AP fact checks liberal claims about their wealth envy

[Rat in the Hat]

You wait and see, Cali will be fine

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Cali is going to be kicking ass in a couple of years

 

[The T]

Rubio: Reagan erred in supporting 1986 amnesty for illegal immigrants

 

[Conservative]

Cali is going to be kicking ass in a couple of years

I have asked you several times to provide a more recent poll, showing Obama is more trusted on the deficit.
Can you... or can you not?

It's a fairly simple question TM.. even one with your limited mental faculties should be able to answer it.

keep it up and you will get banned

 

[francoHFW]

Cali will be fine after Obama is reelected, the recovery completes, and they pass Schumer/Graham or they legalize and tax it LOL

 

[Cuyo]

50%?......Do you not understand what that will do to investment and job growth?

Lunatics!

Bullshit. It's a lie and you guys take the bait hook line and sinker.

1. Payroll and related expenses are pre-tax.
2. Investment, whether written off immediately or over a period of years, is pre-tax. (I would BTW support restructuring the tax code to allow business owners to take their depreciation credit faster to spur further investment)
3. I believe he's referring to personal income taxes. Corporations write off their _ENTIRE_ payroll expenditure, regardless of the personal tax rate of their employees.

Do you not understand that small businness owners use a good portion of their personal income to invest, reinvest, and grow?

Now, take a small business owner pulling in a mil, and the government takes half of that.....Where is the incentive to risk that left over 500 grand?.........The government just raped him of the other half.

Christ, small business is the backbone of this economy......They are the ones providing the bulk of the jobs ....Without those taxpayers employed, they are not out spending and consuming, paying the taxes involved.

What would I know about business? I've only owned one for 8 years.

A lot of it has to do with how you're defining 'investment.' If you're talking in terms of expenses (eg, renting a larger building), that money isn't taxed. If you're using personal income that's already been taxed to take a leap of faith, you carry that expense into next year.

Example: I lease a new building and since it's not producing at first, I use my personal income. I actually loan that money to the business, and the business expenses out the money spent; It goes against any earnings for that year. So if I 'invest' 500k and the company 'earns' 500k guess what - Even money, no tax bill that year.

When you're talking about purchasing assets like buildings or vehicles, equipment, et al, it's a little more complicated. The "Asset" is treated like a bank account, so that money is taxed as profit. But it's depreciated over a number of years, and if you eventually sell the asset, that money is not "Income," unless you made a profit - Hence you sell it tax free.

See what I'm jabbing at here? It all washes out in the end, every penny. There's no double taxation, that's a myth.

But again, I would favor changing the rules so that more money could be written off for purchases faster; It would help me, and I suspect a lot of small business owners, quite a bit.

FWIW.

 

[rdean]

Why are these trailer dwellers defending millionaires and billionaires?
They don't defend you.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Bullshit. It's a lie and you guys take the bait hook line and sinker.

1. Payroll and related expenses are pre-tax.
2. Investment, whether written off immediately or over a period of years, is pre-tax. (I would BTW support restructuring the tax code to allow business owners to take their depreciation credit faster to spur further investment)
3. I believe he's referring to personal income taxes. Corporations write off their _ENTIRE_ payroll expenditure, regardless of the personal tax rate of their employees.

Do you not understand that small businness owners use a good portion of their personal income to invest, reinvest, and grow?

Now, take a small business owner pulling in a mil, and the government takes half of that.....Where is the incentive to risk that left over 500 grand?.........The government just raped him of the other half.

Christ, small business is the backbone of this economy......They are the ones providing the bulk of the jobs ....Without those taxpayers employed, they are not out spending and consuming, paying the taxes involved.

What would I know about business? I've only owned one for 8 years.

A lot of it has to do with how you're defining 'investment.' If you're talking in terms of expenses (eg, renting a larger building), that money isn't taxed. If you're using personal income that's already been taxed to take a leap of faith, you carry that expense into next year.

Example: I lease a new building and since it's not producing at first, I use my personal income. I actually loan that money to the business, and the business expenses out the money spent; It goes against any earnings for that year. So if I 'invest' 500k and the company 'earns' 500k guess what - Even money, no tax bill that year.

When you're talking about purchasing assets like buildings or vehicles, equipment, et al, it's a little more complicated. The "Asset" is treated like a bank account, so that money is taxed as profit. But it's depreciated over a number of years, and if you eventually sell the asset, that money is not "Income," unless you made a profit - Hence you sell it tax free.

See what I'm jabbing at here? It all washes out in the end, every penny. There's no double taxation, that's a myth.

But again, I would favor changing the rules so that more money could be written off for purchases faster; It would help me, and I suspect a lot of small business owners, quite a bit.

FWIW.

I owned for twenty......Two restaurants......Damn right it would it would have hindered further investment and growth if half our income were taxed.....Particularly when I outright bought the property my first place sat on.......It became a waste of money paying a lease in one of the most expensive areas in the country, Montecito Ca., and first chance I had, I bought the entire block. It was purchased out of our take home, after taxes. If our income were taxed at 50%, that investment would never have been possible. Taking the risk with our capital and stellar credit would not have been possible. Opening a second venture in Vegas would have never been possible. 19 additional jobs would not have been created in Vegas.

 

[francoHFW]

Why are these trailer dwellers defending millionaires and billionaires?
They don't defend you.

They're being not black or brown...

 

[rdean]

Do you not understand that small businness owners use a good portion of their personal income to invest, reinvest, and grow?

Now, take a small business owner pulling in a mil, and the government takes half of that.....Where is the incentive to risk that left over 500 grand?.........The government just raped him of the other half.

Christ, small business is the backbone of this economy......They are the ones providing the bulk of the jobs ....Without those taxpayers employed, they are not out spending and consuming, paying the taxes involved.

What would I know about business? I've only owned one for 8 years.

A lot of it has to do with how you're defining 'investment.' If you're talking in terms of expenses (eg, renting a larger building), that money isn't taxed. If you're using personal income that's already been taxed to take a leap of faith, you carry that expense into next year.

Example: I lease a new building and since it's not producing at first, I use my personal income. I actually loan that money to the business, and the business expenses out the money spent; It goes against any earnings for that year. So if I 'invest' 500k and the company 'earns' 500k guess what - Even money, no tax bill that year.

When you're talking about purchasing assets like buildings or vehicles, equipment, et al, it's a little more complicated. The "Asset" is treated like a bank account, so that money is taxed as profit. But it's depreciated over a number of years, and if you eventually sell the asset, that money is not "Income," unless you made a profit - Hence you sell it tax free.

See what I'm jabbing at here? It all washes out in the end, every penny. There's no double taxation, that's a myth.

But again, I would favor changing the rules so that more money could be written off for purchases faster; It would help me, and I suspect a lot of small business owners, quite a bit.

FWIW.

I owned for twenty......Two restaurants......Damn right it would it would have hindered further investment and growth if half our income were taxed.....Particularly when I outright bought the property my first place sat on.......It became a waste of money paying a lease in one of the most expensive areas in the country, Montecito Ca., and first chance I had, I bought the entire block. It was purchased out of our take home, after taxes. If our income were taxed at 50%, that investment would never have been possible. Taking the risk with our capital and stellar credit would not have been possible. Opening a second venture in Vegas would have never been possible. 19 additional jobs would not have been created in Vegas.

I once ran a whole chain of Restaurants.

 

[Wicked Jester]

What would I know about business? I've only owned one for 8 years.

A lot of it has to do with how you're defining 'investment.' If you're talking in terms of expenses (eg, renting a larger building), that money isn't taxed. If you're using personal income that's already been taxed to take a leap of faith, you carry that expense into next year.

Example: I lease a new building and since it's not producing at first, I use my personal income. I actually loan that money to the business, and the business expenses out the money spent; It goes against any earnings for that year. So if I 'invest' 500k and the company 'earns' 500k guess what - Even money, no tax bill that year.

When you're talking about purchasing assets like buildings or vehicles, equipment, et al, it's a little more complicated. The "Asset" is treated like a bank account, so that money is taxed as profit. But it's depreciated over a number of years, and if you eventually sell the asset, that money is not "Income," unless you made a profit - Hence you sell it tax free.

See what I'm jabbing at here? It all washes out in the end, every penny. There's no double taxation, that's a myth.

But again, I would favor changing the rules so that more money could be written off for purchases faster; It would help me, and I suspect a lot of small business owners, quite a bit.

FWIW.

I owned for twenty......Two restaurants......Damn right it would it would have hindered further investment and growth if half our income were taxed.....Particularly when I outright bought the property my first place sat on.......It became a waste of money paying a lease in one of the most expensive areas in the country, Montecito Ca., and first chance I had, I bought the entire block. It was purchased out of our take home, after taxes. If our income were taxed at 50%, that investment would never have been possible. Taking the risk with our capital and stellar credit would not have been possible. Opening a second venture in Vegas would have never been possible. 19 additional jobs would not have been created in Vegas.

I once ran a whole chain of Restaurants.

Sure ya' did......Now, do you have anything intelligent to add to the conversation, as opposed to the whiney liberal drivel you're famous for?

 

[8537]

A person takes a gamble when investing in the market, hence the reduction on capital gains tax.

So...our tax code is designed to reward gambling?

OK then.

I'm not sure why you'd incent gambling over working, but whatever.

 

[8537]

Howdy, Jarhead -

There are deductions available to everyone...and yes, some dont get to use them, some opt NOT to use them (some people prefer renting over owning so they dont get to write off mortgage interest)..

...which is a perfectly good reason to get rid of most deductions - including mortgage interest (which penalizes large downpayments)!

And the truth is...if, in fact, it were a valid argument that the "rich" get to use the loop holes...then please explain to me why Obama is using the Buffet argument which, as you know, is BS seeing as Buffet was referring to Cap gains tax and c`omparing it to income tax of his secretary.

I agree with Obama on that - Buffett's effective tax rate is lower because the government prefers capital gains over labor. That makes no economic sense to me. Tax it all at the same rate.

You must remember....the original money invested was taxed at 35% already.

Not necessarily.

However, I then calculate in my cap gains tax...15%.....so now my preferred return is actually only 85% of 15%...or 12.75%....still may be worth while

Now...if we were to increase cap gains to 35%.....my preferred return is only 9.75%...so now I am at a 15% risk with only a 9.75 return...

It will have a major impact on investment.

And investment is the backbone of capitalism

I don't think it will have a "major impact on investment" any more than increasing the income tax has a "major impact on labor". History shows neither to be the case. Investment in actual productive capacity is certainly an important contributor to capitalism but savings transfers ala the NYSE play a far smaller role in a genuine capitalist system.

 

[Liberty]

8537's intellectual retort to a statement:

"Not Necessarily"

Well said, sir. You win at life.

 

[8537]

8537's intellectual retort to a statement:

"Not Necessarily"

Well said, sir. You win at life.

Well sir, it was correct. There is no reason to believe that, carte blanche, income invested into capital was taxed previously at 35%.

in fact, there's good reason to believe otherwise.

 

[Liberty]

8537's intellectual retort to a statement:

"Not Necessarily"

Well said, sir. You win at life.

Well sir, it was correct. There is no reason to believe that, carte blanche, income invested into capital was taxed previously at 35%.

in fact, there's good reason to believe otherwise.

Hey, you already won. No need for an encore. I bow before you necessarily.

 

[8537]

8537's intellectual retort to a statement:

"Not Necessarily"

Well said, sir. You win at life.

Well sir, it was correct. There is no reason to believe that, carte blanche, income invested into capital was taxed previously at 35%.

in fact, there's good reason to believe otherwise.

Hey, you already won.

You must be a hoot at cocktail parties.

 

[oreo]

On average, the wealthiest people in America pay a lot more taxes than the middle class or the poor, according to private and government data. They pay at a higher rate, and as a group, they contribute a much larger share of the overall taxes collected by the federal government.
The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? - Yahoo! News

Yep--even conservatives are SHOCKED that the Associated Press FINALLY came out an outed Obama on his FACTS. About time.

What I found interesting there are 311 MILLION Americans this country--and ONLY 238,000 of them earn over 1 million dollars a year. And this is who Obama is head-hunting. Well you tell me liberals how much money do you want to confiscate from this minut minority group--and what GOOD do you think that's going to do? You could confiscate ALL of their money--and that's would amount to pocket change as compared to Obama's spending of 4.3 BILLION DOLLARS A DAY.

This Presidential piting Americans against Americans because of income levels is EVIL. It worked for Obama in 2008 to get elected--and now that he is in serious trouble with his base--he's doing it again.

AMERICANS need to realize that not every BUSINESS or CORPORATION in this country is LOCATED on 2 blocks in lower Manhattan. Wake Up!

 

[francoHFW]

When the top 2% double their wealth while everyone else loses- THAT'S class warfare, dumbazzes....

 

[DiamondDave]

When the top 2% double their wealth while everyone else loses- THAT'S class warfare, dumbazzes....

Do they not have the freedom to do so?? Or do freedoms only count when they benefit you??