Obama smugly says, they (the rich) can afford it (higher taxes).

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you support taxing the Middle Class that makes ($100k to $2 million)

dear, middle means middle!!! $2 million puts you in top 1.98% not in middle class!!!!!

Everyone in that range is carrying Mitt Romney the Rich top 1%.

for 10th time:

Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes

I wonder why that is so hard for the liberal???????????

 

[KissMy]

dear, middle means middle!!! $2 million puts you in top 1.98% not in middle class!!!!!

Everyone in that range is carrying Mitt Romney the Rich top 1%.

for 10th time:

Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes

I wonder why that is so hard for the liberal???????????

You show just how retarded you are every time you post that. It proves that you do not have a clue about economics or know what a subsidy is.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Everyone in that range is carrying Mitt Romney the Rich top 1%.

for 10th time:

Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes

I wonder why that is so hard for the liberal???????????

You show just how retarded you are every time you post that. It proves that you do not have a clue about economics or know what a subsidy is.

11th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????


You will be held in contempt of court if you refuse to answer.

 

[francoHFW]

Payroll taxes are now as much as income taxes- That's pure Pubcrappe.The middle class pays a higher % than the 1% in all taxes, the poor more than Corps and Romney...

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez | The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = PrudentBear
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release--Flow of Funds Accounts of the United States--December 6, 2012
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

 

[KissMy]

for 10th time:

Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes

I wonder why that is so hard for the liberal???????????

You show just how retarded you are every time you post that. It proves that you do not have a clue about economics or know what a subsidy is.

11th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????


You will be held in contempt of court if you refuse to answer.

Your 11th deflection & attempt to run away from the fact that we subsidize the top 1% with our taxes & I have handed your ass to you 11 times now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You show just how retarded you are every time you post that. It proves that you do not have a clue about economics or know what a subsidy is.

11th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????


You will be held in contempt of court if you refuse to answer.

Your 11th deflection & attempt to run away from the fact that we subsidize the top 1% with our taxes & I have handed your ass to you 11 times now.

12th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????

you will be held in contempt of court for not answering

 

[KissMy]

11th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????


You will be held in contempt of court if you refuse to answer.

Your 11th deflection & attempt to run away from the fact that we subsidize the top 1% with our taxes & I have handed your ass to you 11 times now.

12th Time:
Do you disagree with IRS numbers that show top 1% pay 40% of all Federal Income taxes??????????

you will be held in contempt of court for not answering

You have been in contempt, weighed, measured & found wanting for failing to admit that we subsidize the top 1% with our taxes. - You lose pussy!

 

[Rinata]

He did not say it smugly!!! Quite often he has pointed out that he is one of the ones that will pay more!!! So what's the problem??

 

[lovemymutts]

the top 1% pay 40% of all taxes . Thats is a huge huge sacrifice especially when it is wasted money down the drunkin liberal spending rat hole

40 % of all taxes,but pay FAR less in percentage,Huge sacrifice not hardly

dear, % = percentage!! Are you 2 years old??

Ok, Just for you Ed. The 1% pay 40% of taxes(still with me?) BUT the 1% pay a LOWER percentage rate (Still with me?)
John Doe makes 78,000.00 a year and pays a 35 % tax rate (get it so far?)
Warren Doe makes 3,000,000.00 a year and pays 17 % tax rate (see the difference?)
Are you capable of seeing what my OP meant or do you need more info?

 

[francoHFW]

And the middle class pays more %wise in ALL taxes and fees, dupe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

40 % of all taxes,but pay FAR less in percentage,Huge sacrifice not hardly

dear, % = percentage!! Are you 2 years old??

Ok, Just for you Ed. The 1% pay 40% of taxes(still with me?) BUT the 1% pay a LOWER percentage rate (Still with me?)
John Doe makes 78,000.00 a year and pays a 35 % tax rate (get it so far?)
Warren Doe makes 3,000,000.00 a year and pays 17 % tax rate (see the difference?)
Are you capable of seeing what my OP meant or do you need more info?

"Over that period, the summary says, the average annual effective federal tax rate[for Romney] was 20.2 percent. The lowest annual effective federal tax rate he paid was 13.7 percent. The Romneys also donated an average of 13.45 percent to charity over that 20-year period.

About $2 million a year was Ronmey income, annual average income.

Average annual effective income for average taxpayer was 11.4% while Romney was 20.2%

This means Romney paid $400,000 a year on average while an average taxpayer 11% of 35,000 or $3850.

Why don't they pay the same thing just as they do in the supermarket?? Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

 

[Political Junky]

45% income tax on couples making over 300,000, or something.

The increase would be only on $50,000. of that.

 

[Annie]

Has Obama criticized the companies yet, for paying out early dividends?

I like this suggestion for 'leveling the playing field':

The Real Fat Cats - Victor Davis Hanson - National Review Online

The Real Fat Cats
By Victor Davis Hanson
December 13, 2012 12:00 A.M.

Who exactly were the rich who, as the president said, were not “paying their fair share”? The rapper Jay-Z (net worth: nearly $500 million)? The actor Johnny Depp (2011 income: $50 million)? Neither seems to have heard the president’s earlier warning that “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Could both zillionaires simply have quit making money at $10 million — and thereby given their poorer audiences a break on ticket prices?

With all the talk of raising taxes on the supposedly conservative rich who make more than $250,000 per year, why not levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for movies, concerts, and sporting events to “spread the wealth” from multimillionaires? That way, LeBron James (approximate annual earnings: $53 million) or Oliver Stone (net worth: approximately $50 million) might at last begin to “level the playing field.”

Is Michael Moore (net worth: approximately $50 million) a one-tenth-of-one-percenter? If so, why do mansion-living-grandee movie directors like Moore and Stone need state subsidies and tax breaks to produce their films, when most states are nearly as insolvent as the federal government?

Warren Buffett likewise did not heed the president’s advice that after 2008 it was not the time to profit. Did he pay any attention to Obama’s additional warning that, “if you own a business, you didn’t build that”? Apparently not.

Otherwise, Buffett would not think that his own expertise and hard work had built Berkshire Hathaway, or that he has the right to leave his $50 billion fortune to nonprofit institutions of his choice — thereby shorting the Internal Revenue Service billions of dollars in lost estate taxes. With a trillion-dollar-plus annual federal deficit, either the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Health and Human Services surely could use Buffett’s loot far more than the already well-endowed Gates Foundation.

If the country is going to turn redistributionist, then we might as well do so whole-hog — given that eight of the wealthiest ten counties in America voted for Obama. Why not limit mortgage-interest deductions to just one loan under $100,000 — while ending tax breaks altogether for second and third vacation houses?

Under the present system, the beleaguered 99 percent are subsidizing the abodes of Hollywood and Silicon Valley “millionaires and billionaires” — many of whom themselves have been railing against the 1 percent. Should the government provide tens of thousands of dollars in tax breaks for a blue-state 1-percenter to live in tony Palo Alto or Newport Beach when there are plenty of fine homes far cheaper and sitting empty not far away in Stockton and Bakersfield?

Blue states usually have far higher state income taxes that are used as deductions to reduce what is owed on federal income tax. Why should working folks in Nevada or Texas have to pay their fair share, while Wall Streeters get huge federal write-offs from their New York or Connecticut state income taxes?

With the new obsessions over income and net worth, we might as well also means-test all federal programs. Should anyone — do we remember Solyndra? — be eligible for federal cash loans if he makes over $250,000 per year? Why would affirmative action apply to the children of millionaires like the offspring of Eric Holder, Susan Rice, or, for that matter, Barack Obama, while excluding the destitute children of Appalachian coal miners and the poor clingers of Pennsylvania?

Remember the revolving door that Barack Obama once promised to end? The former head of his Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, used his title and insider contacts to walk right into a Citigroup fat-cat banker’s job that pays him an estimated $2 million to $3 million a year.

Clinton administration apparatchiks such as Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, and Franklin Raines — without much banking experience — reaped millions of dollars working at Fannie Mae as it went nearly bankrupt. If you leave government and immediately make more than $1 million, why not pay a 50 percent tax on your income for five years — given that “somebody else made that happen”? Why does Google have tax havens in the Caribbean, and why do six-figure-income college presidents have their taxes paid by their universities?

For much of 2012, Obama waged a veritable class war against conservatives, as if they were all right-wing clones of Donald Trump and the Koch brothers. But modern Democrats — Nancy Pelosi, George Soros, Steven Spielberg, Brian Williams, or Oprah Winfrey — are as likely to be very wealthy as are Republicans, who increasingly better represent small-business owners desperately struggling to become affluent.

Next time around, Republicans might remind us of that paradox by nominating a small-business scrapper, who — unlike millionaires such as Al Gore, John Kerry, or Barack Obama — did not go to prep school and the Ivy League. And they might find better ways for those in academia, entertainment, sports, big law, and the media to pay their fair share.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And the middle class pays more %wise in ALL taxes and fees, dupe.

This means Romney paid $400,000 a year on average(20.2%) while an average taxpayer just 11% of 35,000 or $3850.

Why don't they pay the same thing just as they do in the supermarket?? Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

 

[KissMy]

dear, % = percentage!! Are you 2 years old??

Ok, Just for you Ed. The 1% pay 40% of taxes(still with me?) BUT the 1% pay a LOWER percentage rate (Still with me?)
John Doe makes 78,000.00 a year and pays a 35 % tax rate (get it so far?)
Warren Doe makes 3,000,000.00 a year and pays 17 % tax rate (see the difference?)
Are you capable of seeing what my OP meant or do you need more info?

"Over that period, the summary says, the average annual effective federal tax rate[for Romney] was 20.2 percent. The lowest annual effective federal tax rate he paid was 13.7 percent. The Romneys also donated an average of 13.45 percent to charity over that 20-year period.

About $2 million a year was Ronmey income, annual average income.

Average annual effective income for average taxpayer was 11.4% while Romney was 20.2%

This means Romney paid $400,000 a year on average while an average taxpayer 11% of 35,000 or $3850.

Why don't they pay the same thing just as they do in the supermarket?? Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

All bullshit & lies from EdwardBaiamonte. Romney donated shares into a CRT to avoid capital gains taxes. He pays himself 8% a year from the CRT until it is empty. He never gave a dime to charity. The IRS tax records prove that we subsidize Romney's taxes. They also prove that the poor pay federal income tax. The IRS tax records also prove that we pay a 24% federal income rate while Romney only pays 13%

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Ok, Just for you Ed. The 1% pay 40% of taxes(still with me?) BUT the 1% pay a LOWER percentage rate (Still with me?)
John Doe makes 78,000.00 a year and pays a 35 % tax rate (get it so far?)
Warren Doe makes 3,000,000.00 a year and pays 17 % tax rate (see the difference?)
Are you capable of seeing what my OP meant or do you need more info?

"Over that period, the summary says, the average annual effective federal tax rate[for Romney] was 20.2 percent. The lowest annual effective federal tax rate he paid was 13.7 percent. The Romneys also donated an average of 13.45 percent to charity over that 20-year period.

About $2 million a year was Ronmey income, annual average income.

Average annual effective income for average taxpayer was 11.4% while Romney was 20.2%

This means Romney paid $400,000 a year on average while an average taxpayer 11% of 35,000 or $3850.

Why don't they pay the same thing just as they do in the supermarket?? Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

All bullshit & lies from EdwardBaiamonte. Romney donated shares into a CRT to avoid capital gains taxes. He pays himself 8% a year from the CRT until it is empty. He never gave a dime to charity. The IRS tax records prove that we subsidize Romney's taxes. They also prove that the poor pay federal income tax. The IRS tax records also prove that we pay a 24% federal income rate while Romney only pays 13%

Romney paid 14.1% effective tax rate in 2011
Sep 21, 2012 ... The accounting firm says the Romneys paid an average annual effective federal
tax rate of 20.2%. The lowest personal rate they paid was ...
content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/09/21/mitt-romney-tax-returns-2011/70000874/1

 

[KissMy]

Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

Yes Romney gets a hell of a lot more national defense than an average person! He also benefits a hell of a lot more from national defense spending contracts. We pay him for his defense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does Romney get more national defense than an average person?

Yes Romney gets a hell of a lot more national defense than an average person!

really, does he have a patriot anti missile system protecting his properties, a Seal Team??? Did the government build him a special bunker??? Does the ICBM system protect him or the entire country??
Does he give orders to the Navy?

 

[initforme]

So are we to feel bad for the very wealthy? How dumb is that. I wouldnt help a wealthy person if they were in a jam I can tell you that. Not my fellow american.

 

[Politico]

He should know. He's one of them.