Obama Peddles Myths About Taxes And The Rich

[The Rabbi]

That is the CON$ervative agenda already. Thank you for admitting it.

The one and only progressive tax, the income tax, the GOP wants to cut and they want to raise all the regressive taxes to make up the difference. The GOP philosophy is punish the middle class worker. Capital gains tycoons are the ELITE and are too good to pay taxes, but the middle class wage earner deserves to be punished for their inferiority by paying all the taxes.

To CON$ the hard working wage earners are not "productive" and should be punished by the tax code, but capital gains tycoons are the only productive people and are therefore above paying taxes.

Excuse me but which party has been pushing for higher gas and oil prices? Yup the Dems. Talk about hurting working class people.
A CEO can create thousands of new jobs and make many many people millionaires. How many ditch diggers can do the same thing?

That's rich the clock punchers at Walmart are soon to be millionaires.

The funny thing is, every person I ever worked for swore up and down that they were POOR, so if the "rich" create jobs, they're not here in America!!!

What did I write that could possibly have prompted that response???

 

[Jarhead]

That is the CON$ervative agenda already. Thank you for admitting it.

The one and only progressive tax, the income tax, the GOP wants to cut and they want to raise all the regressive taxes to make up the difference. The GOP philosophy is punish the middle class worker. Capital gains tycoons are the ELITE and are too good to pay taxes, but the middle class wage earner deserves to be punished for their inferiority by paying all the taxes.

To CON$ the hard working wage earners are not "productive" and should be punished by the tax code, but capital gains tycoons are the only productive people and are therefore above paying taxes.

Excuse me but which party has been pushing for higher gas and oil prices? Yup the Dems. Talk about hurting working class people.
A CEO can create thousands of new jobs and make many many people millionaires. How many ditch diggers can do the same thing?

That's rich the clock punchers at Walmart are soon to be millionaires.

The funny thing is, every person I ever worked for swore up and down that they were POOR, so if the "rich" create jobs, they're not here in America!!!

Brother in Law
1983- Clock puncher at Macy's. Worked in Mens Furnishings.

1985- Due to a great attendance record, and solid work ethic, promoted to manager of Mens furnishings department

1986- Due to an obvious nterest in his career as he continually asked for additional trainig on the "buyer" side, promoted to buyer in the mens furnishings department

1990- After 4 successful years as a buyer, promoted to assistant director of buying in the NYC store

1996-Transferred to corporate to become the director of national retail buying...salary....175K

2005-Promoted to National Director or Retail operations...salary...325K

2010-Retired at the age of 52 with a solid pension, 2 homes a boat...and a creeer to look back on.

Started as a lowly clock puncher....but didnt cop an attitude about it.....opted to capitlaize on the opportunity instead.

 

[The Rabbi]

Excuse me but which party has been pushing for higher gas and oil prices? Yup the Dems. Talk about hurting working class people.
A CEO can create thousands of new jobs and make many many people millionaires. How many ditch diggers can do the same thing?

That's rich the clock punchers at Walmart are soon to be millionaires.

The funny thing is, every person I ever worked for swore up and down that they were POOR, so if the "rich" create jobs, they're not here in America!!!

Brother in Law
1983- Clock puncher at Macy's. Worked in Mens Furnishings.

1985- Due to a great attendance record, and solid work ethic, promoted to manager of Mens furnishings department

1986- Due to an obvious nterest in his career as he continually asked for additional trainig on the "buyer" side, promoted to buyer in the mens furnishings department

1990- After 4 successful years as a buyer, promoted to assistant director of buying in the NYC store

1996-Transferred to corporate to become the director of national retail buying...salary....175K

2005-Promoted to National Director or Retail operations...salary...325K

2010-Retired at the age of 52 with a solid pension, 2 homes a boat...and a creeer to look back on.

Started as a lowly clock puncher....but didnt cop an attitude about it.....opted to capitlaize on the opportunity instead.

Notice first that it took almost 25 years to achieve that. Success isn't overnight or dramatic. It's a matter of showing up on time, sober, and ready to work consistently. And it is amazing how many people cannot manage that.

 

[edthecynic]

The liar starts with an extremely accurate stat quoted by Obama, then changes its meaning by saying it "suggests" something it doesn't suggest!!! This is a standard lying technique of CON$.

The quote is accurately pointing out the fact that the effective tax rate on the top one percent is DOWN from 50 years ago. Using the same range as the deliberately deceptive graph, in 1980 the effective income tax rate on the top 1% was 22.3% and in 2008 it was down to 19%. The reason the graph deceptively shows them paying more is because they had more income. Their income went up more than their rates went down.

So, your complaint isn't that they rich aren't paying their fair share. Your complaint is that they are doing well and you want to destroy them. I've never seen such a contemptible display of envy in my life. You just made it apparent that the left's only motivation is to destroy those they envy. You are despicable.

An accurate interpretation of the graph is that the rich are reporting more income instead of diverting their wealth into tax shelters. That's the reason that lowering taxes can often increase government revenues. The liberal motive for raising taxes, on the other hand, is pure destruction.

BULLSHIT!

The wealthy will ALWAYS divert their income into shelters. You should know better than to swallow the crap your MessiahRushie feeds you.

Revenue went up temporarily because after lowering the cap gains tax the wealthy dumped their capital assets like real estate. Eventually, even after Bush' ADDI lowered the standards for no down payment loans to desperately boost the number of buyers, the market became saturated and the real esate bubble burst. Capital gains tax cuts always lead to a short term boom followed by a long term bust.

Cap gains taxes should always be high and never changed, to discourage speculation and encourage holding capital assets for the long term.

 

[edthecynic]

To give you an idea just how F***ed up they are, their income went up and their tax rate on that increased income went down and they are still whining and crying that it is still not enough!!!!!
These people suffer from a sickness that can never be cured. No matter how much they have, they always will want MORE!!!!!!!!!!

the rich aren't whining, dipshit. However, anyone with a brain opposes leftwing schemes to destroy the rich because that's synonymous with destroying the country and the market economy. stirring up envy against the rich is a ruse designed to give fascists like yourself the power to confiscate all our incomes. If you can destroy the rich, you can destroy us all.

Go fuck yourself.

The wealthy are always whining, However anyone with a brain opposes the Right wing schemes to destroy the middle class because that's synonymous with destroying the country and the market economy. Stirring up envy against the middle class is a ruse designed to give fascists like yourself the power to reduce all our incomes. If you can destroy the middle class, you can destroy us all.

 

[edthecynic]

That's rich the clock punchers at Walmart are soon to be millionaires.

The funny thing is, every person I ever worked for swore up and down that they were POOR, so if the "rich" create jobs, they're not here in America!!!

Brother in Law
1983- Clock puncher at Macy's. Worked in Mens Furnishings.

1985- Due to a great attendance record, and solid work ethic, promoted to manager of Mens furnishings department

1986- Due to an obvious nterest in his career as he continually asked for additional trainig on the "buyer" side, promoted to buyer in the mens furnishings department

1990- After 4 successful years as a buyer, promoted to assistant director of buying in the NYC store

1996-Transferred to corporate to become the director of national retail buying...salary....175K

2005-Promoted to National Director or Retail operations...salary...325K

2010-Retired at the age of 52 with a solid pension, 2 homes a boat...and a creeer to look back on.

Started as a lowly clock puncher....but didnt cop an attitude about it.....opted to capitlaize on the opportunity instead.

Notice first that it took almost 25 years to achieve that. Success isn't overnight or dramatic. It's a matter of showing up on time, sober, and ready to work consistently. And it is amazing how many people cannot manage that.

You're proof of that.

With CON$ it's always the EXCEPTION that proves the rule.

For every one person who works their way up from the bottom, there are a million good workers who don't advance because the number of management position are few in comparison. And for every person who works their way up from the bottom there are 10 who are unqualified to advance but have the connections to advance them. CON$ live in a Utopian dream world.

 

[expat_panama]

...I'm trying to think up a good side to this...

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed...

Logic is good and useful when applied to a question that we've picked for debate. Let's debate or agree on whether wealth creation is good or evil. That choice bears directs the selection of goals upon which a tax system is based.

 

[bripat9643]

With CON$ it's always the EXCEPTION that proves the rule.

For every one person who works their way up from the bottom, there are a million good workers who don't advance because the number of management position are few in comparison. And for every person who works their way up from the bottom there are 10 who are unqualified to advance but have the connections to advance them. CON$ live in a Utopian dream world.

Obviously, you're one of the people who don't advance.

You're a LOSER!

 

[bripat9643]

BULLSHIT!

The wealthy will ALWAYS divert their income into shelters. You should know better than to swallow the crap your MessiahRushie feeds you.

Yes, the wealthy will always divert their income into shelters, unless those shelters are taken away. That's what Reagan did in exchange for lower rates. Also, if rates are lower, then the rich will be willing to expose more of their income to taxation. The historical fact is that lower marginal rates produced more tax revenue.

Revenue went up temporarily because after lowering the cap gains tax the wealthy dumped their capital assets like real estate. Eventually, even after Bush' ADDI lowered the standards for no down payment loans to desperately boost the number of buyers, the market became saturated and the real esate bubble burst. Capital gains tax cuts always lead to a short term boom followed by a long term bust.

Cap gains taxes should always be high and never changed, to discourage speculation and encourage holding capital assets for the long term.

IN other words, the rich were willing to take their money out of unproductive assets and move them into assets the produce a better return. That makes the economy grow. Of course, spiteful envious nitwits like you would rather destroy the economy so you can take your venom out on the rich.

The ADDI did not lower any standards for lending. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Clinton lowered lending standards so banks could give mortgages to deadbeats who vote Democrat. Liberal turds keep trying to blame the sub-prime mortgage debacle on Bush, but only the mentally challenged are stupid enough to believe it.

High capital gains taxes discourage investment and thereby retard the growth of the economy. That means a lower standard of living for your children. I hope they realize what an asshole you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Logic is good and useful when applied to a question that we've picked for debate. Let's debate or agree on whether wealth creation is good or evil. That choice bears directs the selection of goals upon which a tax system is based.

Only a complete moron or a liberal would claim wealth creation is not a good thing.

 

[Jarhead]

Brother in Law
1983- Clock puncher at Macy's. Worked in Mens Furnishings.

1985- Due to a great attendance record, and solid work ethic, promoted to manager of Mens furnishings department

1986- Due to an obvious nterest in his career as he continually asked for additional trainig on the "buyer" side, promoted to buyer in the mens furnishings department

1990- After 4 successful years as a buyer, promoted to assistant director of buying in the NYC store

1996-Transferred to corporate to become the director of national retail buying...salary....175K

2005-Promoted to National Director or Retail operations...salary...325K

2010-Retired at the age of 52 with a solid pension, 2 homes a boat...and a creeer to look back on.

Started as a lowly clock puncher....but didnt cop an attitude about it.....opted to capitlaize on the opportunity instead.

Notice first that it took almost 25 years to achieve that. Success isn't overnight or dramatic. It's a matter of showing up on time, sober, and ready to work consistently. And it is amazing how many people cannot manage that.

You're proof of that.

With CON$ it's always the EXCEPTION that proves the rule.

For every one person who works their way up from the bottom, there are a million good workers who don't advance because the number of management position are few in comparison. And for every person who works their way up from the bottom there are 10 who are unqualified to advance but have the connections to advance them. CON$ live in a Utopian dream world.

The line in bold......your solution to this would be what?
More management positions?

The solution per individual is simple. Show a differential in the workplace and you will be one of those one in a million.
Problem is...most tend to use every sick day they are offered....every personal day.....every berevement day....every snow day....and yes, that is their "right".....but that is what puts them in a class with the masses and not get the recognition they desire.

As opposed to capitalizing on valid excuses to not have to go to work each should find ways TO get to work. Cant drive to work dues to snow? Call a cab...it will be worth it in the long run. Have a runny nose? Suck it up and show up. You will be commenbded for the effort.

 

[edthecynic]

...I'm trying to think up a good side to this...

Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed...

Logic is good and useful when applied to a question that we've picked for debate. Let's debate or agree on whether wealth creation is good or evil. That choice bears directs the selection of goals upon which a tax system is based.

The topic is taxes not wealth creation.
Try to divert again.

 

[edthecynic]

BULLSHIT!

The wealthy will ALWAYS divert their income into shelters. You should know better than to swallow the crap your MessiahRushie feeds you.

Yes, the wealthy will always divert their income into shelters, unless those shelters are taken away. That's what Reagan did in exchange for lower rates. Also, if rates are lower, then the rich will be willing to expose more of their income to taxation. The historical fact is that lower marginal rates produced more tax revenue.

More LimpTard bullshit! When St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981 revenue went DOWN, not up. Revenue didn't go up until AFTER Reagan RAISED taxes, and then it went up year after year as Reagan raised taxes year after year. What paid professional liars like your MessiahRushie do is include the increased revenue after Reagan raised taxes as revenue generated by Reagan's earlier failed tax cuts.

From the radical extremist Heritage foundation's own chart you can clearly see that revenue fell in 1982 and 1983 after Reagan's August 1981 tax cuts. After that Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and revenue went up.

 

[edthecynic]

Notice first that it took almost 25 years to achieve that. Success isn't overnight or dramatic. It's a matter of showing up on time, sober, and ready to work consistently. And it is amazing how many people cannot manage that.

You're proof of that.

With CON$ it's always the EXCEPTION that proves the rule.

For every one person who works their way up from the bottom, there are a million good workers who don't advance because the number of management position are few in comparison. And for every person who works their way up from the bottom there are 10 who are unqualified to advance but have the connections to advance them. CON$ live in a Utopian dream world.

The line in bold......your solution to this would be what?
More management positions?

What you emboldened is not a problem in need of a solution, it is merely a statement of fact. Statistically there will always be more workers than managers therefore many good workers will never be able to advance simply because the positions to advance to are not there.

 

[bripat9643]

What you emboldened is not a problem in need of a solution, it is merely a statement of fact. Statistically there will always be more workers than managers therefore many good workers will never be able to advance simply because the positions to advance to are not there.

Your belief that only managers make good money is the first erroneous premise in your post. The second is that becoming a manager is the only way to advance. Many people go out and start their own businesses.

You show all the classic symptoms of a loser resigned to his fate.

 

[edthecynic]

Revenue went up temporarily because after lowering the cap gains tax the wealthy dumped their capital assets like real estate. Eventually, even after Bush' ADDI lowered the standards for no down payment loans to desperately boost the number of buyers, the market became saturated and the real esate bubble burst. Capital gains tax cuts always lead to a short term boom followed by a long term bust.

Cap gains taxes should always be high and never changed, to discourage speculation and encourage holding capital assets for the long term.

IN other words, the rich were willing to take their money out of unproductive assets and move them into assets the produce a better return. That makes the economy grow. Of course, spiteful envious nitwits like you would rather destroy the economy so you can take your venom out on the rich.

The ADDI did not lower any standards for lending. You obviously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Clinton lowered lending standards so banks could give mortgages to deadbeats who vote Democrat. Liberal turds keep trying to blame the sub-prime mortgage debacle on Bush, but only the mentally challenged are stupid enough to believe it.

High capital gains taxes discourage investment and thereby retard the growth of the economy. That means a lower standard of living for your children. I hope they realize what an asshole you are.

You don't get to change my words to "other words."
If you want me to put my post "IN other words" they would be, the rich cash in their assets and move them overseas making foreign economies like Chins grow. Of course, ignorant gullible nitwits like you would rather destroy the American economy so you can take your venom out on the middle class.

And no it was Bush who lowered standards so banks could give mortgages to deadbeats so they would vote for him in 2004.
Bush changed the rules to allow no down payment loans for more than the house was worth to people with bad credit who could not keep up with the payments and who were at least 20% below the standard of living for the neighborhood they were buying into.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Home Ownership and President Bush[/ame]

USATODAY.com - Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership
Bush seeks to increase minority homeownership

By Thomas A. Fogarty, USA TODAY

In a bid to boost minority homeownership, President Bush will ask Congress for authority to eliminate the down-payment requirement for Federal Housing Administration loans.

In announcing the plan Monday at a home builders show in Las Vegas, Federal Housing Commissioner John Weicher called the proposal the "most significant FHA initiative in more than a decade." It would lead to 150,000 first-time owners annually, he said.

Nothing-down options are available on the private mortgage market, but, in general, they require the borrower to have pristine credit. Bush's proposed change would extend the nothing-down option to borrowers with blemished credit.

The FHA isn't a direct lender, but guarantees loan payments for mortgages on moderately priced owner-occupied property. The FHA guarantee now permits private lenders to finance as much as 97% of the purchase price of a home for millions of low- and middle-income borrowers.

In the proposal soon to be delivered to Congress, Bush would allow the FHA to guarantee loans for the full purchase price of the home, plus down-payment costs. As a practical matter, the FHA would guarantee mortgages as high as 103% of the value of the underlying property.


FHA loans carry higher risks of delinquency and foreclosure than do private mortgages, and the proposed change presumably will lead to greater losses to the government than the current program does.

 

[bripat9643]

More LimpTard bullshit! When St Ronnie cut taxes in 1981 revenue went DOWN, not up. Revenue didn't go up until AFTER Reagan RAISED taxes, and then it went up year after year as Reagan raised taxes year after year. What paid professional liars like your MessiahRushie do is include the increased revenue after Reagan raised taxes as revenue generated by Reagan's earlier failed tax cuts.

From the radical extremist Heritage foundation's own chart you can clearly see that revenue fell in 1982 and 1983 after Reagan's August 1981 tax cuts. After that Reagan raised taxes 8 times in 6 years and revenue went up.

Revenue went down because we were in a recession, nitwit. Revenue also went down in 2009, 2010. Was that because of tax cuts?

Reagan never raised taxes to the level they were at when he was inaugurated. The top marginal rate was 70% then. By the time his term was done, the top marginal rate was 28%. The fact is tax increases seldom generate the promised revenue because, as you readily concede, the rich have ways of shielding their income from taxation.

 

[beowolfe]

Sorry, all I need is to review the economic success of the US and it's clear to me that the bigger and stronger the middle class, the better everyone does. So, to get the deficit under control, yes, increase taxes on the top 1%. If we look back, lowering taxes on this group has not increased employment save when JFK did it and the highest bracket at that time was 71%. It's clear to me that stupidly high taxes on the rich hurt the economy and that stupidly low taxes on the rich hurt the economy. It's also clear to me that the Clinton rates were just about right.

 

[bripat9643]

The topic is taxes not wealth creation.
Try to divert again.

Only congenital imbeciles believe the two aren't intimately related.

 

[edthecynic]

What you emboldened is not a problem in need of a solution, it is merely a statement of fact. Statistically there will always be more workers than managers therefore many good workers will never be able to advance simply because the positions to advance to are not there.

Your belief that only managers make good money is the first erroneous premise in your post. The second is that becoming a manager is the only way to advance. Many people go out and start their own businesses.

You show all the classic symptoms of a loser resigned to his fate.

No that was not my premise. I challenged the claim that CEOs create many millionaires by pointing out that the time card punching wage earners do not become millionaires working the jobs CEOs create. A CON$ervative then used a single example of a time clock puncher becoming a millionaire after 25 years as if it was a common practice. So it was a CON$ervative who brought managers into the discussion.

And to your other point, if people go out and start their own business and become millionaires, again a rarity as most new businesses fail, then the CEO again did not make him a millionaire contradicting the original claim.