to become rich or that a wealthy person 'owes' society for their success.
Actually I am a moderate at least on all the political tests I have taken.
1. I support gun ownership.
2. I support the death penalty.
3. I support development of natural resources.
4. I support organized labor.
5. I support a fair or flat tax system.
6. I do support health care reform.
The Democrats have done a lot of individual rights with the exception of 2nd amendment rights. They were the front runners in the civil rights movement in the 60's.
Republicans have crapped on organized labor changed FLSA so its easier for employers not to pay over time. They have given huge tax breaks to corporations and the rich while not doing a thing for the poor and middle class. As for class warfare its been going on for a while and the rich have been winning hence why 1% controls 99% of the wealth. That is why I want a flat tax. You don't punish someone for doing well like a progressive tax system and everyone pays the same percentage of what the make in taxes.
I have a problem with the extreme right and the extreme left. We need a viable third party option that is not made up of extremist. When it comes to gun control the left wants to take your guns and the right wants to make it so only the rich will be able to afford them. Lose lose situation.
Pat
brushy bill
01-03-13, 18:37
the right wants to make it so only the rich will be able to afford them.
Pat
This is a non sequitur. The right have fought against the racist "Saturday Night Special" ban advocated by the left. The left have opposed making affordable protection available to the masses. The left has tried to put everyone under the boot heel of the statists. Why is this so difficult to understand?
While I appreciate your desire to avoid "extremism", when your God given rights (whether you believe in a higher power or not, the state does not give you inalienable rights...they simply cannot impose upon them) are trampled upon you can be "extreme" or submit...not many other options available when forced into a corner by rabid idealogues. "Compromise" equates to giving up something for nothing and gradual erosion of everything, so you oppose everything that errodes your rights.
Oh, and while you support them, organized labor got us a few billion in debt with the GM & Chrysler bail outs...debts my children's children will pay..along with other debts. I had NEVER owned a Japanese vehicle prior to the bail out and will now NEVER own an "American" vehicle again with the possible exception of Ford (didn't submit to the bailout).
I didn't mind voluntary funding an arguably inferior quality product when I had the ability to vote American with my pocketbook, but when the left forced it on me without my consent, I will no longer do so. It won't impact the auto industry, but I will be satisfied with my decision.
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 18:52
You are wrong about civil rights in the 60's. A much higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.
Unions are a major reasons business move manufacturing overseas. States with right to work laws have seen an influx of foreign investment in manufacturing including several major auto makers while 'American' union run auto makers required a bail out. Even worse are public employee unions where Democrats have promised them benefits that cannot be paid with current tax revenues.
I can't comment much about FLSA specifically, and I thought most of that stuff was handled by state labor boards? I know I had an employer who withheld a final paycheck, and Texas had much more stringent laws than on the Federal level. I told said employer they had until X day to get me my check or I would be going to the labor board and they did. The state board will hammer employers for violations. I don't think anyone would object to forcing employers to abide by labor laws and pay people what they are due. I don't see this as being a big problem in the US overall.
Your stat of 1% controlling 99% of the wealth is made up, and even if were true, if they earned it in a legal manner then that belongs to them. I don't believe government intervention to 'spread the wealth' around does any of us any good over the long run, and makes people dependent on government. I believe wages were about 5.5 trillion out a GDP of about 14 trillion in the last few years, and it's simply not true that 1% of the population controlled 99% of either wages or the GDP. Even if you look at the net worth of the rich it pales in comparison to every other meaningful stat like government spending, debt, GDP, wages, money held by banks, ect.
I am a libertarian who believes in the ideology of a small limited government, and a free market system with basic protections in place. Under such a system taxes should be kept to a minimum, and the Federal government should be kept to only its mandated functions and granted powers. No matter what economic theory you believe in, either communism, socialism or capitalism, there will always be rich and poor. I find it far more equitable and fair to simply setup a system where everyone has the same ability to raise (or lower) their economic status. I do not believe in unbridled capitalism, and capitalism is actually enhanced with a limited government to do things like enforce contract disputes, prohibit false advertisement, price fixing, ect.
As an example you could take all the money in the world, and distribute it evenly to every person in the world, and within a month there would be rich and poor people again. Some people have an innate mindset to make money, and others have a mindset to spend money. You cannot defy this natural composition of man, and keep a cycle of forced wealth redistribution going because you can never change how a person thinks on that level...or at least in near enough numbers to make a difference. Thus taking money from people who have the natural mindset to make money, and giving it to spenders just gives the spenders easy access to cash in which to spend, and the money makers will do everything they can to make more. You can give two different people $100,000 each, and a maker will look at it as turning that $100,000 into $200,000, and then into $400,000 and so forth. A spender will create a list, and go wild spending it all until they are poor again.
This is why your insinuation a wealthy person somehow owes society a significant amount of wealth in return for their success if a fallacy because the poor did little to nothing to contribute to to that persons success. Society is not advanced by people who have little money to spend. The more wealth a person has the more influence they have on society, and the more they contribute in all manner of things.
brushy bill
01-03-13, 19:00
Belmont, thanks for what you're adding to these discussions. Informed analysis vice uninformed regurgitation of political mantra/dribble.
You are wrong about civil rights in the 60's. A much higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Democrats.
Unions are a major reasons business move manufacturing overseas. States with right to work laws have seen an influx of foreign investment in manufacturing including several major auto makers while 'American' union run auto makers required a bail out. Even worse are public employee unions where Democrats have promised them benefits that cannot be paid with current tax revenues.
I can't comment much about FLSA specifically, and I thought most of that stuff was handled by state labor boards? I know I had an employer who withheld a final paycheck, and Texas had much more stringent laws than on the Federal level. I told said employer they had until X day to get me my check or I would be going to the labor board and they did. The state board will hammer employers for violations. I don't think anyone would object to forcing employers to abide by labor laws and pay people what they are due. I don't see this as being a big problem in the US overall.
Your stat of 1% controlling 99% of the wealth is made up, and even if were true, if they earned it in a legal manner then that belongs to them. I don't believe government intervention to 'spread the wealth' around does any of us any good over the long run, and makes people dependent on government. I believe wages were about 5.5 trillion out a GDP of about 14 trillion in the last few years, and it's simply not true that 1% of the population controlled 99% of either wages or the GDP. Even if you look at the net worth of the rich it pales in comparison to every other meaningful stat like government spending, debt, GDP, wages, money held by banks, ect.
I am a libertarian who believes in the ideology of a small limited government, and a free market system with basic protections in place. Under such a system taxes should be kept to a minimum, and the Federal government should be kept to only its mandated functions and granted powers. No matter what economic theory you believe in, either communism, socialism or capitalism, there will always be rich and poor. I find it far more equitable and fair to simply setup a system where everyone has the same ability to raise (or lower) their economic status. I do not believe in unbridled capitalism, and capitalism is actually enhanced with a limited government to do things like enforce contract disputes, prohibit false advertisement, price fixing, ect.
As an example you could take all the money in the world, and distribute it evenly to every person in the world, and within a month there would be rich and poor people again. Some people have an innate mindset to make money, and others have a mindset to spend money. You cannot defy this natural composition of man, and keep a cycle of forced wealth redistribution going because you can never change how a person thinks on that level...or at least in near enough numbers to make a difference. Thus taking money from people who have the natural mindset to make money, and giving it to spenders just gives the spenders easy access to cash in which to spend, and the money makers will do everything they can to make more. You can give two different people $100,000 each, and a maker will look at it as turning that $100,000 into $200,000, and then into $400,000 and so forth. A spender will create a list, and go wild spending it all until they are poor again.
This is why your insinuation a wealthy person somehow owes society a significant amount of wealth in return for their success if a fallacy because the poor did little to nothing to contribute to to that persons success. Society is not advanced by people who have little money to spend. The more wealth a person has the more influence they have on society, and the more they contribute in all manner of things.
This. Spot on Belmont. It is quite pathetic our society/country as a whole cannotg grasp the obvious. History has taught us every one of these lessons- yet people ignore or forget all too well/easily.
Redistribution of wealth at the barrell of a gun (Govt. Intervention/force) is the highest form of corruption and tyranny
Belmont31R
01-03-13, 19:21
I forgot to address you comment about Republicans and tax breaks to corporations. Like you, I believe everyone should pay the same taxes under the same circumstances but you are dead wrong about blaming Republicans alone for it.
The Fiscal cliff bill contains 60 billion in tax credits to corporations, and this bill was written in the Senate.
Let me know if you can't read this. I have a paid WSJ subscription and don't really know which articles are public or not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
The bottom line is these special tax breaks and credits are a problem with both sides of the aisle, and should be criminal. I don't blame a single party for this issue as both of them do it. When Democrats had control of the House, NY Rep Rangel was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He met with GE representatives, granted them a tax break that allowed GE to pay zero taxes, and a month later GE announced they were donating tens of millions of dollars to schools in Rangel's district.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11060496/1/general-electrics-harlem-horse-trade.html
Alaskapopo
01-03-13, 21:19
I forgot to address you comment about Republicans and tax breaks to corporations. Like you, I believe everyone should pay the same taxes under the same circumstances but you are dead wrong about blaming Republicans alone for it.
The Fiscal cliff bill contains 60 billion in tax credits to corporations, and this bill was written in the Senate.
Let me know if you can't read this. I have a paid WSJ subscription and don't really know which articles are public or not.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323320404578216583921471560.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
The bottom line is these special tax breaks and credits are a problem with both sides of the aisle, and should be criminal. I don't blame a single party for this issue as both of them do it. When Democrats had control of the House, NY Rep Rangel was chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. He met with GE representatives, granted them a tax break that allowed GE to pay zero taxes, and a month later GE announced they were donating tens of millions of dollars to schools in Rangel's district.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11060496/1/general-electrics-harlem-horse-trade.html
Your right blame should go to both parties. I don't hate the rich or the poor I just want a simple and fair tax code like the consumption tax you mention or a flat tax. I also agree that spending needs to be cut greatly in a lot of areas from social programs to defense spending. We obviously don't see eye to eye on everything but I do respect how well you state your arguments.
Pat
Suwannee Tim
01-06-13, 20:38
Yea those making over 450K can afford to take the hit.......
Most of the people making this kind of money from wages are small business people paying ordinary income tax on business profits. This income tax increase is primarily a small business tax.
If you raise taxes on capital gains people just won't sell capital assets so no tax. This will severely impact the stock market and will take IRAs and pension funds down. My public sector employer is already planning to deeply cut the pension benefits because the investment fund cannot make anything like the 8.5% they had planned on to pay benefits.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.