Tea partiers not smart enough...

[Toro]

Pale Rider,
I'm just telling you what Warren Buffet said!

Warren Buffet is a disingenuous sack of shit with an agenda that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw him. Try something a bit more substantial, because he can SAY any fucking thing he wants, and it proves nothing except that he has an adequate vocabulary. I could SAY I'm Queen Elizabeth II of England, but that ain't gonna get me into Buckingham Palace, now is it?

You are a disingenuous sack of shit with an agenda.

I'll take the word of a man who pays his receptionist, not some bitter hack.

 

[johnrocks]

Half our economy or more is controlled by government, there are thousands of regulations;from how big a hole in Swiss Cheese can be on up; yet capitalism always seems to get blamed for our problems, why is that and government seems to get a pass?

Government gets a pass? Missed that, when did that happen?
It seemed petty to complain when my tax dollars were being spent on a war of choice in Iraq when thousands of young Americans were paying for that fiasco with their lives, limbs and vision.
It would have been good if the government had passed a war tax, if we really needed to invade and occupy Iraq for eight years don't you think those who stood to gain the most should give the most? And those who gave the most, their lives, limbs and vision ought to get the most in terms of health care and a living wage, college guaranteed to the kids some left behind, a secure income to widows.
But hell, it's their money! Isn't that what capitalism is all about - making more, more and more?

I'm not giving those idiots that wear the "R" a pass, your absolutely right to complain about those unfunded fiasco's. I'm so pissed about that, that I refuse to vote for anyone who ever supported it without refuting it. A pox on both parties and the Federal Reserve for screwing things up.

 

[HUGGY]

Shoveling Trillions of $$$ to political cronies is not repair work.

Just sayin'.

Right..it's Faulty repair work and business as usual for Haliburton.

 

[uscitizen]

I think 15% would maximize government revenues, but 10% would be more in line with how much power the government should have. Of course we'd need to ramp down to that to avoid too much shock to the system and work out the problems. Both would make the current $4 Trillion government look tiny, IMO. I think we should start with the 30% FairTax and go from there.

Fair tax? You mean the sales or VAT tax?

I disagree a flat income tax with no deductions.
That way taking money out of the country or hoarding it would not get you out of taxes.
If you made the money in the USA you pay tax on it.

Why tax prosperity? Tax consumption.

to prevent the removal of wealth from the USA without paying taxes on it.

 

[asterism]

Fair tax? You mean the sales or VAT tax?

I disagree a flat income tax with no deductions.
That way taking money out of the country or hoarding it would not get you out of taxes.
If you made the money in the USA you pay tax on it.

Why tax prosperity? Tax consumption.

to prevent the removal of wealth from the USA without paying taxes on it.

Ah. So you are saying to tax revenue not income correct? That's not really going to work out well.

 

[uscitizen]

Why tax prosperity? Tax consumption.

to prevent the removal of wealth from the USA without paying taxes on it.

Ah. So you are saying to tax revenue not income correct? That's not really going to work out well.

I am saying to tax all personal income regardless of source.

 

[hortysir]

boedicca,
How can you get my meaning so ass backwards? Oh I know, you're trying to!

If Warren Buffet admits that he pays a lower tax rate than his secratary you don't want to know? People who make all their money by collecting interest and dividends deserve a lower tax rate?

So you're going to bat for all those poor "middle class" people who are making over 200K?

Boy if that's the middle class I am definetly not middle class any more.

Judging by the degree of class-envy you have, I'm guessing that you're in the income bracket that pays Zero taxes.
The 200k+ earners you hate so much are the job providers.
To raise taxes for anyone, during this spiraling economy, is asinine.

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) means that we have been taxed enough by BOTH parties. Not just Dems.
Yes, the Repugs supported TARP. That's why their heads are on the proverbial block, also.
Everyone will be held accountable in November.

Now lets compare how much TARP cost us compared to the sum of GM, Stimulus, and Healthcare and look at who has cost us MORE.

You keep throwing around this "30 years" number.
I guess you're not counting Clinton's 2 terms or how many years the Dems controlled the legislative branch, hunh?!

Okay, so you hate the Tea Party.
Cool.
But, like Cecille said, don't stride in here and think you can impose your version of shit on the rest of us.



BTW, PaleRider, that chart you posted (I've used it also) needs updated.
CBO's numbers, released today, holds it steady at 1.45T through 2013

My guess is you don't have any friends or acquaintances who earn even $100,000. I may be wrong, but I play golf and poker with a group of guys who all earn at least $250 k, and not one of them hires or employs anyone. Two are attorney's, one is a medical doctor; at the table we add two engineers. btw, the doctor is the best putter and has the lowest handicap (3).

Lawyers need paralegals and secretaries. Doctors need nurses and assistants.
But to answer your question, yes.
And they're all business owners. AC, pharmacy, bowling alley, heavy equipment dealer, etc.....

Good deflection, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Judging by the degree of class-envy you have, I'm guessing that you're in the income bracket that pays Zero taxes.
The 200k+ earners you hate so much are the job providers.
To raise taxes for anyone, during this spiraling economy, is asinine.

TEA (Taxed Enough Already) means that we have been taxed enough by BOTH parties. Not just Dems.
Yes, the Repugs supported TARP. That's why their heads are on the proverbial block, also.
Everyone will be held accountable in November.

Now lets compare how much TARP cost us compared to the sum of GM, Stimulus, and Healthcare and look at who has cost us MORE.

You keep throwing around this "30 years" number.
I guess you're not counting Clinton's 2 terms or how many years the Dems controlled the legislative branch, hunh?!

Okay, so you hate the Tea Party.
Cool.
But, like Cecille said, don't stride in here and think you can impose your version of shit on the rest of us.



BTW, PaleRider, that chart you posted (I've used it also) needs updated.
CBO's numbers, released today, holds it steady at 1.45T through 2013

My guess is you don't have any friends or acquaintances who earn even $100,000. I may be wrong, but I play golf and poker with a group of guys who all earn at least $250 k, and not one of them hires or employs anyone. Two are attorney's, one is a medical doctor; at the table we add two engineers. btw, the doctor is the best putter and has the lowest handicap (3).

Lawyers need paralegals and secretaries. Doctors need nurses and assistants.
But to answer your question, yes.
And they're all business owners. AC, pharmacy, bowling alley, heavy equipment dealer, etc.....

Good deflection, though.

That's not to mention all the people employed by the results of the natural business of lawyers, doctors, engineers, and other professionals. Court reporters, for example, and all the other people whose employment is connected to the court system, or those connected to a hospital. I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.

 

[daveman]

I'd have to know what type of engineers we're talking about to give a list of those whose employment is created by the business activities thereof.

Somebody's got to build what engineers design.

 

[Flopper]

And republicons have been so against bigger government, social programs and excessive govt spending?
They did however support TARP. Bailing out the fiiancial industry instead of letting it stand on it's own.

LMAO

Republicans have spent like drunken fools when given the opportunity. They are no better than the Democrats. They just spend the money differently.

Profits are up on Wall Street and corporate America is hiring again. Unfortunately much of their hiring is abroad as is their investments. The Right argues we should not increase taxes on the wealthy, but should cut their taxes to increase investments. But if those investments continue to build new plants in China and provide jobs for millions of Chinese, just how does that help the American worker?

Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well. The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate. Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies. Find a need and fill it.

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans have spent like drunken fools when given the opportunity. They are no better than the Democrats. They just spend the money differently.

Profits are up on Wall Street and corporate America is hiring again. Unfortunately much of their hiring is abroad as is their investments. The Right argues we should not increase taxes on the wealthy, but should cut their taxes to increase investments. But if those investments continue to build new plants in China and provide jobs for millions of Chinese, just how does that help the American worker?

Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well. The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate. Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies. Find a need and fill it.

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Cause they can afford to rent more government officials?

 

[Synthaholic]

Cecile
Do you think it fair that Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secratary?

I think it would fair if you proved it.

I've found another fool to embarrass:


Buffett blasts system that lets him pay less tax than secretary
Tom Bawden in New York

Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner.

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

The comments are among the most signficant yet in a debate raging on both sides of the Atlantic about growing income inequality and how the super-wealthy are taxed.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wow, we're going to need to use Hoverbikes to break this conditioning to hate Reagan reflexively and with garbage for "evidence".

 

[asterism]

Republicans have spent like drunken fools when given the opportunity. They are no better than the Democrats. They just spend the money differently.

Profits are up on Wall Street and corporate America is hiring again. Unfortunately much of their hiring is abroad as is their investments. The Right argues we should not increase taxes on the wealthy, but should cut their taxes to increase investments. But if those investments continue to build new plants in China and provide jobs for millions of Chinese, just how does that help the American worker?

Perhaps it's not the government's place to "help the American worker," since that really hasn't ended well. The USA is still the nexus of innovation, so get out there an innovate. Leave the solved problems that have turned into commodity labor to emerging economies. Find a need and fill it.

If the goal in having low taxes for the wealthy is not to help the American worker by creating jobs in the US, then why should we have low taxes for those who are most able pay them.

Because removing the incentive for innovation helps neither the workers, the taxed, nor the government because it's unsustainable. While "those who are most able to pay them" can do so right now, that won't last if they are taxed out of productivity.

 

[Greenbeard]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

 

[Synthaholic]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

 

[asterism]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

Not completely. Going from 35% to 39.6% eradicates any innovative plans with an expected profit margin of 4% or less. Expected profit margin is the result of calculations and outright guesses on whether a new venture should be started and whether the risk is worth the reward. So not only are low margin projects not viable, but all projects in the consideration stage have a decrease of expected after tax profit of 7%. THAT is significant. Included in this mix is that investments are not treated as expenses until a loss is realized. Reducing the after tax profit by 7% tips the scales in the "not viable" column in quite a few new ventures.

It's certainly no incentive to take that risk.

 

[asterism]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

 

[Synthaholic]

Does a top marginal tax rate of 39.6% eradicate innovation?

It certainly didn't from the 1920s to the 1980s.

Plenty of constructs known to some as "tax loopholes" have been closed. The mid 1980s saw one big one close, the ability for losses in one business to be used to offset gains in another business.

We're not just dealing with the idea of a top marginal rate of 39.6% in a vacuum compared to previous years, it's the total picture and a dynamic situation with importance on a 13% tax hike.

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true. The government did step in and things are actually worse. You'll get to see firsthand how this tax increase is going to work out.

Aren't you confusing business/corporate tax rates with personal tax rates?

 

[Greenbeard]

This is all academic at this point though, your side won and none of the worst case scenarios predicted by them if the government didn't step in came true.