millionaires 5.4 pct surtax

[chanel]

A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.

 

[ba1614]

Yeah, instead lets make the people who don't make any give it back

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

I don't give a **** what the bank tells you that you can afford. Is there no personal accountability to look at the numbers and and make a responsible decision on what you can afford? We laugh at this all the time! I know people that if the bank tells them they can have say $500 000, they'll try for $600 000!
I mean should a person really own a house if they can't decide for themselves that they can afford it?

 

[MaggieMae]

This is amazing to me. And what's more it really comes down to taxation without representation because you will be hard pressed to find any of our representatives who have actually read any of this bill let alone the cap and trade bill.

Add to that the news I saw last night that a company like Goldman Sachs earned over 2 billion in profit last year and didn't pay any tax and I'm left scratching my head.

My plan is to get out of debt asap and get some money into wealth securing assets and commodities because I have a feeling that the worse isn't over.

Since Goldman-Sachs recorded losses last year, it wouldn't pay certain taxes. However, it recently posted a sizeable profit, and paid back the TARP loan with interest, so the US taxpayer actually came out ahead. That's how the TARP money is supposed to work.

 

[Nik]

A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.

Unprecedented?

Do your research.

 

[MaggieMae]

A five percent tax increase on top of the income tax increases going into effect next year is unprecedented. But they will continue to gauge the rich until no one wants to produce anymore. I am starting to believe that Obama is deliberately destroying capitalism and is succeeding.The rich will always be an easy target because they are such a small minority. How much is fair? 50 percent 60 percent 99 percent.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always get the support of Paul.

That particular proposed tax increase will never happen.

If Obama were trying to destroy capitalism, he would have nationalized the banks, nationalized the auto industry, gone whole hog for a universal health care plan by nationalizing the medical industry. Instead, HIS proposal is to keep private insurers alive, just keep them honest with some competition. And THAT is the only health care initiative that stands a chance of passing--not any universal CARE as proposed by the House yesterday.

I understand the heroic view of capitalism that many embrace. Unfortunately, the Rand ideology makes it difficult for free market purists to accept that markets can be irrational, misallocate resources, misread the pulse of the public in favor of the bottom line. And especially that financial systems without vigorous government oversight and the capacity for pragmatic intervention constitutes a recipe for disaster, which is precisely what we are presently experiencing.

 

[MaggieMae]

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

I don't give a **** what the bank tells you that you can afford. Is there no personal accountability to look at the numbers and and make a responsible decision on what you can afford? We laugh at this all the time! I know people that if the bank tells them they can have say $500 000, they'll try for $600 000!
I mean should a person really own a house if they can't decide for themselves that they can afford it?

Good gawd, that argument is so old it's grown whiskers.

 

[Nik]

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

I don't give a **** what the bank tells you that you can afford. Is there no personal accountability to look at the numbers and and make a responsible decision on what you can afford? We laugh at this all the time! I know people that if the bank tells them they can have say $500 000, they'll try for $600 000!
I mean should a person really own a house if they can't decide for themselves that they can afford it?

So you believe in personal accountability for the people getting loans, but not for the banks?

Why are you so willing to excuse dishonest lending practices? Why don't you believe in personal responsibility?

Its not actually that easy to argue against a bank trying to lend you what they are essentially calling free money. Its hard to pass that up. And when house values are rising, you don't know that you can't afford it. In fact, if home values kept rising, people WOULD be able to afford these huge loans.

But yes...of course the person on the street should have known better than all the bankers that home prices would crash

 

[driveby]

Yeah, instead lets make the people who don't make any give it back

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the BANKS WERE PRESSURING THEM to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....

 

[Nik]

If the ones not making any weren't trying to live like they are making big money, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the BANKS WERE PRESSURING THEM to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

 

[driveby]

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the BANKS WERE PRESSURING THEM to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

 

[MaggieMae]

Actually a lot of the mortgages that went under were people who were making decent/good money. Besides that many of them weren't trying to live like they are making big money, the banks were pressuring them to get huge loans saying that they could easily make money on the houses.

I don't give a **** what the bank tells you that you can afford. Is there no personal accountability to look at the numbers and and make a responsible decision on what you can afford? We laugh at this all the time! I know people that if the bank tells them they can have say $500 000, they'll try for $600 000!
I mean should a person really own a house if they can't decide for themselves that they can afford it?

So you believe in personal accountability for the people getting loans, but not for the banks?

Why are you so willing to excuse dishonest lending practices? Why don't you believe in personal responsibility?

Its not actually that easy to argue against a bank trying to lend you what they are essentially calling free money. Its hard to pass that up. And when house values are rising, you don't know that you can't afford it. In fact, if home values kept rising, people WOULD be able to afford these huge loans.

But yes...of course the person on the street should have known better than all the bankers that home prices would crash

Actually, Nik, the banks themselves did not have a clue what was going on out on the street by real estate agents who deputized any slob without a license to get people to sign on the dotted line for a new mortgage and new home. Those "agents" then bundled them together and offered entire packages of bad loans (site unseen) as "securities" to be traded by Wall Street. Some of the review of these "securities" that's been going on over the last several months has revealed some shocking stuff: Mortgage applications that include ZERO INCOME, but approved anyway, for example. It's pathetic that the righteous righties continue to be so eager to blame the person dumb enough to sign on, rather than the blatant criminal activities of those who sucked them in to begin with.

 

[Nik]

Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

Pray tell how people were supposed to know that housing prices would crash?

 

[driveby]

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

Pray tell how people were supposed to know that housing prices would crash?

OMGNOWAY i didn't know either, please bail me out Obama !

 

[manu1959]

At one time the 26 top hedge fund managers were averaging $826 million dollars a year in income.

Income they stole with derivatives from ordinary people till their Ponzi scheme went dry.

And then the taxpayers bailed them out, so they could start again.

And someone has the nerve to call class envy?

I must have missed the part where thieves passed me on the class ladder.

that's the main reason i switched party affiliation.

so now you are a goldman sachs man....eh.....good for you....

 

[Navy1960]

This doesnt effect me yet , It will in the near future

House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said.

The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.

House bill to hit millionaires with 5.4 pct surtax | Markets | Markets News | Reuters
What is wrong with these kooks?

Interesting, from the same people who have brought you the Stimulus, the Auto bail-out, the proposed cap and trade bill, the Bank bail out, all of which done in a time when this country was suffering an economic down turn and have massive debts. Now they wish to over tax those that actually create the jobs in order to pay for healthcare. I see, what comes to mind in all this is when you open credit cards to pay off the balances of those you already have open, eventually the bill is going to come due. When it does look to Ca. to see what our nation will become, we will get to the point where our Govt. will start to issue IOU's to pay it's bills but then again we will have health insurance but no Doctors to accept it. I often wonder if these social engineer's have ever taken the time to actually read the contitution of this nation or are they so taken with "level playing fields" that they forget the concepts of hard work and self reliance.

 

[Nik]

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

Pray tell how people were supposed to know that housing prices would crash?

OMGNOWAY i didn't know either, please bail me out Obama !

So lets see....your blaming people for not knowing something you didn't know?

Alrighty then

 

[Sweet Willy]

Did the guy that traded Jack some "magic beans" for a cow own these banks ?.....

Probably not. As I remember the story, the beans were actually magic. The loans? Severely lacking in magic.

The loans are what they are, if you can't afford it, don't sign your name on the dotted line. I "qualified" for much higher, but stayed within what i knew were my means. This "predatory lending" whining is the biggest cop out ever........

The borrowers do make the ultimate decision but eager agents also do their part to tell you what you should be able to afford. They use one formula or another to figure if you can make the payment and you can bet that borrowers, who never have boght a house before and aren't sure if they can afford it, have been reassured by the agent that they should buy and buy now.....this house is a steal and will be worth twice as much in just two years!

The problem with this logic is the reality of risk. While a borrower who has little is risking very little, a lender who is handing out cash left and right, has everything to lose. It will always be relatively easy for someone with nothing to lose to risk that nothing. When those with a lot to lose begin to risk it with the same disregard as those with nothing....well.....howdy neighbor! Welcome to the poorhouse!

 

[Chris]

I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.

Bullshit.

Most jobs are created by small businesses, not the rich.

The rich have been screwing the middle class since Reagan was elected, and you dummies are so brainwashed that you don't even know it.

 

[Navy1960]

I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.

Bullshit.

Most jobs are created by small businesses, not the rich.

The rich have been screwing the middle class since Reagan was elected, and you dummies are so brainwashed that you don't even know it.

Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.
Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Chris what part of this don't you understand? rich in this case=small business owner. You said so yourself, most new jobs are created by small business and almost 70% of them file taxes on their business on individual returns. So you don't think this tax on these so called rich will have some effect on employment by these business owners?

 

[Nik]

I love how the right all parrot this talking point about how the rich create jobs.

Bullshit.

Most jobs are created by small businesses, not the rich.

The rich have been screwing the middle class since Reagan was elected, and you dummies are so brainwashed that you don't even know it.

Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate.
Democrats want to impose "surtax" to finance health care - WSJ.com

Chris what part of this don't you understand? rich in this case=small business owner. You said so yourself, most new jobs are created by small business and almost 70% of them file taxes on their business on individual returns. So you don't think this tax on these so called rich will have some effect on employment by these business owners?

Why debate an argument thats not actually in the bill?

The actual number in the bill is $350,000, not $280,000.