[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[blackhawk]

I said it on the first page of this thread and I will again no one has the slightest idea what a fair share is it's just a talking point.

 

[eagle1462010]

Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.

And how much money has the government pumped into it?

$86 billion per month since the start of the open ended QE III.

The Bubble Machine at work again. Same dang thing that took us apart in 2008. Our economy is getting better, but how much is from the FIAT MONEY PUMPING MACHINE?

 

[Derideo_Te]

TUCK YOUR TAIL AND RUN LIB.

Exactly how'd I prove your point?

Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that proved that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those lower dividend tax rates on the bulk of their income.

No I did not. The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.

The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.

DIVIDEND INCOME paid to INDIVIDUALS is subject to LOWER tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[
And you wonder why there is no economic growth here. Capital is fleeing this country because capitalists ARE PUNISHED in America by you communists.

Given the gains in the stock market in the last 4 years that would appear to be bullshit.

Its artificial stupid shit even just a guy like me knows the feds are pumping out money that has no value. its god damn monoply money.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range, but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for al with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

You either misunderstand the issue or are misrepresenting it.

The issue has nothing to do with a ‘fair share ‘ or some ‘specific number.’

The issue concerns the fallacy of ‘trickle-down economics,’ where taxes are lowered for high-income earners, yet tax rates remain the same for middle and low-income earners.

When was the last time taxes were lowered for just the so called rich?

The bush tax cuts lowered tax rates across the board. In fact the lowest rate was dropped from 15% to 10% a more than 30% reduction.

A new 10% tax bracket was created. This effectively lowered taxes of people who previously found themselves in the “bottom” 15% tax bracket. In 2010 the first $8,375 of a single individual’s income will be taxed at 10%. Income earned between $8,375 and $34,000 will be taxed at 15%.

- The 28% tax bracket was lowered to 25%. In 2010 income earned between $34,000 and $82,400 will be taxed at this 25% rate.

- The 31% tax bracket was lowered to 28%. In 2010 income earned between $82,400 and $171,850 will taxed at this new 28% rate.

- The 36% tax bracket was lowered to 33%. In 2010 income earned between $171,850 and $373,650 will be taxed at this 33% tax rate.

- Finally, the top tax rate was lowered from 39.6% to 35%. In 2010 all income earned over $373,650 will be taxed at this 35% rate.

A summary of the facts and arguments behind the Bush tax cuts - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[Truthseeker420]

Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation. Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................

Why? SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION. They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.

So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE? It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.

Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT. Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS. WE'LL SHOW THEM. HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES. RAH RAH RAH.

1. They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE. They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.

2. They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS. We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE? You get the point.

3. They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade. Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................

Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.

Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.

I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

The dual-taxation meme

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon

 

[eagle1462010]

Try reading the thread again. You provided essentially the same dividend rate information that proved that wealthy 1%er's like Mitt Romney pay those lower dividend tax rates on the bulk of their income.

No I did not. The information is based on INDIVIDUAL INCOME RATES, NOT DIVIDEND RATES.

The first brackets are associated with LOW INCOME BRACKETS.

DIVIDEND INCOME paid to INDIVIDUALS is subject to LOWER tax rates than other income. Thank you for admitting that you don't understand this topic and are therefore unqualified to participate.

BS. I posted the data and link. It shows wage brackets associated with the Gains rates in the article.

Show me where it specifies 39.6% in tax rates on DIVIDENDS AND GAINS?

If you look back at the data, that 39.6% is associated with a 20% Gains Rate.

STOP SPINNING THE DATA. IT DOESN'T WORK.

 

[eagle1462010]

Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

Ok genius. Here we have you proposing the 70% tax for those earning $1,000,001.00 per year.
That means they will be left with $300.000.
So, lets say we have a small business that grosses over $1,000,000 per year. The owner 2 years back made just a hair over $500k. He decided to grow his business and double his payroll to keep the work flow to increase the revenue.
So. You propose $500k pay 50%...Leaving $250k...One million, at 70% is $300k..
The business owner sees and effective increase in his tax burden of 2,800%...700k divided by 250k...Seeing his business is not going to be successful, he downsizes and in the process he firs HALF of his employees....
I would like to congratulate you on your goal of soaking the evil rich guy.
And so would the workers YOU just fired. Nice going, Ace.
Your sniveling greed for what others have and earn just put a bunch of people out on the street to look for work.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation. Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................

Why? SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION. They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.

So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE? It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.

Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT. Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS. WE'LL SHOW THEM. HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES. RAH RAH RAH.

1. They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE. They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.

2. They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS. We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE? You get the point.

3. They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade. Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................

Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.

Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.

I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

The dual-taxation meme

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon

Rocket scientist....The OP just told you that Corporations are taxed TWICE..
Once is not enough?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Kissmy's argument from his graph, which I've seen before, implies he is talking about CORPORATE taxation. Yet the BATTLE ON THE HILL IS ALWAYS ABOUT STANDARD INCOME RATES IN THE COUNTRY ON INDIVIDUALS...................

Why? SMOKE AND MIRRORS...................They point to the Big Corps and say SEE, THEY AREN'T PAYING TAXES AND THEN RAISE THE RATES ON THE INDIVIDUALS AS JUSTIFICATION. They do and have raised the rates in these battles on CAPITAL GAINS which directly effects this area.

So what is the JUSTIFICATION OF RAISING INDIVIDUAL TAX RATES, when they use DATA TO JUSTIFY IT FROM AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT SOURCE OF REVENUE? It is the age of STRATEGY OF CLASS WARFARE THE LIBS USE ALL THE TIME.

Now, LET'S RAISE THEM UP FOR A MOMENT. Let's GET THOSE BAD GUYS. WE'LL SHOW THEM. HEY CORPORATIONS WE ARE RAISING YOUR RATES. RAH RAH RAH.

1. They are businesses and DON'T HAVE TO INVEST A DIME HERE. They can take their money elsewhere and WE LOSE JOBS.

2. They stay here, pay higher taxes, and then PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROFIT MARGINS. We go to the store and go WHY IS THIS PRODUCT SO EXPENSIVE? You get the point.

3. They shut down and move, especially with Free Trade. Then Americans LOSE THEIR JOBS, and WONDER WHY.........................

Economics and taxation are a 2 edged sword. IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

Exactly, corporations have never and never will pay one cent in taxes.
PEOPLE PAY TAXES.
All my 3 businesses do is COLLECT the taxes as every cent in taxes we pay and every other business or corporation pays is collected from the consumer and passed on to government.

Currently corporations are taxed TWICE.
The dividends that the owners of the company receive, THE SHAREHOLDERS, are taxed and what is left over is taxed as corporate "profits".
Because now most Americans believe profits are bad and evil corporations need to be punished by taxes for being greedy making a buck.

I don't smoke. Why should I have to pay the taxes for some corporation to use bridges, roads ,courts, police , fire and other common services paid by taxpayers so some guy can smoke and have tax payers pay for his medical care?

The dual-taxation meme

The dual-taxation meme | Felix Salmon

You do realize that business pay taxes for roads too don't you?

In fact a trucking business pays far more in taxes than you do as well as taxes you don't pay for roads.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

 

[ilia25]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

Ok genius. Here we have you proposing the 70% tax for those earning $1,000,001.00 per year.
That means they will be left with $300.000.

Funny you meant it as a sarcasm. Looking from your level a moron would be a real genius.

I was talking about tax brackets. It means that nobody would pay effective 70%. And a person earning a million would pay around $350,000 in taxes.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.

Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​

3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?
​

Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

Just a quetion who gets the money? just an example.
Illinois Tollway Salaries and Pensions

After retirement, however, tollway employees receive millions of dollars in pensions from state tax funds through the State Employee Retirement System (SERS). High tolls support high salaries, which bloat the multi-million dollar retirement packages. And what’s more, Tollway employees aren’t required to pay tolls!

 

[blackhawk]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

Does this mean you feel the same way about George Soros using his great wealth to try and influence the direction of the country as you do the Koch brothers?

 

[Gadawg73]

How is a progressive income tax fair when most of the time the reason someone has earned more income than someone else is because they worked harder, more hours and RISKED everything they have to attempt to earn more?
Fair to those that pay fewer taxes and demand that the power of government confiscate wealth that others have legally earned and give to someone else all with the myth of "fairness".
And income tax PUNISHES those that are willing to take those risks, create jobs and the economic growth that a capitalist system requires.
You get MORE of what you reward and less of what you punish.
Life is not fair and it is a bad lesson to practice and teach "everything should be fair" to our youth.
It has us where we are now, a growing moocher class.

 

[ilia25]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number.

Stop lying, I gave you numbers as specific as they can get. But they depend on your definition of the rich, among other things, like primary budget deficit.

I think that currently we can get by with introducing 50% bracket at 500,000 and 70% bracket at one million. I would also extend the payroll taxes to cover all income, and tax capital gains of more than 500,000 at 50%.

So if you have capital to invest are you going to invest it where you only make 50% off of your gain or take it where there are NO capital gains taxes?

And where does capital go, to where it is rewarded or punished?

Capital investments carry RISK, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE YOU MAKE MONEY.

And currently one can only carry over 3K in losses each year to offset any gains, IF THERE ARE ANY.

Well, that's a shame. I would remove that 3K limit.

Otherwise, taxes don't prevent people from investing. And if you make good money because you are good investor, you should be taxed. It's just another trade.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I keep hearing liberals say day after day, "the rich need to pay their fair share!"

But when asked how much the "fair share" actually is, they have no idea and never come out with a specific number. Others just beat around the bush and talk about periods in our history when top marginal tax rates were in the 90% range (even though nobody ever paid that rate), but say that's not really what they want. Maybe out of fear they'll get called communists.

Anyways, I thought I'd put an end to the confusion once and for all with this poll.

Liberals, what should be the "fair share" the rich have to pay in taxes?

Conservatives, feel free to chime in as well.

Polls are only as good as the questions asked. Your poll sucks.

A progressive income tax is fair and is necessary to keep the United States exceptional. If power tends to corrupt and too much power corrupts absolutely the same argument can be made for great wealth.

Let's pick on the brothers Koch for a moment. Born to wealth it was easy for them to create great wealth. As the man said, the second billion dollars comes easy, it's the first billion that's hard (unless of course it is given, and then the recipient feels entitled to great wealth. In this respect the brothers Koch are little different than Paris Hilton).

No one doubts the Koch Brothers are using their great wealth to influence the direction of our country. Of course all of us see the world from our own perspective and see things which we would like changed. But only those of great wealth have the ability to do so and therein lies the great problem with a flat tax. The spread gap between the 1% and the rest will grow and grow and grow, and the 1% are rarely egalitarians. Sure, one of the Koch Brothers donates to NPR, but the bulk of his giving supports PAC's which directly benefit the Koch Boys business and their ideology. Their ideology can not escape taking us from a democratic republic into a Plutocracy - which we already have become. Most members of Congress are wealthy and many follow a political path which enhances their ability to get richer.

The OP's poll sucks?
Yes, but if it were commissioned by liberals and the poll results the same, you'd be crowing in support of the poll.

 

[eagle1462010]

Starting with the year 2013, there will be a new long-term capital gains rate of 20% which applies to taxpayers who fall within the new 39.6% tax bracket. The new capital gains tax rates for 2013 and future years are as follows:
0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets,
15% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 25%, 28%, 33%, or 35% tax brackets, and
20% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 39.6% tax bracket.
Also beginning in 2013, capital gain income will be subject to an additional 3.8% Medicare tax for taxpayers with income at or above a certain threshold.

Simple tax questions for the home schooled;

1. Is 20% less than or equal to 39.6%?

2. If 90% of your income over $1 million dollars comes from Dividends then what income rate will you be paying on that 90% of your income?

(a) 39.6%
(b) 20%
(c) Nothing because the "moocher class" doesn't deserve any of MY income.​

3. What was the Dividend Income tax rate before the current increases?

4. What is the difference between Dividend Income and Capital Gains Income?
​

Write your answers on the back of a $1000 bill and send them to the IRS. Don't forget to include your return address.

Dividend tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The rates and history since 2003 are there. Bush cut the FIRST 2 INCOME BRACKETS TO 0% AND OBAMA KEPT THEM AT 0%. Again, INCOME BRACKETS YOU DOLT.

Obama increased the upper class taxation to 39.6% and 20% IN REGARDS TO INCOME AND GAINS.

This is data I ALREADY GAVE and YOU MISINTERPRETED TO JUSTIFY YOUR MEDIA MATTERS ARGUMENT ON ROMNEY.

[quoteIn the case of qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, individuals in the 25% or higher tax bracket currently pay a 15% tax, whereas those in lower brackets are exempt from any tax. Beginning in 2013, the long-term capital gains rate will jump to 10% for lower income earners and 20% for investors in the higher brackets.

Meanwhile, the preferential treatment given to qualified dividends is set to disappear completely. As of 2013, individuals will have to pay their income tax rate on all dividend income they receive. ][/quote]

Item 4. Long time versus short time investments.

My last quote shows that under OBAMA AND THE LIBS 20% = 39.6%. aka TAX INCREASES UNDER OBAMA AND THE LIBS ALREADY.