Is the GOP intentionally preventing a recovery?

[DontBeStupid]

If a nasty CEO gets a $1,000,000 stock grant, they're taxed on $1,000,000.

False. They are not taxed until they sell it, which could be different than $1M.

You are correct that dividends and capital gains are 15%.
Which is still higher than 7.65%.

Yup, and lower than 35% and we haven't even talked about gas taxes yet, which hit the wealthy A LOT lower than the poor, or deductions.

 

[bripat9643]

Benefits paid to active and retired military are not entitlements. However, EIC payments to people like you are.

How are they not entitlements?

They are part of the deal the government makes with anyone who agrees to join the service. You don't do anything to get EIC.

 

[hellofromwarsaw]

Fox/Rush/Savage, etc., lie, spin, and mislead, period. Divide and make hate too. And ruin political discourse.

 

[Provocateur]

What I find entertaining is the same cast of characters in this thread saying there is a problem with "the recovery" of our economy are in another thread stating that there is no problem with the recovery.



Liberals seriously lack critical thinking skills.

 

[bripat9643]

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

Name some.

Thomas DiLorenzo
Thomas Sowell

Economy Watch - Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

The conservative Cato Institute plans to buy full-page ads in The Washington Post and New York Times over the next several days urging President Obama to avoid what it considers excessive government spending as a way to get the U.S. out of recession.

In the form of a letter to Obama, the ad is signed by some 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates -- Edward Prescott and George Mason's Vernon Smith and James Buchanan -- listed prominently at the top.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Benefits paid to active and retired military are not entitlements. However, EIC payments to people like you are.

How are they not entitlements?

They are part of the deal the government makes with anyone who agrees to join the service.

Wait, then how is this different from a public union striking a deal with the government for its workers?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

Name some.

Thomas DiLorenzo
Thomas Sowell

Economy Watch - Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

The conservative Cato Institute plans to buy full-page ads in The Washington Post and New York Times over the next several days urging President Obama to avoid what it considers excessive government spending as a way to get the U.S. out of recession.

In the form of a letter to Obama, the ad is signed by some 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates -- Edward Prescott and George Mason's Vernon Smith and James Buchanan -- listed prominently at the top.

LOL!! That's from 2009 before the Recovery Act was even passed!

Have any from this year?

 

[kaz]

If a nasty CEO gets a $1,000,000 stock grant, they're taxed on $1,000,000.

False. They are not taxed until they sell it, which could be different than $1M.

You are correct that dividends and capital gains are 15%.
Which is still higher than 7.65%.

Yup, and lower than 35% and we haven't even talked about gas taxes yet, which hit the wealthy A LOT lower than the poor, or deductions.

Here's a secret, Virginia.

The poor pay higher taxes no matter how you tax. All taxes with the exception of the death tax are built into the price of products we buy. When you raise tax rates, it requires companies to pay more to overcome them. That drives up prices. So, the poor no matter what tax rate you have will pay the highest real tax rate because they spend 100% of their earnings. The rich don't, so they pay a lower rate. It also causes job loss, which hurts the poor.

In fact the fairest system for the poor is a flat consumption tax. They will still pay the highest real rate, but it gets the rate as flat as possible. You liked throwing out the GDP calculation yesterday to demonstrate your great knowledge of economics and intellect. I wasn't impressed, it was a basic calculation. Demonstrate you understood my argument, which BTW is based on basic economics.

 

[kaz]

Fox/Rush/Savage, etc., lie, spin, and mislead, period. Divide and make hate too. And ruin political discourse.

Sure, no matter how much liberals hate it isn't hate, and yet to not be a liberal is automatically hate. What an intellectual buzz saw you are.

 

[bripat9643]

They are part of the deal the government makes with anyone who agrees to join the service.

Wait, then how is this different from a public union striking a deal with the government for its workers?

Union "deals" aren't agreed to voluntarily. The corporation isn't allowed to decline.

 

[bripat9643]

Name some.

Thomas DiLorenzo
Thomas Sowell

Economy Watch - Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

The conservative Cato Institute plans to buy full-page ads in The Washington Post and New York Times over the next several days urging President Obama to avoid what it considers excessive government spending as a way to get the U.S. out of recession.

In the form of a letter to Obama, the ad is signed by some 200 economists, including three Nobel laureates -- Edward Prescott and George Mason's Vernon Smith and James Buchanan -- listed prominently at the top.

LOL!! That's from 2009 before the Recovery Act was even passed!

So?

 

[DontBeStupid]

If a nasty CEO gets a $1,000,000 stock grant, they're taxed on $1,000,000.

False. They are not taxed until they sell it, which could be different than $1M.

You are correct that dividends and capital gains are 15%.
Which is still higher than 7.65%.

Yup, and lower than 35% and we haven't even talked about gas taxes yet, which hit the wealthy A LOT lower than the poor, or deductions.

Here's a secret, Virginia.

The poor pay higher taxes no matter how you tax. All taxes with the exception of the death tax are built into the price of products we buy. When you raise tax rates, it requires companies to pay more to overcome them. That drives up prices. So, the poor no matter what tax rate you have will pay the highest real tax rate because they spend 100% of their earnings. The rich don't, so they pay a lower rate. It also causes job loss, which hurts the poor.

In fact the fairest system for the poor is a flat consumption tax. They will still pay the highest real rate, but it gets the rate as flat as possible. You liked throwing out the GDP calculation yesterday to demonstrate your great knowledge of economics and intellect. I wasn't impressed, it was a basic calculation. Demonstrate you understood my argument, which BTW is based on basic economics.

I absolutely understand your argument and have used it myself many times as a rationale for why the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less.

I think we're on the same side here.

My point earlier was merely to counter the argument that wealthy people "pay 35% in taxes" which is not true.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Thomas DiLorenzo
Thomas Sowell

Economy Watch - Cato Lines Up 200 Economists Against Obama's Stimulus

LOL!! That's from 2009 before the Recovery Act was even passed!

So?

Really?

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

That's what you said. As in now, right now, he is wrecking the economy and "real economists" agree. Not some hack organization from two years ago who issued a warning when he took office and hadn't even passed anything yet.

You got nothing.

 

[Trajan]

False. They are not taxed until they sell it, which could be different than $1M.


Yup, and lower than 35% and we haven't even talked about gas taxes yet, which hit the wealthy A LOT lower than the poor, or deductions.

Here's a secret, Virginia.

The poor pay higher taxes no matter how you tax. All taxes with the exception of the death tax are built into the price of products we buy. When you raise tax rates, it requires companies to pay more to overcome them. That drives up prices. So, the poor no matter what tax rate you have will pay the highest real tax rate because they spend 100% of their earnings. The rich don't, so they pay a lower rate. It also causes job loss, which hurts the poor.

In fact the fairest system for the poor is a flat consumption tax. They will still pay the highest real rate, but it gets the rate as flat as possible. You liked throwing out the GDP calculation yesterday to demonstrate your great knowledge of economics and intellect. I wasn't impressed, it was a basic calculation. Demonstrate you understood my argument, which BTW is based on basic economics.

I absolutely understand your argument and have used it myself many times as a rationale for why the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less.

I think we're on the same side here.

My point earlier was merely to counter the argument that wealthy people "pay 35% in taxes" which is not true.

hummmm, my stock options are taxed at the following rate-

Fed tax- 25%
Medicare 1.45%
Soc sec- 4.20%
CA state- 10.23%
CASDI- 1.2%

Total- 42.08

 

[bripat9643]

LOL!! That's from 2009 before the Recovery Act was even passed!

So?

Really?

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

That's what you said. As in now, right now, he is wrecking the economy and "real economists" agree. Not some hack organization from two years ago who issued a warning when he took office and hadn't even passed anything yet.

You got nothing.

Your desperation couldn't be more obvious. Do you actually believe any of the economists listed have changed their minds? No you don't, and no one else does either.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So?

Really?

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

That's what you said. As in now, right now, he is wrecking the economy and "real economists" agree. Not some hack organization from two years ago who issued a warning when he took office and hadn't even passed anything yet.

You got nothing.

Your desperation couldn't be more obvious. Do you actually believe any of the economists listed have changed their minds? No you don't, and no one else does either.

So, "real economists" make an opinion on a bill and its outcome, and then when faced with the reality of that outcome and the real numbers from it, they don't change their minds at all?

You're too funny!

 

[DontBeStupid]

Here's a secret, Virginia.

The poor pay higher taxes no matter how you tax. All taxes with the exception of the death tax are built into the price of products we buy. When you raise tax rates, it requires companies to pay more to overcome them. That drives up prices. So, the poor no matter what tax rate you have will pay the highest real tax rate because they spend 100% of their earnings. The rich don't, so they pay a lower rate. It also causes job loss, which hurts the poor.

In fact the fairest system for the poor is a flat consumption tax. They will still pay the highest real rate, but it gets the rate as flat as possible. You liked throwing out the GDP calculation yesterday to demonstrate your great knowledge of economics and intellect. I wasn't impressed, it was a basic calculation. Demonstrate you understood my argument, which BTW is based on basic economics.

I absolutely understand your argument and have used it myself many times as a rationale for why the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less.

I think we're on the same side here.

My point earlier was merely to counter the argument that wealthy people "pay 35% in taxes" which is not true.

hummmm, my stock options are taxed at the following rate-

Fed tax- 25%
Medicare 1.45%
Soc sec- 4.20%
CA state- 10.23%
CASDI- 1.2%

Total- 42.08

That sounds like short term capital gains and/or ordinary dividends, which of course, was not what I was referring to.

 

[bripat9643]

So, "real economists" make an opinion on a bill and its outcome, and then when faced with the reality of that outcome and the real numbers from it, they don't change their minds at all?

You're too funny!

What "reality of that outcome" or "real numbers" would cause them to change their minds?

 

[kaz]

False. They are not taxed until they sell it, which could be different than $1M.


Yup, and lower than 35% and we haven't even talked about gas taxes yet, which hit the wealthy A LOT lower than the poor, or deductions.

Here's a secret, Virginia.

The poor pay higher taxes no matter how you tax. All taxes with the exception of the death tax are built into the price of products we buy. When you raise tax rates, it requires companies to pay more to overcome them. That drives up prices. So, the poor no matter what tax rate you have will pay the highest real tax rate because they spend 100% of their earnings. The rich don't, so they pay a lower rate. It also causes job loss, which hurts the poor.

In fact the fairest system for the poor is a flat consumption tax. They will still pay the highest real rate, but it gets the rate as flat as possible. You liked throwing out the GDP calculation yesterday to demonstrate your great knowledge of economics and intellect. I wasn't impressed, it was a basic calculation. Demonstrate you understood my argument, which BTW is based on basic economics.

I absolutely understand your argument and have used it myself many times as a rationale for why the rich should pay more and the poor should pay less

Then no, you didn't understand it. OK, let's try this. Back up.

There are two workers, one has higher market skills. Let's say he's twice as valuable (measured in dollars) as the other and there are no taxes. So,

Worker A earns 100K, worker B earns 50K.

If government taxes all wages at 20% and you ignore the economic harm caused by the taxes, they both get raises:

Worker A earns 125K, with a 20% tax he still gets 100K after tax.
Worker A earns 62.5K, with a 20% tax he still gets 50K after tax.

If you tax only wages over 50K at 40%, now:

Worker A earns $167K, with 40% tax he still gets 100K after tax.
Worker B earns $50K, with 0% tax he still gets 50K after tax.

The point is that worker A is twice as valuable as worker B. And in the end, he gets twice the pay. By taxing him more, you only caused the company to continue to escalate his wages to make up for the disproportionate taxes. Which caused the company to raise prices and gave Democratic candidates great glee as they got to scream about the ever increasing gap between rich and poor when in fact their take home pay never changed.

Who paid the taxes in this case? The purchasers of the product of the company. Who pays the most consumption tax (as a percent)? People who spend the greatest portion of their wages, and the poorer you are the greater percent you spend. And the same happens with all taxes. The great liberal lie is that taxes are paid by the taxpayers. They aren't, they are paid by the purchasers of the product of the company they work for. Sorry, but it's inescapable. You don't make a worker less valuable by taxing them more, and therefore companies have to make up the difference and that is passed on to consumers.

 

[Provocateur]

LOL!! That's from 2009 before the Recovery Act was even passed!

So?

Really?

Real economists say he is wrecking the economy.

That's what you said. As in now, right now, he is wrecking the economy and "real economists" agree. Not some hack organization from two years ago who issued a warning when he took office and hadn't even passed anything yet.

You got nothing.

There is one man left standing of Obama's original economic team. Geitner. Thank God he has no plans to flee any time soon.










Oh wait.