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

[JakeStarkey]

Dear TooStupid, you don't understand. On my business income and income from the business, I pay standard for what I bring home. I can easily afford a 4.6% increase. So can you.

What needs to be changed is the capital gains %s.

You and I should not pay almost 1/2 the % rate as our administrate assistants.

We will lose this, TooStupid, and we should lose this.

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???????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So are we to feel bad for the very wealthy? How dumb is that.

1) too stupid nobody asked you to feel good or bad for the wealthy


2) you should feel bad for the country when the private economy is diminished by liberal taxes and so the depression continues with 25 million unemployed!!

If you tax venture capital you get fewer new ventures like Apple Google and Intel, and so fewer new jobs.

 

[Zoom]

Suck it up republicans. You lost. The rich will pay, not the poor like your side wants. Fuck that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Suck it up republicans. You lost. The rich will pay, not the poor like your side wants. Fuck that.

the rich have plenty but the nation cant afford to have the economy crippled by liberal taxaction of the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand that simple concept!!
The more the government has the less the economy has.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dear, we are paying the lowest taxes for a decade.

In that time, GWB's big entitlement programs and two wars drained the treasury.

The tax hike is necessary, and significant cuts in the budget must accomplish the hike.

So are we to feel bad for the very wealthy? How dumb is that.

1) too stupid nobody asked you to feel good or bad for the wealthy


2) you should feel bad for the country when the private economy is diminished by liberal taxes and so the depression continues with 25 million unemployed!!

If you tax venture capital you get fewer new ventures like Apple Google and Intel, and so fewer new jobs.

 

[kiwiman127]

Suck it up republicans. You lost. The rich will pay, not the poor like your side wants. Fuck that.

the rich have plenty but the nation cant afford to have the economy crippled by liberal taxaction of the private economy which is 100% responsible for economic growth.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand that simple concept!!
The more the government has the less the economy has.

The private sector is not 100% responsible for economic growth. Like it or not, total government spending (Federal, State & local) also drives the economy.
Below is a chart that reflects government spending and the GDP. Cutting spending as part of austerity has shrunk the GDP in European countries bringing on a double-dip recession.
So again, you're wrong.
Oh by the way, it's not taxaction, it's taxation.

 

[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.

bump.

I'll take that as a 'no' regarding Obama. The rest of it is the left ignoring the obvious.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

bump.

I'll take that as a 'no' regarding Obama. The rest of it is the left ignoring the obvious.

I love the way Warren Buffet pretends he wants to pay more taxes but then puts 100% of his money in a charitable trust so the liberal government won't get any of it when he dies!! When asked he said, very quietly, " it will be spent better privately"!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

WB wouldn't talk to the likes of EdwardB.

 

[lovemymutts]

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?

********************************
Romney HIMSELF stated that he paid 13.9 % tax rate ,guess you midde that.The average person earning 35,000 pays a rate of 17 % AFTER deductions if they apply. Romney SURE did GET MORE during his failed campaign Serect Service Protection for Ann and himself.

 

[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?

********************************
Romney HIMSELF stated that he paid 13.9 % tax rate ,guess you midde that.The average person earning 35,000 pays a rate of 17 % AFTER deductions if they apply. .

13.9 for for latest year, average for last 20 years was 20.2%. Avewrage tax payer pays 11.4%; this according to Krugmans chart adn he is an uber liberal.


Click here: Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

 

[lovemymutts]

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

bump.

I'll take that as a 'no' regarding Obama. The rest of it is the left ignoring the obvious.

I love the way Warren Buffet pretends he wants to pay more taxes but then puts 100% of his money in a charitable trust so the liberal government won't get any of it when he dies!! When asked he said, very quietly, " it will be spent better privately"!!

You are exactly like a dog that chases it's own tail,go around and around in circles, and never catch it ,in your case never catch on.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

bump.

I'll take that as a 'no' regarding Obama. The rest of it is the left ignoring the obvious.

I love the way Warren Buffet pretends he wants to pay more taxes but then puts 100% of his money in a charitable trust so the liberal government won't get any of it when he dies!! When asked he said, very quietly, " it will be spent better privately"!!

You are exactly like a dog that chases it's own tail,go around and around in circles, and never catch it ,in your case never catch on.

are you saying that Krugman's chart is mistaken or that as a liberal you lack the IQ to debate further?

 

[lovemymutts]

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?

********************************
Romney HIMSELF stated that he paid 13.9 % tax rate ,guess you midde that.The average person earning 35,000 pays a rate of 17 % AFTER deductions if they apply. .

13.9 for for latest year, average for last 20 years was 20.2%. Avewrage tax payer pays 11.4%; this according to Krugmans chart adn he is an uber liberal

***********************************
13.9 % for the last year. NO AVEARAGE for the prior 20 years, because he refused to release his tax forms ,guess you missed that too.11.4 % is incorrect/not true. and I don't get a flying flip who said Uber Liberal or Rightwing Conservative.

 

[lovemymutts]

I love the way Warren Buffet pretends he wants to pay more taxes but then puts 100% of his money in a charitable trust so the liberal government won't get any of it when he dies!! When asked he said, very quietly, " it will be spent better privately"!!

You are exactly like a dog that chases it's own tail,go around and around in circles, and never catch it ,in your case never catch on.

are you saying that Krugman's chart is mistaken or that as a liberal you lack the IQ to debate further?

***********************************************************8
LMFAO, Were you in the voting booth with me? OR are you assuming I'm a Liberal (Your'e mistaken) and you know what they say about assuming right?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

********************************
Romney HIMSELF stated that he paid 13.9 % tax rate ,guess you midde that.The average person earning 35,000 pays a rate of 17 % AFTER deductions if they apply. .

13.9 for for latest year, average for last 20 years was 20.2%. Avewrage tax payer pays 11.4%; this according to Krugmans chart adn he is an uber liberal

***********************************
13.9 % for the last year. NO AVEARAGE for the prior 20 years, because he refused to release his tax forms ,guess you missed that too.11.4 % is incorrect/not true. and I don't get a flying flip who said Uber Liberal or Rightwing Conservative.

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

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about actual rates, kiddos, not post-tax breaks.

Romney can begin at 39.6% on all his income.

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?

********************************
Romney HIMSELF stated that he paid 13.9 % tax rate ,guess you midde that.The average person earning 35,000 pays a rate of 17 % AFTER deductions if they apply. .

13.9 for for latest year, average for last 20 years was 20.2%. Avewrage tax payer pays 11.4%; this according to Krugmans chart adn he is an uber liberal.


Click here: Millionaires, The Middle Class, and Taxes -- Actual Numbers - NYTimes.com

 

[zakdavis]

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

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

It's a start, because I believe that the tax rate can't be jumped too much too soon. I already posted my interest in much higher tax rates, too.

 

[lovemymutts]

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

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

It's a start, because I believe that the tax rate can't be jumped too much too soon. I already posted my interest in much higher tax rates, too.

Zak, LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT.

 

[zakdavis]

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

It's a start, because I believe that the tax rate can't be jumped too much too soon. I already posted my interest in much higher tax rates, too.

Zak, LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT.

Forgot to add-higher tax rates everywhere. Now I feel better.