Bill Maher "Rich" Threads (Merged)

[WillowTree]

"New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being 'rich', or what tax rate is too much.'

"But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole."

Bill Maher...

Boofriggenhoo.. Why do the rich have any less right to whine than anyone else? Because they make more? Don't like it? Then make more yourself.

Well said. I'm sick to death of this class warfare and racial warfare the left is waging. It just sucks. And, I'm not even rich.

 

[georgephillip]

Well, I'm outta here for my near-minimum wage, part-time job -- but I would just like to add the class war in America is just as real as DEATH and TAXES.

Ask ******* Pat Tillman the next time you see him.

 

[Valerie]

Saw this interesting segment yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning



Linda McGibney: We Who Prospered Should Pay Tax
Counters Ben Stein's Claim That Ending Tax Cut Is "Punishment" of Well-Off, Says It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More
Linda McGibney: Ben Stein is Wrong - CBS News Video

 

[Lonestar_logic]

"New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being 'rich', or what tax rate is too much.'

"But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole."

Bill Maher...

Is the rich any less enititled to keep the money they earn? If so, Why?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"New Rule: The next rich person who publicly complains about being vilified by the Obama administration must be publicly vilified by the Obama administration. It's so hard for one person to tell another person what constitutes being 'rich', or what tax rate is too much.'

"But I've done some math that indicates that, considering the hole this country is in, if you are earning more than a million dollars a year and are complaining about a 3.6% tax increase, then you are by definition a greedy asshole."

Bill Maher...

This from Medved's book, "10 Big Lies About America." I think it applies.

John Maynard Keynes, in a letter published in the NYTimes, December 31, 1933, warned “ even wise and necessary Reform may, in some respects, impede and complicate Recovery. For it will upset the confidence of the business world and weaken their existing motives to action.” Even Keynes warns of the danger in treating the nation’s capitalists as an enemy, as “the unscrupulous money changers,” as FDR called them in his first Inaugural.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Well, I'm outta here for my near-minimum wage, part-time job -- but I would just like to add the class war in America is just as real as DEATH and TAXES.

Ask ******* Pat Tillman the next time you see him.

What has Tillman got to do with taxes? Not a damn thing you stupid ****!!

 

[Liability]

The teapartiers are not made up of wealthy Repubs, not baseless, all you have to do is look at one of their rallies to see that.

A lot of them can't even afford teeth..

Tea Party members value the Constitutional principle (a practical necessity which modern American libs have abandoned) that government must be limited.

Lots of liberals like you can't post without absolute reliance on stupid stereotypes.

Zzzzz.

They are limited issue voters, most have no idea what they are doing there and that those who they are working to elect have no more interest in them than they do yesterday's dinner.

That abundantly ignorant post only proves that you rely on stereotypes.

And, of course, you also happen to be flatly wrong.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Saw this interesting segment yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning



Linda McGibney: We Who Prospered Should Pay Tax
Counters Ben Stein's Claim That Ending Tax Cut Is "Punishment" of Well-Off, Says It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More
Linda McGibney: Ben Stein is Wrong - CBS News Video

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html

 

[Full-Auto]

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

So you strongly recommend the politics of personal destruction if the target doesnt hold your views?


Democrats are the party of discrimination since its inception.

 

[Synthaholic]

That's an awesome song. Walter Wanderley has not one, but TWO great versions of it out there:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SCKWc98sUk]YouTube - Walter Wanderley - Samba De Una Sola Nota (One Note Samba)[/ame]

and:



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHI1BM0Kr-8]YouTube - Walter Wanderley "One note samba"[/ame]

 

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher is an unfunny sanctimonious liberoidal asshole. If I am channel surfing and come across his ******* show on Home Box, I hit the 'next channel' button with unprecedented speed. Seriously. His arrogant, smug, smirking face and his totally ass-backward liberal-retarded way of thinking make me feel like puking on him.

I wish Dennis Miller was still doing his own show.

Must. not. hear. opposing. viewpoints.

 

[Synthaholic]

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the ******* libturds want to punish people who work hard and become successful. They seem to be lying whining sniveling jealous little twits and for some unknown reason think somebody owes them something. they can leave here the same way the came in naked. but no one owes them a goddamned thing.

Maher used Steve Forbes as an example. Please tell me how he worked hard to become rich. He inherited his wealth from his daddy, Malcolm, who inherited it from his daddy.

 

[Valerie]

Saw this interesting segment yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning



Linda McGibney: We Who Prospered Should Pay Tax
Counters Ben Stein's Claim That Ending Tax Cut Is "Punishment" of Well-Off, Says It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More
Linda McGibney: Ben Stein is Wrong - CBS News Video

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges
Tax Rate

Married Couples Filing Jointly
Most Single Filers
10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 – $209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650



Beyond some slight numerical shuffling of the taxable income ranges, there will not be too many significant tax changes from 2009 into 2010. Here is a breakdown of the projected changes (if any) for 2010 as they compare to the prior year:

* Personal Exemption: No change. For the very first time, the standard exemption for 2010 will not be going up and will stay unchanged at $3,650, the same as it was in 2009.
* Standard Deduction: No change, except for Head Of Household filers. The standard deduction for married couples filing jointly will remain unchanged at $11,400. For those filing as single, the standard deduction will remain at $5,700 as well. However, Head of Household filers will see a slight increase by $50 – from $8,350 (year 2009) to $8,400 (year 2010).
* Overall Tax Bracket Thresholds: Will increase across the board for all tax filing statuses, albeit at a significantly lower amount compared to past tax year increases.
* Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount: No change. For tax year 2010, the current gift tax exclusion limit of $13,000 will stay the same. Often overlooked by most taxpayers, the gift tax stipulates that gift givers must pay a special tax on gift amounts that exceed a certain amount per year.
* Traditional and Roth IRA Contribution Limits: No change. Despite the fact that IRA and Roth IRA contribution limits did not rise in 2009 in response to strong inflationary pressures in 2009, there will still be no corresponding change in the maximum contribution limits to individual retirement accounts for 2010. The standard IRA contribution limit for 2010 will remain unchanged at $5,000. The catch up contribution limit for those 50 or older will remain at $6,000 as well.

» 2010 Federal Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates)

 

[Synthaholic]

Bill Maher: New Rule: Rich People Who Complain About Being Vilified Should Be Vilified

We don't hear the rich complaining. It's rich assholes like Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Bill Maher himself that think they can get away with vilifying the rich even though they're all rich Fat-cats themselves.

I guess voting Democrat zeros out their bank accounts and allows them to be poor. Democrats are for the little people so they can't be rich......or bigots.....or....mean-spirited.

You should leave the circle-jerk echo chamber to look around, and maybe do some reading.

Blackstone Group chief executive Stephen Schwarzman said this summer, for instance, that President Obama's proposal to tax the earnings of private equity and hedge fund managers at the same rate as other workers' income was "like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939."

So, having your taxes increase by 3% is like Hitler invading Poland?!?!?

You greedy Regressives are fucked in the head.

 

[Synthaholic]

Poor cons continue to lobby for more money for the rich cons ... Go figure.

They think they will one day join them!

 

[Synthaholic]

We don't hear the rich complaining. It's rich assholes like Kerry, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and Bill Maher himself that think they can get away with vilifying the rich even though they're all rich Fat-cats themselves.

I guess voting Democrat zeros out their bank accounts and allows them to be poor. Democrats are for the little people so they can't be rich......or bigots.....or....mean-spirited.

Is Maher, Kerry or Pelosi whining like little bitches about paying more taxes? Ah, no....

I didn't say they were idiot.

But they are taking advantage of plenty of loopholes.

Remember the yacht that Kerry hid in Connecticut?

How bout Pelosi and her little minimum-wage increase exemption for her business in American-Samoa?

Harry Reid and his son's making money in Nevada?

And Bill Maher losing his gig for saying we had 9/11 coming to us then getting a better gig on HBO for the same reason.

The double-standards are all over the fucken place. What a Republican would get run out of office for the Dems get awards and excuses for.

You're a ******* idiot.

Kerry's boat was in Rhode Island, and he broke no laws. I thought you wingnuts were all about freedom? He's not free to dock his boat wherever the hell he wants?

What's wrong with making money in Nevada? Anything illegal?

Maher never said that we had 9/11 coming to us, dipshit.

Learn a fact of two, and I won't continue to stomp your ass.

 

[Liability]

The ******* uber-liberoidals love to bandy around terms like "greedy" and "regressives" when the supposedly "rich" folks (evil, by unspoken definition) object to ever-increasing taxation.

The ******* scumbag uber-libs never seem capable, however, of explaining how it is "greedy" for anybody (at any level of wealth) to object to the taking of his own money.

If I earn it, it's mine. If there is a tax structure in place to pay for the CONSTITUTIONALLY limited government to which I have agreed, then I do not object to paying my fair share of my earnings to cover the costs associated with that LIMITED government.

But when the government transgresses the LIMITATIONS imposed on it by the Constitution in order to engage in social engineering like the redistribution of wealth, there is nothing "greedy" about objecting.

Newsflash for you retarded uber-liberoidal jackasses. It's NOT your ******* money.

 

[Synthaholic]

Saw this interesting segment yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning



Linda McGibney: We Who Prospered Should Pay Tax
Counters Ben Stein's Claim That Ending Tax Cut Is "Punishment" of Well-Off, Says It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More
Linda McGibney: Ben Stein is Wrong - CBS News Video

*bump*

Has anyone actually watched this? I'm guessing no.

 

[Valerie]

Because of the election of Barack Obama as the new President of the United States and the handover of the country to a new political party, there are bound to be substantial changes in the tax code and income tax rates in the coming years. Working on an economic stimulus plan and advocating aggressive social agendas, President Obama has already proposed numerous changes to the ordinary income tax rates, such as raising the top rate from 35% to 39.6% – potentially boosting the tax burdens of higher income earners to new heights. He has also suggested the need to reduce tax deductions for American households earning more than $250,000 annually, and has also made proposals to increase taxes on capital gains and stock dividends. With a political and taxation platform that is decidedly against those those in the higher upper echelons of the U.S. tax code, those who have done well for themselves over the years seemingly have a lot to fear in Mr. Obama. Personally, while I feel Obama is doing a commendable job on the social and foreign policy front, I hope he doesn’t get too carried away with his taxation ambitions. His remarks on taxes always make me nervous.

In the mean time, many of us regular taxpayers can only just ride along and hope for the best. Regardless of what Obama ultimately decides to do and no matter how federal income tax brackets eventually look like in 2010 and 2011, we should try to wisely structure our actions today to reduce our future tax burdens as much as possible, regardless of what happens. Such smart tax moves would include taking advantage of employer sponsored pre-tax perks like flexible spending accounts (FSA), and investing in tax deferred retirement vehicles like 401(k)’s and Roth IRA accounts.

» 2009 Federal Income Tax Brackets (Official IRS Tax Rates)

 

[PoliticalChic]

Saw this interesting segment yesterday on CBS Sunday Morning



Linda McGibney: We Who Prospered Should Pay Tax
Counters Ben Stein's Claim That Ending Tax Cut Is "Punishment" of Well-Off, Says It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More
Linda McGibney: Ben Stein is Wrong - CBS News Video

"Taking from the rich through much higher tax rates in order to help the poor and middle class makes no sense intellectually and has seldom worked in practice. Reducing rates, on the other hand, does increase the share of taxes paid by the highest income-earning group. For example, in 1981, when the highest tax rate on the rich was 70% and the top capital gains tax rate was close to 45%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 17% of total income taxes. In 2005, with a top income tax rate of 35% and capital gains at 15%, the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB122143692536934297.html

Federal Income Tax Brackets For 2010 – Based On Taxable Income Ranges
Tax Rate

Married Couples Filing Jointly
Most Single Filers
10% Not over $16,750 Not over $8,375
15% $16,750 – $68,000 $8,375 – $34,000
25% $68,000 – $137,300 $34,000 – $82,400
28% $137,300 – $209,250 $82,400 – $171,850
33% $209,250 – $373,650 $171,850 – $373,650
35% Over $373,650 Over $373,650



Beyond some slight numerical shuffling of the taxable income ranges, there will not be too many significant tax changes from 2009 into 2010. Here is a breakdown of the projected changes (if any) for 2010 as they compare to the prior year:

* Personal Exemption: No change. For the very first time, the standard exemption for 2010 will not be going up and will stay unchanged at $3,650, the same as it was in 2009.
* Standard Deduction: No change, except for Head Of Household filers. The standard deduction for married couples filing jointly will remain unchanged at $11,400. For those filing as single, the standard deduction will remain at $5,700 as well. However, Head of Household filers will see a slight increase by $50 – from $8,350 (year 2009) to $8,400 (year 2010).
* Overall Tax Bracket Thresholds: Will increase across the board for all tax filing statuses, albeit at a significantly lower amount compared to past tax year increases.
* Annual Gift Tax Exclusion Amount: No change. For tax year 2010, the current gift tax exclusion limit of $13,000 will stay the same. Often overlooked by most taxpayers, the gift tax stipulates that gift givers must pay a special tax on gift amounts that exceed a certain amount per year.
* Traditional and Roth IRA Contribution Limits: No change. Despite the fact that IRA and Roth IRA contribution limits did not rise in 2009 in response to strong inflationary pressures in 2009, there will still be no corresponding change in the maximum contribution limits to individual retirement accounts for 2010. The standard IRA contribution limit for 2010 will remain unchanged at $5,000. The catch up contribution limit for those 50 or older will remain at $6,000 as well.

» 2010 Federal Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates)

Your link has very little to do with the question under discussion, your original which included "...It's Patriotic for Rich to Pay More..."

Perhaps I should have laid out my question more clealy: How much more?

Included in the above: "...the richest 1% of Americans paid 39%."

Is that enough more?
If not, what is the number you have in mind?

The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166