View Full Version : State of the Union
Anybody watch it? Thoughts?
Consolidation of power to the executive branch, umm no, that's not how it works......
I watched the first ten minutes or so, at most. Switched over to the MW3 on the Xbox and then Louis CK on Netflix.
I think I made the right choice.
Moose-Knuckle
01-25-12, 15:52
Consolidation of power to the executive branch, umm no, that's not how it works......
That's how it works under socialist regimes.
Here is a comparison to last years SOTUA (thanks Irish).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDRiGIUYQo&feature=youtu.be
Broken record, same shit repackaged. People will believe anything, ****ing lemmings. :lazy:
montanadave
01-25-12, 16:26
Broken record, same shit repackaged. People will believe anything, ****ing lemmings. :lazy:
Just to be fair, Republicans having been pissing on our backs for thirty years and calling it "trickle-down" economics. And they're rolling out the same shit again.
Belmont31R
01-25-12, 16:30
I could go on and on about this but Ill just say a few things.
The Obama's have spent millions of tax payer dollars on vacations and then he gets up there and spouts off about how rich people need to do their fair share. Mitt Romney, who made like 60 million in the last 2 years, and paid 6 million in taxes, wouldn't even cover just half the 'first family's' vacation and leisure habits for a single year. Im just pointing this out because it shows how flawed our system is and why the liberals are eager to steal more money. Im not going to begrudge a guy for wanting a vacation but I will when they use a SOTU address to lament about how rich people aren't paying enough and its not "fair" they pay 6 million in taxes in 2 years. What not fair is that Americans are paying taxes so a public official can spend millions of dollars on their personal vacation habits. The bottom line is this type of thinking where government doesn't have enough money is only true because government is extremely wasteful and they will NEVER have enough. The budget and spending has exploded over the last few decade and its simply not sustainable.
Obama obviously believes government is the answer for everything, and he puts little to no emphasis on the private sector. I guess this boils down to if you believe in Keynesian economics or Austrian. Im an Austrian economics type of guy and believe small government with little to no taxes is the way to a prosperous economy. Obama believes taxing the rich and the government being the primary role in the economy and especially at this time the cure to our ills.
People who are interested should take the time to look at the economic policies of various presidents from Wilson to FDR because it was like our country's coming of age years to now as far as policy is concerned. Wilson was who gave birth and Obama is like the dirty step child of all the big government Keynesians we've had since then.
Edited for clarity.
One thing I noticed..I did'nt see a whole lot of people on either side jumping up and applauding when he mentioned stopping insider trading... Frankly, I've just about given up..I'm no expert on ecomonics, But, My understanding is, that Obama wants to tax the "rich" more, and if the figures I've read are right, if this was done, He'll raise about $25billion..We (the U.S.) owes about $15trillion..so that $25b is just a drop in the bucket,and he (Obama) thinks that if he had that exrta money he cound get the defict under control..:rolleyes: I figure we have about 2-4 yrs before we get hit with inflation, to be followed shortly after by the U.S. defaulting...Great..:bad:
Belmont31R
01-25-12, 17:20
One thing I noticed..I did'nt see a whole lot of people on either side jumping up and applauding when he mentioned stopping insider trading... Frankly, I've just about given up..I'm no expert on ecomonics, But, My understanding is, that Obama wants to tax the "rich" more, and if the figures I've read are right, if this was done, He'll raise about $25billion..We (the U.S.) owes about $15trillion..so that $25b is just a drop in the bucket,and he (Obama) thinks that if he had that exrta money he cound get the defict under control..:rolleyes: I figure we have about 2-4 yrs before we get hit with inflation, to be followed shortly after by the U.S. defaulting...Great..:bad:
Then presidential candidate Obama said in 2008 he would balance the budget by the end of his first term.
And you are right...even raising tax rates on the rich would not balance the budget as it sits right now.
Moose-Knuckle
01-25-12, 17:21
Just to be fair, Republicans having been pissing on our backs for thirty years and calling it "trickle-down" economics. And they're rolling out the same shit again.
**** being fair, you won't see me defend the god damn neo-cons. People have to stop looking at it like Republican vs. Democrat, conservative vs. liberal. It's all lies.
Just to be fair, Republicans having been pissing on our backs for thirty years and calling it "trickle-down" economics. And they're rolling out the same shit again.
Not sure about you, but things were trickling down pretty good until 2008. And there was 8 years of Clinton in those last 30 years also, not that I'm complaining about the economy under him either.
Belmont31R
01-25-12, 17:41
Just to be fair, Republicans having been pissing on our backs for thirty years and calling it "trickle-down" economics. And they're rolling out the same shit again.
As opposed to what? I am not in favor of modern republican economics, either, but trickle down means different things to different people.
Then presidential candidate Obama said in 2008 he would balance the budget by the end of his first term.
That's why he's president, he pandered to idiots that were stupid enough to believe he would do crap like that.
Belmont31R
01-26-12, 02:17
That's why he's president, he pandered to idiots that were stupid enough to believe he would do crap like that.
And why he has a good chance of having a second term....
Maybe I should give up trying to explain reason to others.....:(
If people haven't figured it out by this point then what?
And why he has a good chance of having a second term....
Maybe I should give up trying to explain reason to others.....:(
If people haven't figured it out by this point then what?
Don't worry.. When the guided missle of inflation gets here and explodes, (and it's coming) They'll figure it out when they no longer have a job, their home gets forclosed on, The price of gas, food, and other everyday needed items goes through the roof,The govt tells the populace they can no longer afford food stamps and welfare entitlements, THEN they'll figure it out..
Don't worry.. When the guided missle of inflation gets here and explodes, (and it's coming) They'll figure it out when they no longer have a job, their home gets forclosed on, The price of gas, food, and other everyday needed items goes through the roof,The govt tells the populace they can no longer afford food stamps and welfare entitlements, THEN they'll figure it out..
No they won't.
The worse it gets, the more the Democrats will promise social programs and the more the Repubs will cave in.
Roosevelt stretched out the Great Depression, cashing in on it the entire time, pissing away tax dollars on stupid expensive "get back to work" programs and other worthless bullshit. And was re-elected time after time and still TODAY the great majority of Americans view that criminal sub-human piece of ****ing filth as a "Great President". Personally, I hope he burns in Hell for an eternity; he was only slightly less evil than Hitler and Stalin, but not by much.
Obama is cut of the same cloth. And the idiots on both sides of the aisle will do the same thing.
No they won't.
The worse it gets, the more the Democrats will promise social programs and the more the Repubs will cave in.
Roosevelt stretched out the Great Depression, cashing in on it the entire time, pissing away tax dollars on stupid expensive "get back to work" programs and other worthless bullshit. And was re-elected time after time and still TODAY the great majority of Americans view that criminal sub-human piece of ****ing filth as a "Great President". Personally, I hope he burns in Hell for an eternity; he was only slightly less evil than Hitler and Stalin, but not by much.
Obama is cut of the same cloth. And the idiots on both sides of the aisle will do the same thing.
Exactly.
If they really wanted to create jobs they would cut corporate taxes and strip the draconian regulations that stifle growth, but it's not really about that, is it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-26-12, 09:07
Trickle down prosperity beats trickle up poverty anyday.
I was in the car yesterday and actually listened to Limabaugh a bit and he had two good points:
The start of the visitor sitting in the box with the 1st lady started with Reagan and one of the guys who dove into the Potomac to try to save people from that crashed airliner. It was a hero's prize. What the hell did Warren Buffet's secretary do that is so heroic?
The other is that if she is Warren Buffet's secretary why didn't she get in on his stock? What kind of boss is Warren if he didn't have a share buying plan for his employees.
Limbaugh gets harder to listen too, but when he gets a good point he can really drive it home.
The_War_Wagon
01-26-12, 09:15
If Der Kommissar Obamassar is not happy with the job - if it's LESS than what he thought it would be - he should resign, instead of mope around in disappointment...
No they won't.
The worse it gets, the more the Democrats will promise social programs and the more the Repubs will cave in.
Roosevelt stretched out the Great Depression, cashing in on it the entire time, pissing away tax dollars on stupid expensive "get back to work" programs and other worthless bullshit. And was re-elected time after time and still TODAY the great majority of Americans view that criminal sub-human piece of ****ing filth as a "Great President". Personally, I hope he burns in Hell for an eternity; he was only slightly less evil than Hitler and Stalin, but not by much.
Obama is cut of the same cloth. And the idiots on both sides of the aisle will do the same thing.
Sadly you are entirely accurate and most Americans will continue to fall for it every time.
Spurholder
01-26-12, 16:06
The other is that if she is Warren Buffet's secretary why didn't she get in on his stock? What kind of boss is Warren if he didn't have a share buying plan for his employees.
Not to mention that if she's really paying a 35% tax rate (as Buffett stated), she'd be making over $300,000 a year, and thus is a 1%er.
Also, nice IO campaign to confuse the unwashed masses on capital gains.
I could go on and on about this but Ill just say a few things.
The Obama's have spent millions of tax payer dollars on vacations and then he gets up there and spouts off about how rich people need to do their fair share. Mitt Romney, who made like 60 million in the last 2 years, and paid 6 million in taxes, wouldn't even cover just half the 'first family's' vacation and leisure habits for a single year. Im just pointing this out because it shows how flawed our system is and why the liberals are eager to steal more money. Im not going to begrudge a guy for wanting a vacation but I will when they use a SOTU address to lament about how rich people aren't paying enough and its not "fair" they pay 6 million in taxes in 2 years. What not fair is that Americans are paying taxes so a public official can spend millions of dollars on their personal vacation habits. The bottom line is this type of thinking where government doesn't have enough money is only true because government is extremely wasteful and they will NEVER have enough. The budget and spending has exploded over the last few decade and its simply not sustainable.
Obama obviously believes government is the answer for everything, and he puts little to no emphasis on the private sector. I guess this boils down to if you believe in Keynesian economics or Austrian. Im an Austrian economics type of guy and believe small government with little to no taxes is the way to a prosperous economy. Obama believes taxing the rich and the government being the primary role in the economy and especially at this time the cure to our ills.
People who are interested should take the time to look at the economic policies of various presidents from Wilson to FDR because it was like our country's coming of age years to now as far as policy is concerned. Wilson was who gave birth and Obama is like the dirty step child of all the big government Keynesians we've had since then.
Edited for clarity.
All animals are equal, some animals are more equal.
First off, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but inflation is here and has been so for a bit now. Maybe I'm retarded, but my money sure doesn't seem to go as far as it used to for buying useless crap like food and such. Just cause the Fuds say there is no inflation doesn't make it so. Kind of like 8% unemployment... not true. Hyperinflation hasn't hit yet, but IMO we have probably a year or even less depending on what happens in the EU and ME. If the European dominoes start falling this year the hyperinflation fun will begin as well.
WRT taxing the super rich; it's all fluff. The general population is too stupid to remember history. The original income tax was accepted simply cause it was sold as a tax on the super rich. Fast forward a few decades and every American is forking over at least half, possibly more, of their hard earned cash to some form of tax or government fee. Same shit different generation. They will start with the super rich who can afford to hide their money off shore like Mittens and GE or can pay expensive accountants to figure out other creative ways to hide the cash. When they don't raise the expected revenue then it will trickle down to the rest of us who can't effectively hide money and we will get ass raped some more.
This has little to do with revenue raising or helping the economy. It has everything to do with control. If they wanted to raise extra revenue they would pass a flat tax on ANY money making entity and eliminate each and every deduction from the book. No hiding $$ off shore, no write offs nothing, just a flat 20% off the top and be done. Most people would end up paying less in taxes and the gov would have more income to waste.
First off, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but inflation is here and has been so for a bit now. Maybe I'm retarded, but my money sure doesn't seem to go as far as it used to for buying useless crap like food and such.
I'm ballparking here but I think the U.S. dollar has lost something like 97% of it's value since 1913. This is a pretty neat tool, inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), that gives you an idea of how much we've lost thus far. I'm assuming it's correct even though it's a .Gov site.
As an example $100 in 1913 has the same buying power as $2272 does in 2011.
I watched a little bit of the SOTU address but got tired of the pandering, lies and BS so I turned it off.
Ironically capitalism has generally worked better than inflationary monetary policies. The price of stuff like eggs is lower now when adjusted for inflation and wages are higher.
First off, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but inflation is here and has been so for a bit now. Maybe I'm retarded, but my money sure doesn't seem to go as far as it used to for buying useless crap like food and such. Just cause the Fuds say there is no inflation doesn't make it so.
Yep... you're not retarded, but you do not understand inflation. Higher prices does not equal "inflation". Money supply, especially in the form of wages needs to increase dramatically to drive inflation. But thanks for playing....
They will start with the super rich who can afford to hide their money off shore like Mittens and GE or can pay expensive accountants to figure out other creative ways to hide the cash. When they don't raise the expected revenue then it will trickle down to the rest of us who can't effectively hide money and we will get ass raped some more.
Not only does Mitt Romney NOT hide his income offshore, he effectively doubles his contribution by donating a metric assload of money to charity. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiment.
This has little to do with revenue raising or helping the economy. It has everything to do with control. If they wanted to raise extra revenue they would pass a flat tax on ANY money making entity and eliminate each and every deduction from the book. No hiding $$ off shore, no write offs nothing, just a flat 20% off the top and be done. Most people would end up paying less in taxes and the gov would have more income to waste.
Agreed completely.
montanadave
01-26-12, 23:00
I'm ballparking here but I think the U.S. dollar has lost something like 97% of it's value since 1913. This is a pretty neat tool, inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), that gives you an idea of how much we've lost thus far. I'm assuming it's correct even though it's a .Gov site.
As an example $100 in 1913 has the same buying power as $2272 does in 2011.
I watched a little bit of the SOTU address but got tired of the pandering, lies and BS so I turned it off.
Without providing comparable data illustrating price differentials for consumer items or worker's wages and incomes, this doesn't really tell much of a story. Economic metrics are only meaningful when examined within the context of the conditions which created them.
Just to be fair, Republicans having been pissing on our backs for thirty years and calling it "trickle-down" economics. And they're rolling out the same shit again.
Exactly how have they been pissing on our backs? Seems to me you have come out not bad. IIRC, you bought some land you want to build a Yurt on and have a nice place there somewhere in MT?
Seems to me that the average person does a lot better now than they did long ago.
Not that there aren't problems. But I am interested in just what sort of "pissing on our backs" you are referring to.
Review & Outlook: The Buffett Ruse - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203806504577183250095478594.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
----
Without providing comparable data illustrating price differentials for consumer items or worker's wages and incomes, this doesn't really tell much of a story. Economic metrics are only meaningful when examined within the context of the conditions which created them.
Roger dodger. I can only plant the seed and if people are truly interested and have a basic economic understanding they'll move forward with their own research. Not being a cock I just don't have time to spell everything out.
montanadave
01-27-12, 11:49
Exactly how have they been pissing on our backs? Seems to me you have come out not bad. IIRC, you bought some land you want to build a Yurt on and have a nice place there somewhere in MT?
Seems to me that the average person does a lot better now than they did long ago.
Not that there aren't problems. But I am interested in just what sort of "pissing on our backs" you are referring to.
We've hashed this out before in other threads so I don't see much point in flogging a long-dead horse. If you want to assert that the average American wage-earner is in better shape today than he was 25-30 years ago, be my guest. By almost every economic metric, the middle-class has struggled to stay even at best, has seen their earnings stagnate, their savings rate fall off the chart, and their debt skyrocket. Meanwhile, the disparity of wealth between the middle-class and the very top income earners has increased exponentially. And the number of people, particularly children, living below the poverty line has also grown appreciably during that same period. It's not a pretty picture for most people.
As for my personal situation, I'm not most people. I find myself in what can only be characterized as very fortuitous financial circumstances. But I am hardly representative of the general public.
The notion that instituting regressive taxes which disproportionately benefit the wealthiest members of our society while instituting policies which create one debt bubble after another will somehow create "a rising tide that will lift all boats" has been shown to be demonstrably false.
We've hashed this out before in other threads so I don't see much point in flogging a long-dead horse. If you want to assert that the average American wage-earner is in better shape today than he was 25-30 years ago, be my guest. By almost every economic metric, the middle-class has struggled to stay even at best, has seen their earnings stagnate, their savings rate fall off the chart, and their debt skyrocket. Meanwhile, the disparity of wealth between the middle-class and the very top income earners has increased exponentially. And the number of people, particularly children, living below the poverty line has also grown appreciably during that same period. It's not a pretty picture for most people.
As for my personal situation, I'm not most people. I find myself in what can only be characterized as very fortuitous financial circumstances. But I am hardly representative of the general public.
The notion that instituting regressive taxes which disproportionately benefit the wealthiest members of our society while instituting policies which create one debt bubble after another will somehow create "a rising tide that will lift all boats" has been shown to be demonstrably false.
Show me regressive taxes that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest members of our society.
If taxes are so regressive, why do almost half the population (lowest 50% almost) pay no federal income taxes? (and that number shot up under the GOP) Why does the burden of taxes keep going more and more to the top %?
Show me government policies that create one debt bubble after another based on policies put in place by GOP lawmakers (as opposed to the Fed or other bodies).
I'd like details please.
Without providing comparable data illustrating price differentials for consumer items or worker's wages and incomes, this doesn't really tell much of a story. Economic metrics are only meaningful when examined within the context of the conditions which created them.
The only important metric would be what that $100 would be worth today if placed in a bank earning the prevailing rate of interest for savings.
If wages inflate at the same rate as prices, then we are ALMOST in the same condition. But if your savings are inflated away to nothing than you have inflation, the most pernicious tax of them all. (And one the politicians don't have to vote on) and you are much worse off as a society.
Obamas IRS Return Shows His Tax Hypocrisy
http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/43-taxes-and-economy/1285-obamas-irs-return-shows-his-tax-hypocrisy-current-debate-shows-urgent-need-for-corporate-tax-reform
---
montanadave
01-27-12, 12:31
Show me regressive taxes that disproportionately benefit the wealthiest members of our society.
If taxes are so regressive, why do almost half the population (lowest 50% almost) pay no federal income taxes? (and that number shot up under the GOP) Why does the burden of taxes keep going more and more to the top %?
Show me government policies that create one debt bubble after another based on policies put in place by GOP lawmakers (as opposed to the Fed or other bodies).
I'd like details please.
Federal income tax is not the whole story. If one does not examine the total tax burden (including payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, excise taxes, etc.) relative to total income, the picture is incomplete and inaccurate. As for shifting the federal tax burden to the wealthy, like John Dillinger said, "That's where the money is." You don't think it's regressive taxation when the money is all flowing up the ladder and the wealthiest have seen their tax burden steadily decline for the last decade.
How about taxing hedge fund manager's "carried interest" as capital gains rather than income? How convenient.
As for government policies, start with the repeal of Glass-Steagall back in 1999 and the Bush administration's decision in 2004 to gut the net capital rule for investment banks so they could leverage their speculative investments to the hilt.
As I said before, we've flogged this horse to death. And we both still seem to be looking at the same data through very different lenses.
ForTehNguyen
01-27-12, 12:42
Obama Rails Against Bailouts in Speech Defending Auto Bailout - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine (http://reason.com/blog/2012/01/25/obama-rails-against-bailouts-in-speech-d)
Obama Rails Against Bailouts in Speech Defending Auto Bailout
Peter Suderman | January 25, 2012
In last night’s State of the Union address, President Obama declared that the United States “we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits.” He railed against a system that isn’t fair to the “millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day,” positioning himself against special treatment for a favored few: “No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts,” he said. The address, he explained, was intended to move past all that, and “lay out a blueprint” for America’s economy—a blueprint that “begins with American manufacturing.”
What might this blueprint hold for all of us? If Obama’s top example of successful policy is any example, more bailouts, more handouts, more special treatment for favored companies and industries, and more phony profits. We're not going back to an economy weakened by all these things; we're just going to keep the one we have. Here's how Obama touted the first item on his economic brag sheet last night:
On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. (Applause.) Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.
Sure, it’s back in the sense that General Motors is finally beating Toyota, a Japanese car maker that just saw its supply chain decimated by a Tsunami and a nuclear disaster. And you know what? In a boxing match pitting a lower ranked fighter who's been given brass knuckles by the ref against a higher-ranked fighter who just broke his ankle, I'll probably bet on the one with the brass knuckles. But it's not much of a victory.
And sure, it’s back in the sense that GM is no longer on the precipice of complete fiscal meltdown; all it took was a $50 billion handout bailout copout gift from taxpayers, and a $20 billion tax break. Also: continued public losses as the company under performs. When GM went public, taxpayers bought up a 61 percent stake in its operations at about $33 a share. So I suppose Obama was right about one thing: The auto bailout was a bet of sorts; in order for the public to simply break even, GM's share prices would have to rise to roughly $51. As of yesterday evening, shares are trading at $24.75. The company’s investors—that would be everyone who pays taxes—are losing money on this deal. This is straightforward industry favoritism, and it's not particularly fair to the millions of American workers and taxpayers who play by the rules, but weren't bailed out, and are now having to foot a giant-sized bill for a company that was.
Yet this is apparently the kind of success that Obama would like to see replicated across the country. "What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries," he said. So taxpayers can take tens of billions in avoidable losses in order to bail out other failing industries too? Not exactly a blueprint for success, but it certainly tells you where the Obama administration would like to take the country.
Federal income tax is not the whole story. If one does not examine the total tax burden (including payroll taxes, sales taxes, state taxes, excise taxes, etc.) relative to total income, the picture is incomplete and inaccurate. As for shifting the federal tax burden to the wealthy, like John Dillinger said, "That's where the money is." You don't think it's regressive taxation when the money is all flowing up the ladder and the wealthiest have seen their tax burden steadily decline for the last decade.
details please. The wealthiest have NOT seen their tax burden steadily decline.
The share of taxes paid by the wealthiest is going up, not down.
How about taxing hedge fund manager's "carried interest" as capital gains rather than income? How convenient.
Technically, that is what it is.
As for government policies, start with the repeal of Glass-Steagall back in 1999 and the Bush administration's decision in 2004 to gut the net capital rule for investment banks so they could leverage their speculative investments to the hilt.
As I said before, we've flogged this horse to death. And we both still seem to be looking at the same data through very different lenses.
montanadave
01-27-12, 13:19
details please. The wealthiest have NOT seen their tax burden steadily decline.
The share of taxes paid by the wealthiest is going up, not down.
You're playing word games. The effective tax rate for the highest income earners is the lowest it's been in decades. The share of the total federal income taxes collected from the highest income earners has increased simply because they control an ever increasing percentage of the nation's total wealth.
You're playing word games. The effective tax rate for the highest income earners is the lowest it's been in decades. The share of the total federal income taxes collected from the highest income earners has increased simply because they control an ever increasing percentage of the nation's total wealth.
Show me details of the "effective tax rate" being the lowest it has ever been in decades, please.
The "effective tax rate" for the lower almost 50% of income earners is also the lowest it has been in decades as well (namely 0%)
montanadave
01-27-12, 13:48
Show me details of the "effective tax rate" being the lowest it has ever been in decades, please.
The "effective tax rate" for the lower almost 50% of income earners is also the lowest it has been in decades as well (namely 0%)
Look, I said before we've beat this horse to death. You can look up the marginal income tax rates, percentage of total income taxed as capital gains, and all the other juicy details as easily as I can. As a percentage of total income, the highest income earners are paying less than ever. That's hardly a secret and you know it as well as I do.
You want to cut my taxes some more, have at it. I'll buy bigger yurt! :laugh:
Look, I said before we've beat this horse to death.
Please point to M4C topics where we have beaten this to death (and that show facts to support your claims that taxes have gotten more regressive.)
You've made claims but been unable to support them. The facts suggest other than your claims. The rich pay more taxes than ever as a total piece of the tax pie and the lower income people pay less of the total taxes paid. Almost half pay no federal income tax at all, which is a huge increase.
You can look up the marginal income tax rates, percentage of total income taxed as capital gains, and all the other juicy details as easily as I can.
Nominal rates mean nothing. You know that. "effective" or "actual" rate means something.
My wife and I had an approximate gross of $60k. With 2 kids, according to turbo tax, our effective rate was about 4.9% in 2010 IIRC (from memory). According to the news articles (I have not read the details), Mitt Romney's effective rate is around 15%. So the "rich" are paying 3x the taxes that I am compared to their income.
As a percentage of total income, the highest income earners are paying less than ever. That's hardly a secret and you know it as well as I do.
And the lower income earners are also paying less than ever as a percentage then as well since rates for all have gone down and many pay no taxes now.
Hardly regressive
You want to cut my taxes some more, have at it. I'll buy bigger yurt! :laugh:
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-27-12, 15:36
Yep... you're not retarded, but you do not understand inflation. Higher prices does not equal "inflation". Money supply, especially in the form of wages needs to increase dramatically to drive inflation. But thanks for playing....
There has been more money pumped into the economy in the last 3 years than since Ceaser was put on a coin. The velocity of the money is very slow right now, but when it speeds up all that extra cash out there is going to cause real issues if it is not sopped up.
You're playing word games. The effective tax rate for the highest income earners is the lowest it's been in decades. The share of the total federal income taxes collected from the highest income earners has increased simply because they control an ever increasing percentage of the nation's total wealth.
If they control more money and pay higher tax rates than lower income people, doesn't this lead to more income for the govt?
The real problem is spending by govt directly, and thru mandates has gone thru the roof. To support the spending leves, largely on transfers of money from one person to another, we need higher taxes on everyone.
Tax the rich?
F U
Tax the poor.
Only when people realize the horrible deal they are getting for the taxes they need to pay to cover all these 'benefits' and the HUGE govt organizations (with 100K+ jobs) will they realize this is all a bad deal.
Some WSJ oped said that when the income tax was started (because progressives had made alcohol and its tax revenue go away) the whole federal debt could have been erased by JP Morgan writing a check. The debt is now too big even if you confiscated everything from the 'rich'.
montanadave
01-27-12, 15:57
My wife and I had an approximate gross of $60k. With 2 kids, according to turbo tax, our effective rate was about 4.9% in 2010 IIRC (from memory). According to the news articles (I have not read the details), Mitt Romney's effective rate is around 15%. So the "rich" are paying 3x the taxes that I am compared to their income.
And the lower income earners are also paying less than ever as a percentage then as well since rates for all have gone down and many pay no taxes now.
Hardly regressive
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
They get it all back in welfare and then some.
Belmont31R
01-27-12, 17:02
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
The capital gains rate is the same no matter how much you make so its only a different rate because of where the income for each of you originates.
Either way he paid more in taxes than you will in your entire life most likely so if we're talking 'fair' than Id say thats pretty dang 'fair' rate he is paying.
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
First, you need to stop thinking of dividends as income - it is not. Romney already paid federal income tax on the money that he invested at the top marginal rate of 35%. He only pays 15% on the return from that investment which is also subject to market risks. This risk is essentially nondeductible (only $3K/yr) should the investment loose value.
If you want to raise the capital gains tax to make it more "fair," get ready for the markets to loose about 10-20% value as less people are willing to tolerate the recent volatility coupled with reduced returns. This will do wonders for the unemployment rate and our booming 1.4% GDP that Obama has given us.
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
figuring he paid about %35 or so when making it and is now paying another %15 on the money he is making off his taxed money he invested that is about %50 total !!!!
like others learn the difference of taxes :)
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
How did you calculate your effective rate?
While we were in the 15% bracket, we paid an effective rate of a smudge less than 5%
If your effective rate was 20% (with the 15% capital gains included) then you must REALLY be raking in the dough. What do you want to live in a Yurt for with that sort of dough? :confused:
And you do realize that the "capital gains" on so-called "dividends" of 15% is on top of the corporate tax already paid ON THAT SAME MONEY by the company who is paying out the dividend for distributions paid by C corps. Dividends from C Corps are paid from profits, which are already taxed. So with a marginal tax rate of 35% on most corporate profits, that money has already been taxed at a huge rate PLUS the capital gains tax.
So no, it is NOT regressive.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
As do the rest of us. So, no, we will not stop talking about almost 50% of the country paying no income tax.
Belmont31R
01-27-12, 17:56
As do the rest of us. So, no, we will not stop talking about almost 50% of the country paying no income tax.
Not to mentioned with the EIC and child credits people are getting paid thousands of dollars they never paid in.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-27-12, 18:30
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
Yeah, that's a tad regressive in my book.
And enough with the low income folks paying no taxes. They might get a pass on federal income taxes but they still cough up payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, state income taxes, and all the rest.
The capital gains rate is the same no matter how much you make so its only a different rate because of where the income for each of you originates.
Either way he paid more in taxes than you will in your entire life most likely so if we're talking 'fair' than Id say thats pretty dang 'fair' rate he is paying.
Don't know about you, but I pay my taxes in dollars, not percent.
I think this is where the conservatives I think loose the battle. Talk about dollars. Show how just one of the 1% pays more in federal taxes than the bottom 50%.
Talk in dollars, then convert the dollars to how many low end earners it would take to cover the amount of taxes.
So Romney, with income of over $25 million/yr for the last couple of years (in a recession, no less) is paying an effective tax rate of 15%.
And I paid an effective rate of 20%. And that is factoring in a 15% capital gains rate on approximately a third of my gross income. I'm paying, as a percentage of my income, more than a guy making over a hundred times as much as I do.
You must be doing really well then since it takes a "taxable income" of just about $320k, with 1/3 taxed at 15% capital gains rates, to get an effective tax rate of 20%. (based on married filing jointly 2010 tax tables)
Assuming just the two of you, and no charitable contributions, your gross would be the $320 plus whatever standard or itemized deductions and exemptions you were claiming.
Pretty good! Congrats on doing so well...
montanadave
01-27-12, 19:05
You must be doing really well then since it takes a "taxable income" of just about $320k, with 1/3 taxed at 15% capital gains rates, to get an effective tax rate of 20%. (based on married filing jointly 2010 tax tables)
Assuming just the two of you, and no charitable contributions, your gross would be the $320 plus whatever standard or itemized deductions and exemptions you were claiming.
Pretty good! Congrats on doing so well...
You're off by about $100K but I'm not bitching. And maybe I need to hire you to do my taxes. :haha:
You're off by about $100K but I'm not bitching. And maybe I need to hire you to do my taxes. :haha:
Then your effective rate calculations are off.
$300k taxable income was under 20%. $320k taxable income was 20.00xxx percent. Close enough to 20% for govt work.
ETA: $220k taxable "income", with 1/3 taxed as capital gains, is about 18.32% effective tax rate based on married filing jointly, 2010 tax tables. Again, the gross for this is the $220k plus your exemptions and deductions. A gross of $220k would reduce the effective rate even more.
ETA^2: The "effective rates" were calculated against the "taxable income" and not the gross since I did not have the exemption and deductions etc. However, the higher gross would reduce the effective rate some so you would actually need a higher gross than what I am saying here.
montanadave
01-27-12, 19:25
Then your effective rate calculations are off.
$300k taxable income was under 20%. $320k taxable income was 20.00xxx percent. Close enough to 20% for govt work.
ETA: $220k taxable "income", with 1/3 taxed as capital gains, is about 18.32% effective tax rate based on married filing jointly, 2010 tax tables. Again, the gross for this is the $220k plus your exemptions and deductions. A gross of $220k would reduce the effective rate even more.
As entertaining as it might be for me to post my tax returns online, until I enter the GOP primary I think I'll pass. As for my calculations, I know what my adjusted gross income was, I know what I paid in taxes, and it works out to 20%. It is what it is.
Like I said, maybe I should hire you to do my taxes.
Maybe you need to get a refund!
I used these tables:
http://www.themoneyalert.com/Tax-Tables.html
You can also find them at irs.gov (but it's harder to find since it is part of a longer instruction guide)
$320k taxable.
1/3 at capital gains rate of 15% -- $16000 taxes
leaves $213333.33 to be taxed as income -- $46833.50 PLUS
4083.33 * .33 = $1347.50
total taxes == $64181 taxes
64181/320000 = 20.056%
assuming $15k (made up) of deductions and exemptions = $335 gross
64181/335000 = 19.16%
So, if you really had 1/3 taxed at capital gains rates and I am about $100k over, you figured it out wrong and should apply for a refund! :dance3:
montanadave
01-27-12, 20:26
you figured it out wrong and should apply for a refund! :dance3:
So now I have to go shopping for a new accountant? A significant portion of my income is also derived from business interests and is not wages/regular income. I can only assume that also compounds the complexity, but that's why I have an accountant do it, not me.
As previously noted, I just know the gross, the AGI, and the amount paid. If I overpaid, let's just consider it my contribution towards the national debt. :laugh:
Originally Posted by 120mm
The worse it gets, the more the Democrats will promise social programs and the more the Repubs will cave in.
Roosevelt stretched out the Great Depression, cashing in on it the entire time, pissing away tax dollars on stupid expensive "get back to work" programs and other worthless bullshit. And was re-elected time after time and still TODAY the great majority of Americans view that criminal sub-human piece of ****ing filth as a "Great President". Personally, I hope he burns in Hell for an eternity; he was only slightly less evil than Hitler and Stalin, but not by much.
Obama is cut of the same cloth. And the idiots on both sides of the aisle will do the same thing.
Sadly you are entirely accurate and most Americans will continue to fall for it every time.
The following quote by Alexis de Toqueville, from Democracy in America, both explains the above tendency, and suggests that it's likely to continue until our current system collapses. I see nothing currently in place that suggests we'll be able to reverse this trend. More likely is that we will simply keep spending until there is a hard worldwide economic correction.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
montanadave
01-27-12, 20:57
The following quote by Alexis de Toqueville, from Democracy in America, both explains the above tendency, and suggests that it's likely to continue until our current system collapses. I see nothing currently in place that suggests we'll be able to reverse this trend. More likely is that we will simply keep spending until there is a hard worldwide economic correction.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
In a similar vein, I am currently reading The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics (http://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/161039044X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1327718775&sr=8-1). Like an updated version of Machiavelli’s The Prince, the authors build on a very simple premise: political leaders do whatever is necessary to keep themselves in power.
From the review in the WSJ (9/24/2011):
“A lucidly written, shrewdly argued meditation on how democrats and dictators preserve political authority…. In a style reminiscent of Freakonomics, Messrs. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith present dozens of clever examples… The most fascinating chapter in The Dictator's Handbook concerns the rewards that governments provide other governments. The authors make the obvious, but nevertheless controversial, argument that almost all aid money is dispersed not to alleviate poverty but to purchase loyalty and influence…. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith are polymathic, drawing on economics, history and political science to make their points…. In other words, the reader will be hard-pressed to find a single government that doesn't largely operate according to Messrs. Bueno de Mesquita and Smith's model. So the next time a hand-wringing politician, Democrat or Republican, claims to be taking a position for the ‘good of his country,’ remember to replace the word ‘country’ with ‘career.’”
A good, albeit not particularly optimistic, read.
So now I have to go shopping for a new accountant? A significant portion of my income is also derived from business interests and is not wages/regular income. I can only assume that also compounds the complexity, but that's why I have an accountant do it, not me.
If it is LLC or S-Corp, then that money flows into your personal return and is taxed at your personal rate, so no, it does not change things significantly.
HOWEVER, if the income from the business is considered "self employment" income, then you would also be required to pay "self employment tax", which is basically the "payroll taxes" of the wage/salary world but the self-employed would have to pay both sides, the worker side and the employers side under the moniker of "self employment tax." Note, that if whoever manages your business/advises your on the business would probably set it up so that only a certain amount of the business income would fall under self employment income, and the rest would be a business dividend taxed at the personal rate but without the additional self employment tax.
That additional self employment tax would bring your "effective rate" up if you did a simple calculation against gross, but it would be an incorrect calculation when determining effective tax rate for income tax, since the "self employment tax" is not an "income tax" but rather a payroll tax.
Romney would have additional tax from "self employment tax" as well if we was receiving income from a business organized as an LLC or S-corp (and probably other things like partnerships etc but I don't know or have experience with that) so his "rate" would be higher if we would include potential "self employment tax."
As previously noted, I just know the gross, the AGI, and the amount paid. If I overpaid, let's just consider it my contribution towards the national debt. :laugh:
montanadave
01-28-12, 12:57
That additional self employment tax would bring your "effective rate" up if you did a simple calculation against gross, but it would be an incorrect calculation when determining effective tax rate for income tax, since the "self employment tax" is not an "income tax" but rather a payroll tax.
You are correct and I think this accounts for the discrepancy in our calculations. I guess my accountant is safe for another year. :laugh:
And thus concludes the saga of my personal finances. We now return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.