FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? [Archive]

RandomGuy

09-20-2011, 02:50 PM

FWIW, here is one of the major people involved in the Tax Policy Center, in his testimony before Congress:

In summary, here are my main points:

Economic theory suggests that the degree of progressivity should balance the gains from mitigating economic inequality and risk-sharing against the costs in terms of disincentives created by higher tax rates. The optimal top tax rate depends on social norms and the government's revenue needs.
Experience and a range of empirical evidence suggests that the rates in effect in the 1990s would not unduly diminish economic growth. However, a more efficient option would be to broaden the base (reform or eliminate tax expenditures and eliminate loopholes) to achieve distributional goals while keeping top rates relatively low.
The biggest loophole is the lower tax rate on capital gains. Several bipartisan tax reform plans, including the Bipartisan Policy Center plan that I contributed to, would tax capital gains at the same rate as other income. Combined with a substantial reduction in tax expenditures, this allows for a cut in top income rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system. That was also the approach taken by Ronald Reagan in 1986.
Different economists reach diametrically opposite conclusions about the taxation of dividends. I find most compelling a recent analysis that suggested that concerns about tax avoidance activities of multinationals (e.g., moving headquarters and jobs overseas) would argue for fully taxing dividends and using the revenue raised to cut corporate tax rates.
Finally, there has been much hand-wringing about lower-income families that don't pay income tax or even receive net subsidies. Some of these families are retired and I can't imagine that taxing them is feasible or desirable. The lower-income working families receive tax subsidies that encourage work, which is consistent with the prescriptions of optimal tax and transfer literature. To clarify the distinction between tax obligations and benefits, I suggest that the IRS produce a tax and subsidy report for all filers showing what their true tax liability is—before tax expenditures—as well as the value of their tax subsidies.
Bottom line: allowing the top tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels after the economy has recovered would not be economically disastrous and might help build support for tax reform that would broaden the base and lower rates while maintaining the progressivity of the tax system (and hopefully contribute to reducing the debt).

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=901447

Ignignokt

09-20-2011, 02:51 PM

lol drama

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 02:58 PM

carried interest - but that's not populist enough so it's called the buffet rule.

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 04:23 PM

In all fairness Buffett is technically correct. He pays a lower tax PERCENTAGE because he doesn't draw a normal salary and all his income is return from investments in companies and consequently taxed as capital gains.

Be careful what you ask for bitches. Assuming you make ANYTHING of your life you will more than likely eventually buy a house. You will probably take out a mortgage. That $150,000 house will cost you hundreds of thousands in interest and principal payments over the years. Meanwhile inflation will drive the "value" of that home to $300,000 in 20 years or so even though its still really worth the same since a gallon of milk now costs $12. When you eventually sell it, the difference in what you paid for it and what you sell it for is called "Capital Gains". Start taxing that as ordinary income and suddenly you are (for one year) in that "Millionaires Class" that makes more than $200,000 a year and the government will end up taking almost half of the difference between the selling price and the purchase price.

clambake

09-20-2011, 04:26 PM

150k house? thats not a house, thats a shed.

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 04:29 PM

150k house? thats not a house, thats a shed.

:lmao

I was trying to put it in numbers most of the so called intellectual liberals in here could actually conceive of making/spending.

boutons_deux

09-20-2011, 04:30 PM

Fact-Checking The Fact-Checkers: The AP Releases Misleading Analysis Of Obama’s Tax Plan

“AP’s ‘fact check’ misses the point of the Buffett rule. The point is not to ensure that rich people on average pay higher taxes than middle-class people on average,” but “to ensure that all households with incomes above $1 million pay at least what middle-class families are paying.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/20/324189/ap-fact-check-obama-taxes/

DarrinS

09-20-2011, 04:35 PM

Was anyone actually buying that bullshit about millionaires paying less taxes than secretaries?

Even the capital gains rate is probably more than the rate your typical secretary would have to pay.

vy65

09-20-2011, 04:37 PM

vy65

09-20-2011, 04:38 PM

Was anyone actually buying that bullshit about millionaires paying less taxes than secretaries?

Even the capital gains rate is probably more than the rate your typical secretary would have to pay.

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

25%>15%

lol probably

DarrinS

09-20-2011, 04:44 PM

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

25%>15%

lol probably

Guess it depends on if it is a short term capital gain or a long term.

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 04:51 PM

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

25%>15%

lol probably

Again in fairness (for the other side this time) the example was $50,000 GROSS. After deductions and credits they could easily be below the $34,500 threshold, and even if they aren't the ONLY thing getting taxed at 25% is what they made OVER $34,500.

15% of 50,000 @ 15% is $7500.

Most people GROSSING 50,000 in income aren't paying $7500 in income tax.

vy65

09-20-2011, 04:54 PM

Again in fairness (for the other side this time) the example was $50,000 GROSS. After deductions and credits they could easily be below the $34,500 threshold.

How would an individual get $15,500 worth of deductions?

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 05:02 PM

How would an individual get $15,500 worth of deductions?

Have you ever filed a tax return?

Individual itemized deduction, dependent deductions, mortgage interest deductions, child care credits etc.

Pretty easy, actually.

vy65

09-20-2011, 05:09 PM

Have you ever filed a tax return?

Individual itemized deduction, dependent deductions, mortgage interest deductions, child care credits etc.

Pretty easy, actually.

I haven't. But I do know that not many people who file singly can claim all those deductions together.

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 05:20 PM

If they had NO DEDUCTIONS they would still only pay the 25% rate on $15,000 which makes it what...$3750?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:47 PM

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:49 PM

If they had NO DEDUCTIONS they would still only pay the 25% rate on $15,000 which makes it what...$3750?

Wait, isn't it 25% on anywhere between $34,500 – $83,600?

vy65

09-20-2011, 05:52 PM

Wait, isn't it 25% on anywhere between $34,500 – $83,600?

We're assuming someone with a 50k salary. 50-35 = 15.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:53 PM

Have you ever filed a tax return?

Individual itemized deduction, dependent deductions, mortgage interest deductions, child care credits etc.

Pretty easy, actually.

Shit, if you rent your office space at $1K/mo, that's $12K in deductions right there.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:53 PM

We're assuming someone with a 50k salary. 50-35 = 15.

Why are you subtracting 35?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:55 PM

I don't think Cosmic is right that they get taxed only on what they made over 35.

Well, what I mean is, the below 35 also gets taxed, IIRC, at a lower rate.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:57 PM

0-8.5k = 10%
8.5k - 34.5k = 15%

ElNono

09-20-2011, 05:58 PM

Now, if you made your money from dividends, then brackets don't matter. You pay 15% over it, whatever the amount.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 06:04 PM

vy65

09-20-2011, 06:08 PM

ElNono

09-20-2011, 06:08 PM

A person grossing 100K:

( $ 8,025 minus 0 ) x .10 : 802.50
( 32,550 minus 8,025 ) x .15 : 3,678.75
( 65,725 minus 32,550 ) x .25 : 8,293.75
( 100,000 minus 65,725 ) x .28 : 9,597.00
Total: $ 22,372.00

The actual tax rate is about 22.37%

ElNono

09-20-2011, 06:12 PM

But you can offset your losses against your gains, right?

Yes. Also, if your ordinary income tax bracket is either 10% or 15%, then your capital gains tax rate is 0%. Anything higher it's 15%. Meaning, that if you made ALL your income from capital gains, then your tax rate is effectively zero.

Neat uh?

More details here (http://www.fairmark.com/capgain/capgain.htm)

CosmicCowboy

09-20-2011, 07:09 PM

Yes. Also, if your ordinary income tax bracket is either 10% or 15%, then your capital gains tax rate is 0%. Anything higher it's 15%. Meaning, that if you made ALL your income from capital gains, then your tax rate is effectively zero.

Neat uh?

More details here (http://www.fairmark.com/capgain/capgain.htm)

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your tax advice is pure bullshit.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 07:27 PM

A usually dependable lackey for the Obama administration, the Associated Press fact-checked his speech and came up with some interesting facts.

Of course, these are facts the Right has been holding out all along but, it's heartening to see the Left media is finally fed up with Obama.

FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries? (http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html)

Key grafs:

The 10 percent of households with the highest incomes pay more than half of all federal taxes. They pay more than 70 percent of federal income taxes, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
...
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.

This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.

Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.

Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
And, finally...

The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low- and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year.
When are they going to pay their fair share?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 07:36 PM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your tax advice is pure bullshit.

How so?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 07:36 PM

A usually dependable lackey for the Obama administration, the Associated Press fact-checked his speech and came up with some interesting facts.

You didn't read this thread, did you, yoni?

What do you think we're discussing?

MannyIsGod

09-20-2011, 07:38 PM

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your tax advice is pure bullshit.

Pretty sure your example of capital gains on a primary home sale was completely wrong so becareful about tossing around those stones.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 07:40 PM

You didn't read this thread, did you, yoni?

What do you think we're discussing?
Nope, didn't read it. Plus, it seemed to be off the rails anyway.

Let's get back to the elephant in the room. As Barack Obama said, back in 2009, raising taxes during a recession is stupid. Did we suddenly find ourselves in a better economic position than when he said that?

MannyIsGod

09-20-2011, 07:43 PM

Married couples get a 500,000 deduction on capital gains from a primary home sale and individuals get 250,000 assuming they've lived in it 2 years or have a qualifying exception.

http://taxes.about.com/od/taxplanning/qt/home_sale_tax.htm

ElNono

09-20-2011, 07:44 PM

Nope, didn't read it.

It shows. You just re-posted the same article that's on the OP.

Catch up.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 07:52 PM

It shows. You just re-posted the same article that's on the OP.
It didn't appear y'all were talking about the article any longer.

Catch up.
I'm up. The AP took Obama to the woodshed. The liberals are going to take him down themselves. It's a beautiful thing.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 07:54 PM

It didn't appear y'all were talking about the article any longer.

Actually, we were. You just didn't read.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 08:13 PM

they're not entitled to anything unless they can demonstrate they are on Buffetts level or contribution, if that's what you're saying.
I don't know what they are eliuding to, but I agree...

If we are to believe he pays less a percentage than his secretary, I want to see his return so I know he's not blowing some of that liberal hot air.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 08:28 PM

How would an individual get $15,500 worth of deductions?
Not likely that much, but 15% to a 401k would be $7500 of it. If you are older than 50, you can contribute more than 15% also. Interest on mortgages are deductibles, and charities. Health insurance and other things are also deductible.

Some families are better filing with itemized deductions rather than the standard deductions. It can happen, but not typical for the $50k wage earner.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 08:42 PM

I don't know what they are eliuding to, but I agree...

What's eliuding? Or do you mean alluding?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 08:51 PM

Actually, we were. You just didn't read.
No mention of the article, or its contents, on this page. How far back would I have to go?

So, you want to spend another page or two bickering about how I stepped in and brought the topic back around to the OP or, do you want to talk about the OP?

The Associated Press showed President Obama's speech was fact-challenged (to be kind).

On average, people making over a million dollars, pay 29% of their income in taxes. Everyone else pays from about 15% down to zero.

I'd also like for the administration to define, "fair share." At what point would the "rich" pay their fair share? Also, since when did people making $250,000 and above get lumped into the term millionaire and billionaire?

These are subjects germane to the OP, not whether or not your tax advice is bullshit. Because, that's where I stepped in and tried to bring the thread back to the OP; and, that's when you went into normal Yoni-flaming.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:05 PM

25% Bracket $34,500 – $83,600

25%>15%

lol probably
Depends on the example.

Your 25% bracket is the marginal rate.

A $50k single earner, family of 3, with only the standard deduction and exemptions would have a taxable income of $27,650. The 2010 tax table gives a taxable of $3,314. This is 6.63% tax.

Take it to $80k and a family of 4. Taxable income is $54,000, and only $7,266. The tax rate is 9.08% even though it's at the 25% marginal.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 09:08 PM

No mention of the article, or its contents, on this page. How far back would I have to go?

So, you want to spend another page or two bickering about how I stepped in and brought the topic back around to the OP or, do you want to talk about the OP?

The Associated Press showed President Obama's speech was fact-challenged (to be kind).

On average, people making over a million dollars, pay 29% of their income in taxes. Everyone else pays from about 15% down to zero.

I'd also like for the administration to define, "fair share." At what point would the "rich" pay their fair share? Also, since when did people making $250,000 and above get lumped into the term millionaire and billionaire?

These are subjects germane to the OP, not whether or not your tax advice is bullshit. Because, that's where I stepped in and tried to bring the thread back to the OP; and, that's when you went into normal Yoni-flaming.

It's called the fucking Buffett Rule. I think it's pretty clear Obama is referring to the carried interest loophole when he refers to millionaires (hedge fund managers) paying a lower percentage than their secretaries.

Are you seriously this dense or just completely blinded by your hatred for the POTUS?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:11 PM

So, a person grossing 50K would pay:

10% on the first 8.5K = $850
15% on the 8.5K-34.5K (26K) = $3900
25% on the remaining $15.5K = $3875

Total tax: $8625 which is a little over 17% nominal

That's with no deductions, obviously. I don't think you get to write off deductions from dividends though.
You forgot the standard deduction and exemption. Even a single person with the 2010 tax tables would have only a $40,650 taxable. Tax would be $6,338, or 12.68%.

Now riddle me this....

Why should a person be taxed less to have children? Why should the $50k single earner pay $6,338 but if he's married with a child, only pay $3,314?

Really now... Why this entitlement mentality?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 09:14 PM

It's called the fucking Buffett Rule. I think it's pretty clear Obama is referring to the carried interest loophole when he refers to millionaires (hedge fund managers) paying a lower percentage than their secretaries.

Are you seriously this dense or just completely blinded by your hatred for the POTUS?
Apples and Oranges.

Fact remains, people making over a million dollars have 1/3 of their income confiscated while everyone else hands over 1/2 that or less, all the way down to nothing.

Please define "fair share."

When are the 46% that pay nothing going to be hit up for their "fair share?"

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:15 PM

What's eliuding? Or do you mean alluding?
I stand corrected...

I have stated at least once, probably several times that English was my worse subject in school.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 09:26 PM

Apples and Oranges.

Fact remains, people making over a million dollars have 1/3 of their income confiscated while everyone else hands over 1/2 that or less, all the way down to nothing.

Please define "fair share."

When are the 46% that pay nothing going to be hit up for their "fair share?"

Incorrect. Not hedge fund managers and others who are privileged enough to take advantage of the carried interest loophole.

WRT fair share and the 46% that pay no income taxes, please refer to ability to pay.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 09:30 PM

Incorrect. Not hedge fund managers and others who are privileged enough to take advantage of the carried interest loophole.

WRT fair share and the 46% that pay no income taxes, please refer to ability to pay.
On average, people making more than a million dollars a year have 29% of their income confiscated.

WRT fair share, I have a hard time believing 46% of the public cannot afford to pay something.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:34 PM

I can see having a minimum tax for everyone.

No matter your deductions, everyone pays at least 10% of their gross.

Does that fix this problem liberals see?

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 09:40 PM

On average, people making more than a million dollars a year have 29% of their income confiscated.

WRT fair share, I have a hard time believing 46% of the public cannot afford to pay something.

We're not talking about millionaires on average. As I mentioned, it's called the Buffett Rule because he's specifically referring to the people who pay less by taking advantage of the carried interest loophole. He's calling to close a specific loophole.

Whether or not you believe 46% cannot afford to pay is irrelevant. It's the current tax code.

I don't particularly care for Obama's proposal, but it is a response to the republicans unwillingness to budge on tax increases. It's now political because the republicans refused to give anything during the debt celing negotiations.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:44 PM

No mention of the article, or its contents, on this page.

Sure there is. The article makes a proposition, and we're testing it with the current tax rates. Your loss if you didn't follow.

Basically, the article is right and wrong. Depends on the situation. Under certain conditions, the rich are taxed less (percentage wise) than secretaries. The point of contention here is the 15% long-term capital gains tax.

Which IIRC, that's what Buffet was alluding to.

Catch up.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:46 PM

You forgot the standard deduction and exemption.

No, I didn't. We're discussing specifically the case where that money is taxable after deductions. You need to catch up to what we were talking about too.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 09:47 PM

We're not talking about millionaires on average. As I mentioned, it's called the Buffett Rule because he's specifically referring to the people who pay less by taking advantage of the carried interest loophole. He's calling to close a specific loophole.

Whether or not you believe 46% cannot afford to pay is irrelevant. It's the current tax code.

I don't particularly care for Obama's proposal, but it is a response to the republicans unwillingness to budge on tax increases. It's now political because the republicans refused to give anything during the debt celing negotiations.
I don't care to whom he is referring.

When a small segment of society is paying twice the rate, in taxes, as their closest competitor and, when that means they're paying a butt load more than everyone else (because 29% of a million is a tad more than 15% of $150K), that's inherently unfair.

Why should the people who fuel the economic engine of this country be forced to pay more to a government that only wastes the money it receives? (See Solyndra)

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:47 PM

Apples and Oranges.

Not really. Depends on where their income comes from.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:47 PM

I don't care to whom he is referring.

You should, yoni. After all, aren't you criticizing him?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:48 PM

Does that fix this problem liberals see?

No. And the problem has nothing to do with liberals/conservatives.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:50 PM

No, I didn't. We're discussing specifically the case where that money is taxable after deductions. You need to catch up to what we were talking about too.
You keep up.

You said $50k gross, and based the taxable wrong off that.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:52 PM

No. And the problem has nothing to do with liberals/conservatives.
I know you mean something different, but why do liberals think the poor are entitled to pay no taxes?

I'm sorry, but why shouldn't everyone simply pay the same percentage?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:54 PM

You keep up.

You said $50k gross, and based the taxable wrong off that.

That's with no deductions, obviously.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 09:56 PM

You should, yoni. After all, aren't you criticizing him?
I'm not the only one criticizing him. Hell, his own party doesn't give this piece of shit tax plan a chance. Cutting spending is the only sane thing to do. By the way, what happened to the rational Obama who said, back in 2009, that raising taxes during a recession was stupid?

But, for the sake of argument, let's look at his go to analogy when describing this to the public.

Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher rate in taxes than does Mr. Buffett himself.

That can only mean one thing; he pays her more than $100K because that's the salary he pays himself.

Not a bad gig...neither of them should be bitching. And, Mr. B. is free to start writing checks to the U. S. Treasury if he doesn't think he's paying enough to Uncle Sam. But, perhaps, first he could get his company to quit fighting the IRS on back taxes owed (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html) for almost a decade.

He's intentionally conflating the two types of taxes with the hope of confusing the public into believe Buffett's secretary pays more in taxes than does Warren.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:57 PM

I know you mean something different, but why do liberals think the poor are entitled to pay no taxes?

That's not what we're discussing here. I think we've had this conversation on a different thread.

You (should) already know I'm for everyone having at least a modicum of skin in the game.

I'm sorry, but why shouldn't everyone simply pay the same percentage?

Not really. Different people make different money and have different needs.
You're trying to apply a fairly simplistic solution to a complex problem.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 09:57 PM

That's with no deductions, obviously.
The standard deduction and exemption is not the same as what is called a deductible.

Admit it, you made a simple mistake. To do otherwise proves a hard head, not willing to admit a simple mistake, and makes people assume you were purposely misdirecting people.

Can you say propaganda?

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 09:58 PM

Why should the people who fuel the economic engine of this country be forced to pay more to a government that only wastes the money it receives? (See Solyndra)

Because they're not fueling the economic engine sufficiently. They're hoarding money and it's not trickling down as was the premise of the tax cuts in the first place. Because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, the government now has to step in and confiscate their money to redistribute it to those those that will actually create demand. Unfortunately, that's not efficient, but I am all for looking to make government more efficient at redistributing that wealth.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 09:59 PM

I'm not the only one criticizing him.

So you are criticizing him, and obviously without a basis, seeing you "don't care what he's referring to".

Please do keep on ranting, old man

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:01 PM

So you are criticizing him, and obviously without a basis, seeing you "don't care what he's referring to".

Please do keep on ranting, old man
At what point will the rich be paying their fair share?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:02 PM

The standard deduction and exemption is not the same as what is called a deductible.

Admit it, you made a simple mistake. To do otherwise proves a hard head, not willing to admit a simple mistake, and makes people assume you were purposely misdirecting people.

Can you say propaganda?

:lol I did the math on CosmicCowboy's example.

lol conspiracies

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 10:02 PM

At what point will the rich be paying their fair share?

When they begin fueling the economic engine sufficiently.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:03 PM

At what point will the rich be paying their fair share?

Some already might be. Some are not.

At which point will both parties agree to close the tax loopholes abused by some?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:03 PM

Because they're not fueling the economic engine sufficiently. They're hoarding money and it's not trickling down as was the premise of the tax cuts in the first place. Because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, the government now has to step in and confiscate their money to redistribute it to those those that will actually create demand. Unfortunately, that's not efficient, but I am all for looking to make government more efficient at redistributing that wealth.
Wow! That's a mouth full of socialism.

And, they're "not holding up their end of the bargain" because this President has socked them with a flurry of policies and regulations that still have them wondering how they're going to pay for them. Obamacare being chief among them.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:05 PM

Some already might be. Some are not.

At which point will both parties agree to close the tax loopholes abused by some?
I'm all for a consumption tax, like the Fair Tax.

At which point will government stop spending so much? You can't tax yourself to prosperity. Taking more money from the private sector will not spur economic growth.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:05 PM

Because they're not fueling the economic engine sufficiently. They're hoarding money and it's not trickling down as was the premise of the tax cuts in the first place.
And who the fuck are you to dictate how they spend their money... if that;'s where you are going?

Who the fuck if evil enough to believe other people's money belongs to everyone?

Because they're not holding up their end of the bargain, the government now has to step in and confiscate their money to redistribute it to those those that will actually create demand.
The money is used one way or another.

If saved, it supplies money to be borrowed.

Oft times, it is capital invested in start up companies.

Unfortunately, that's not efficient, but I am all for looking to make government more efficient at redistributing that wealth.
If you really believe that, then you are a threat to America. like other liberals.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:05 PM

So you agree that the tax cuts to prop up the economy have been nothing but a con job? Thanks, yoni

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 10:06 PM

Wow! That's a mouth full of socialism.

And, they're "not holding up their end of the bargain" because this President has socked them with a flurry of policies and regulations that still have them wondering how they're going to pay for them. Obamacare being chief among them.

How many jobs were created under the bush administration?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:07 PM

I'm all for a consumption tax, like the Fair Tax.

At which point will government stop spending so much? You can't tax yourself to prosperity. Taking more money from the private sector will not spur economic growth.

No, I'm talking about loopholes that allow GE to pay no taxes at all, or Google to pay a much smaller nominal tax than 35% (or whatever the corp tax currently is).

Yoni, were you asking when the government would stop spending so much when they passed an unfunded obligation like Medicare Part D? Do you realize that's as much, if not more, costly than Obamacare?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:08 PM

Not really. Different people make different money and have different needs.
You're trying to apply a fairly simplistic solution to a complex problem.
I simply belive in fairness. Your solution is class warfare.

At what percentage do you finally decide the rich pay enough?

Admit it It is based on jealousy that you believe rich people should pay a higher tax rate.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:09 PM

I simply belive in fairness. Your solution is class warfare.

The current tax code isn't "my solution". I do think it could use a few tweaks and closing a few loopholes, but overall I find it fairly fair.

lol parts changer talking about jealousy

lol waiting for a bone

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:13 PM

No, I'm talking about loopholes that allow GE to pay no taxes at all, or Google to pay a much smaller nominal tax than 35% (or whatever the corp tax currently is).

Yoni, were you asking when the government would stop spending so much when they passed an unfunded obligation like Medicare Part D? Do you realize that's as much, if not more, costly than Obamacare?
Well, when GE and Google quit employing people and pumping billions into the economy, I'll start bitching.

How 'bout that Solyndra, eh? $535 Million of our money and how many people do they now employ?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:14 PM

The government isn't getting too little in taxes, they're spending too much.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 10:14 PM

And who the fuck are you to dictate how they spend their money... if that;'s where you are going?

Who the fuck if evil enough to believe other people's money belongs to everyone?

The Bush Tax cut were temporary. We tried the trickle down thing and it failed, so now it's time to let them expire. The 'job creators' didn't hold up their end of the bargin. The job creators fault tbh.

The money is used one way or another.

If saved, it supplies money to be borrowed.

Oft times, it is capital invested in start up companies.

The money is invested where it will get the highest return, which increasingly, is not in America.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:15 PM

Well, when GE and Google quit employing people and pumping billions into the economy, I'll start bitching.

They did. GE just moved their entire X-Ray division to China.
I didn't remember you complaining, yoni.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:16 PM

The government isn't getting too little in taxes, they're spending too much.

They're getting the least ever. Fact.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 10:16 PM

The government isn't getting too little in taxes, they're spending too much.

How many jobs were created under the bush administration?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:22 PM

They're getting the least ever. Fact.
They are getting less than ever because they have run the jobs out of this country. Not because of tax rates or deductions. Less taxes equal more economic activity, and the feds still get about the same percentage. That assumes relatively stable jobs.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:24 PM

They're getting the least ever. Fact.
I don't know if that's true but, if so, good. When you have $535 Million to flush down the toilet, you should have your paycheck cut.

baseline bum

09-20-2011, 10:24 PM

I stand corrected...

I have stated at least once, probably several times that English was my worse subject in school.

Wow, it was even worse than your math?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:24 PM

They did. GE just moved their entire X-Ray division to China.
I didn't remember you complaining, yoni.
Can't say as I blame them as this point. The still employ more people than any of Obama's jobs initiatives.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:26 PM

Isn't GE's CEO something in the Obama administration?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:29 PM

Can't say as I blame them as this point. The still employ more people than any of Obama's jobs initiatives.

You don't need to apologize for subsidizing their move to China, yoni.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:30 PM

They are getting less than ever because they have run the jobs out of this country.

Nope. The current tax rates are historically the lowest ever.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:31 PM

I don't know if that's true but, if so, good.

So you don't know what you're talking about. Again. See what I mean when I talk about reasonableness?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:33 PM

Nope. The current tax rates are historically the lowest ever.
Are you saying the unemployment rate has no effect of tax revenues?

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 10:39 PM

Are you saying the unemployment rate has no effect of tax revenues?

Of course it does. Please provide your specific proposals for reducing the unemployment rate. Let me guess, tariffs so we can bring all those manufacturing jobs back to the US? A good healthy dose of protectionism?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:44 PM

Of course it does. Please provide your specific proposals for reducing the unemployment rate. Let me guess, tariffs so we can bring all those manufacturing jobs back to the US? A good healthy dose of protectionism?
I see you have forgotten things I have said in the past.

We need to lower the taxes on the rich and corporations, but eliminate most deductions. Make things equal.

We need to alter these trade agreements as needed to protect jobs here. Our founding fathers specifically mention tariffs.

We need to do all we can within reason to bring manufacturing jobs back. This petty quibbling and class warfare makes things worse. not better. Alkof you advocating taxing the rich more, are part of the voices sending jobs overseas.

Fuck all of you with that attitude.

The truth is so simple. We need more tax payers. Not higher tax rates.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:46 PM

So you don't know what you're talking about. Again. See what I mean when I talk about reasonableness?
That I don't know whether or not tax revenues are at their lowest point ever doesn't change my position the government is still getting too much in taxes if they're able to throw $535 Million at a company they knew would belly up.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:47 PM

You don't need to apologize for subsidizing their move to China, yoni.
I don't intend to.

Now, if Obama would let Boeing move to the Carolinas.

scott

09-20-2011, 10:48 PM

Quite clearly, Obama was not trying to infer that all billionaires paid less in income taxes than all their secretaries. It's as intellectually dishonest to make such an absurd statement as it is to accuse someone of making the statement. And of course it all stems from a statement Warren Buffet made that, without context, sounds more damning than it really is:

Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office.

Of course, I'm willing to bet that the other 20 people in his office make quite a bit of money (even his secretary) and Buffet does quite a bit of charitable giving to offset quite a bit of his income (in addition to other ways of offsetting income).

I, and everyone else with a brain, understood the point to be one that I believe Wild Cobra has been making for quite some time: the tax code is full of loopholes that distort the original intention of the tax code.

Some of these loopholes are progressive (the standard deduction and personal exemption, child credit, marriage credit) meaning that their significance is diminished as one's income increases; whereas others are regressive (their impact increased as income increases) either explicitly (social security & the separate rate for capital gains, for example) or implicitly (the home interest deduction chief among them - since people on low ends of the income spectrum generally cannot afford to buy a house thus cannot ever have this exemption).

So, in the context of a discussion of increasing revenue (which is not a discussion of cutting spending) - there are generally two options (ignoring the theoretical Laffer Curve for simplicity): 1) Raise rates 2) Reduce exemptions.

The United States has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world and the top marginal rate kicks in at the highest level of the world, (a very good study on tax rates across the world here (http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Individual-Income-Tax-oct-2010.pdf)) and it has only been getting lower at the top end. Take a look at what's happened to the effective rate paid by the Top 400 Richest Filers. (http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html)

Since 2001, the top earners have enjoyed lower effective tax rates and have gained an increasingly large share of the nation's wealth, but have actually have seen their share of individual federal income taxes collected increase.

Some historical data (I wish I could just insert a table, would make this a lot easier. Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13):

In 1979, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 45.5% of the nation's income and accounted for 64.9% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 15.7%.

In 1997, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.6% of the nation's income and accounted for 78.2% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 16.4%.

In 2000, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 54.8% of the nation's income and accounted for 81.2% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 17.5%.

In 2001, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.3% of the nation's income and accounted for 82.4% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 16.3%.

In 2003, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.1% of the nation's income and accounted for 84.8% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 13.7.

In 2007 (the last year for which the study has been completed), the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 55.9% of the nation's income and accounted for 86.0% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 14.4%.

Meanwhile, in quite the interesting conundrum, the 3rd Quintile (the middle 20% or "median" group) have seen their effective federal income tax rates fall (7.5% in 1979, 5.6% in 1997, 5.0% in 2000, 3.9% in 2001, 2.8% in 2003, 3.3% in 2007) as well as their share of the tax burden (10.7%, 7.2%, 5.7%, 5.3%, 4.7%, 4.6%) but the gain of wealth in top 20% has come at their partially expense.

One thing the data seems to illustrate is that our top earners, effective tax rates are operating at a point along the Laffer Curve which is relatively inelastic, and thus increases or decreases to effective tax rates will have little impact on the tax base (the income of those earners).

In my opinion, it is important for the United States to maintain its relatively low tax rates compared to the rest of the world. However it is also important to raise more revenue and the data indicates the top earners could withstand an increase to their effective rate. One way to do that is closing loopholes and exemptions, which effects all tax payers, but would likely have a progressive effect (have a larger effect on high earners than low earners).

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:49 PM

What does this:

Nope. The current tax rates are historically the lowest ever.

has to do with this:

Are you saying the unemployment rate has no effect of tax revenues?

????

I know you're dying to take the conversation somewhere else. Either that, or your English classes were really terrible.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:49 PM

I don't intend to.

You already did.

scott

09-20-2011, 10:50 PM

We need to lower the taxes on the rich and corporations, but eliminate most deductions. Make things equal.

Just so I'm clear, you understand this would likely result in a higher effective tax rate for this payers, correct? And you are okay with that?

This isn't a gotcha question, this is a sincere one.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 10:52 PM

What does this:

has to do with this:

????

I know you're dying to take the conversation somewhere else. Either that, or your English classes were really terrible.
It seems to me you are atrributing the loss of revenue to tax rates, when history would say otherwise. I am pointing out that not just unemployment, but the loss of so many blue collar jobs, are the reason we have such a poor revenue. We lost too many tax payers, and you simply cannot make it up with higher rates. It will work the first year or two, then drop again as the economy adjusts to higher tax rates and lower personal spending.

Buy a clue...

Look at the root problems, and stop applying bandages to symptoms.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:53 PM

Quite clearly, Obama was not trying to infer that all billionaires paid less in income taxes than all their secretaries. It's as intellectually dishonest to make such an absurd statement as it is to accuse someone of making the statement. And of course it all stems from a statement Warren Buffet made that, without context, sounds more damning than it really is:

Of course, I'm willing to bet that the other 20 people in his office make quite a bit of money (even his secretary) and Buffet does quite a bit of charitable giving to offset quite a bit of his income (in addition to other ways of offsetting income).

I, and everyone else with a brain, understood the point to be one that I believe Wild Cobra has been making for quite some time: the tax code is full of loopholes that distort the original intention of the tax code.

Some of these loopholes are progressive (the standard deduction and personal exemption, child credit, marriage credit) meaning that their significance is diminished as one's income increases; whereas others are regressive (their impact increased as income increases) either explicitly (social security & the separate rate for capital gains, for example) or implicitly (the home interest deduction chief among them - since people on low ends of the income spectrum generally cannot afford to buy a house thus cannot ever have this exemption).

So, in the context of a discussion of increasing revenue (which is not a discussion of cutting spending) - there are generally two options (ignoring the theoretical Laffer Curve for simplicity): 1) Raise rates 2) Reduce exemptions.

The United States has one of the lowest effective tax rates in the world and the top marginal rate kicks in at the highest level of the world, (a very good study on tax rates across the world here (http://www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/Individual-Income-Tax-oct-2010.pdf)) and it has only been getting lower at the top end. Take a look at what's happened to the effective rate paid by the Top 400 Richest Filers. (http://www.quickanded.com/2010/02/effective-tax-rates-of-the-richest-400-americans.html)

Since 2001, the top earners have enjoyed lower effective tax rates and have gained an increasingly large share of the nation's wealth, but have actually have seen their share of individual federal income taxes collected increase.

Some historical data (I wish I could just insert a table, would make this a lot easier. Source: http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13):

In 1979, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 45.5% of the nation's income and accounted for 64.9% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 15.7%.

In 1997, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.6% of the nation's income and accounted for 78.2% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 16.4%.

In 2000, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 54.8% of the nation's income and accounted for 81.2% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 17.5%.

In 2001, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.3% of the nation's income and accounted for 82.4% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 16.3%.

In 2003, the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 52.1% of the nation's income and accounted for 84.8% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 13.7.

In 2007 (the last year for which the study has been completed), the top 20% of earners in the US accounted for 55.9% of the nation's income and accounted for 86.0% of the nation's federal income tax receipts paying an effective federal income tax rate of 14.4%.

Meanwhile, in quite the interesting conundrum, the 3rd Quintile (the middle 20% or "median" group) have seen their effective federal income tax rates fall (7.5% in 1979, 5.6% in 1997, 5.0% in 2000, 3.9% in 2001, 2.8% in 2003, 3.3% in 2007) as well as their share of the tax burden (10.7%, 7.2%, 5.7%, 5.3%, 4.7%, 4.6%) but the gain of wealth in top 20% has come at their partially expense.

One thing the data seems to illustrate is that our top earners, effective tax rates are operating at a point along the Laffer Curve which is relatively inelastic, and thus increases or decreases to effective tax rates will have little impact on the tax base (the income of those earners).

In my opinion, it is important for the United States to maintain its relatively low tax rates compared to the rest of the world. However it is also important to raise more revenue and the data indicates the top earners could withstand an increase to their effective rate. One way to do that is closing loopholes and exemptions, which effects all tax payers, but would likely have a progressive effect (have a larger effect on high earners than low earners).
You just spent more time on a reasonable response than this forum deserves.

While it is your opinion the top earners could withstand an increase to their effective rate, is it also reasonable to hold the position it is irresponsible to tax top earners more when it is obvious the government does not plan to employ the additional revenue in any manner that will improve our economic position?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:55 PM

It seems to me you are atrributing the loss of revenue to tax rates, when history would say otherwise.

No, I'm stating that the current tax rates are the lowest historically ever. That undeniably affects the tax receipts.

I don't know what's not clear on this:

The current tax rates are historically the lowest ever.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 10:56 PM

You couple that with out of control spending, and it's a recipe for disaster. But you can't just fix this with just one side only. You're going to need both cuts and higher taxes.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 10:59 PM

You couple that with out of control spending, and it's a recipe for disaster. But you can't just fix this with just one side only. You're going to need both cuts and higher taxes.
Sure you can. If you go back to just 2004 spending levels, you arrive at a budget that would result in a surplus of revenue.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:02 PM

We need to alter these trade agreements as needed to protect jobs here. Our founding fathers specifically mention tariffs.

Okay, so I actually have a few more questions I want to ask.

I'm largely against trade restrictions of all kinds, based on the general theory of trade that it allows for a greater consumption possibilities frontier (and I believe consumption is the true measure of standard of living, not production - if there is disagreement we can discuss).

Building restrictions to trade for protectionist reasons may sound good, but it will eventually restrict the consumption possibilities available to us, and thus lower our standard of living. Why is this something we want?

We need to do all we can within reason to bring manufacturing jobs back. This petty quibbling and class warfare makes things worse. not better. Alkof you advocating taxing the rich more, are part of the voices sending jobs overseas.

Why are manufacturing jobs so important? I realize because of your profession you may put an emphasis on them, but why do you want to be a nation of manufacturers? What is the appeal? Physical capital will continue to replace human capital in the manufacturing process worldwide (especially where it is more cost efficient to do so) and eventually "manufacturing jobs" will be altogether obsolete. Why cater to that rather than focus on the next era of employment? Keep in mind, even if human capital were not less expensive on a real basis abroad, physical capital is competitive with human capital at home - so unless American workers want to accept lower real wages, they are going to have a hard time competing.

The truth is so simple. We need more tax payers. Not higher tax rates.

When I hear "tax rates" I always think of real, effective rates - not the marginal rates that we allow so much wiggle room in, so I'll allow you to answer my other question before I add more. However, I did want to point out that a recent study showed that the proposed tax increase on earners over $250k would generate $700 billion in tax revenue of 10 years. Meanwhile, if we took 50% of all of the assets owned by the ~50% of people who pay no income taxes we would generate... $700 billion.

So my question is this: obviously it isn't about generating the most revenue (since the small increase on the "wealthy" would generate the same as taking half of what the bottom 50% owns), so is it simply a matter of principle? Serious question.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:02 PM

Sure you can. If you go back to just 2004 spending levels, you arrive at a budget that would result in a surplus of revenue.

Nope.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:03 PM

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 11:04 PM

You just spent more time on a reasonable response than this forum deserves.

While it is your opinion the top earners could withstand an increase to their effective rate, is it also reasonable to hold the position it is irresponsible to tax top earners more when it is obvious the government does not plan to employ the additional revenue in any manner that will improve our economic position?

Why not address the issue of government's inability to employ the additional revenue in a manner that will improve our economic position?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:07 PM

No, I'm stating that the current tax rates are the lowest historically ever. That undeniably affects the tax receipts.

I don't know what's not clear on this:
I say it doesn't matter that they are historically low. It makes such a small difference in revenue. Less taxes equal more spending power, which in turn generates jobs and more tax revenue. In the end, it's close to revenue neutral.

Again, it seems to me that you think tax rates are more important than tax payers.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:07 PM

Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Yoni has a point that everyone has ignored - when will people be satisfied that the rich have paid their fair share? What is a fair share for someone like me who is a young professional? Should I be lumped in with WB?

I think I answered this: Some are paying their fair share.

The problem is those that abuse the system and skip paying what they owe and get away with it. It's not your case (I don't think), but looking at the billions (trillions?) parked overseas, you can tell it's fairly widespread.

I don't like to pay X in taxes either, but I can't opt out of it.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:09 PM

You just spent more time on a reasonable response than this forum deserves.

You just described all of my posts, Yoni. :)

While it is your opinion the top earners could withstand an increase to their effective rate, is it also reasonable to hold the position it is irresponsible to tax top earners more when it is obvious the government does not plan to employ the additional revenue in any manner that will improve our economic position?

An altogether different question than the one I was addressing, but a valid point. However, should we just let our country go to shit because we think they are incapable of doing anything to fix it? Doing nothing has a 0% chance of fixing things.

I think it is irresponsible of Democrats to think we do not need significant budget cuts. I think it is irresponsible of Republicans to think we do not need significant increases to our revenue stream. I think it is irresponsible of any American who thinks it isn't our collective reponsibility to pay the debts we've racked up over the years RIGHT NOW.

We don't just need a balanced budget. We need a surplus budget. It's time to pay off the credit card bills rung up by our great grandparents, grandparents, parents and us. Since 1936, we've had a total of 12 years with a surplus budget, and the last 10 years have proven to be the most irresponsible in our history, at an alarmingly increasing rate. If people think it will hurt to do this now, it's going to hurt a lot more later.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:10 PM

I say it doesn't matter that they are historically low. It makes such a small difference in revenue.

Since you claim it's a small difference, let's see what is it, and what you're basing that on. Show me the numbers.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:11 PM

There's a difference between the tax rate an individual pays vs. the rate a business pays. Not always. But I don't think you can say cutting rates for the wealthy individual will trickle down to Joe Schmoe because it's corporations, not individuals, that create jobs.
Actually, I believe I've heard, the vast majority of jobs are provided by small businesses, many of whom handle their business's taxes with their personal tax return.

That being said - why not keep corporate tax rates for cap gains at 15% if a corporation can show it created x amount of jobs in a given time period? If not, crank that up to 35% or whatever. Is that socialistic?
I don't know about socialist but, it just introduces another government control on business. Why not just simplify the tax code, eliminate corporate taxes, and collect taxes through consumption?

That'd be the most fair way to raise revenue.

Also, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but Yoni has a point that everyone has ignored - when will people be satisfied that the rich have paid their fair share? What is a fair share for someone like me who is a young professional? Should I be lumped in with WB?
Here's what I think.

Redistributionists like Obama will only be satisfied when everyone's discretionary income is the same. That's what he sees as fair.

And, there may be a 12-step program available for posters who even nod favorably in my direction.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:12 PM

You couple that with out of control spending, and it's a recipe for disaster. But you can't just fix this with just one side only. You're going to need both cuts and higher taxes.
Wrong, wrong, wrong...

This will never get fixed until we have more tax payers.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:13 PM

Sure you can. If you go back to just 2004 spending levels, you arrive at a budget that would result in a surplus of revenue.

A plan too simple for those we elect. I don't believe there is a single person in the house or the senate who has been able to specifically point to what would be cut to get there.

And I wouldn't really call it a surplus, it would pretty much even. In my opinion we need to generate a $500B/year surplus.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:14 PM

This will never get fixed until we have more tax payers.

Not really. scott already schooled you over this. We all had a laugh about it.

What you want to do is shift the burden, not increase revenues.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:15 PM

And I wouldn't really call it a surplus, it would pretty much even.

I think if you add the current economic climate, you would still have a deficit. This isn't 2004.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:16 PM

Not really. scott already schooled you over this. We all had a laugh about it.

What you want to do is shift the burden, not increase revenues.

And when we lose more tax payers, what's next?

Raise the rates again?

Tax the rich out of existence?

Where does this end?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:17 PM

You just described all of my posts, Yoni. :)
True, you generally remain more rational than the vast majority of us in here.

An altogether different question than the one I was addressing, but a valid point. However, should we just let our country go to shit because we think they are incapable of doing anything to fix it? Doing nothing has a 0% chance of fixing things.

I think it is irresponsible of Democrats to think we do not need significant budget cuts. I think it is irresponsible of Republicans to think we do not need significant increases to our revenue stream. I think it is irresponsible of any American who thinks it isn't our collective reponsibility to pay the debts we've racked up over the years RIGHT NOW.

We don't just need a balanced budget. We need a surplus budget. It's time to pay off the credit card bills rung up by our great grandparents, grandparents, parents and us. Since 1936, we've had a total of 12 years with a surplus budget, and the last 10 years have proven to be the most irresponsible in our history, at an alarmingly increasing rate. If people think it will hurt to do this now, it's going to hurt a lot more later.
You mentioned the Laffer Curve in your post. Isn't there a school of thought that, during a time of economic contraction, lowering taxes, lifting regulatory restrictions, and encouraging private business growth result in an increase in revenue?

Isn't this the reason Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush sought tax cuts?

Didn't President Obama, himself, allow that raising taxes during a recession was a bad idea?

What's different now?

I could be wrong about the specific year but, it was during the past decade, if we cut our spending to 2004 (I think) levels, the budget would result in a surplus, just as you suggested.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 11:18 PM

I don't know about socialist but, it just introduces another government control on business. Why not just simplify the tax code, eliminate corporate taxes, and collect taxes through consumption?

That'd be the most fair way to raise revenue.

That's completely regressive. Explain your reasoning on how you believe that's the most fair way to raise revenue considering the poor consume all they have where the wealthy consume a fraction of their wealth.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:18 PM

Actually, I believe I've heard, the vast majority of jobs are provided by small businesses, many of whom handle their business's taxes with their personal tax return.

Would depend on how many are set up as sole proprietorships, partnerships, S-Corps or LLCs. My guess is the vast majority of them, and those who aren't need a new attorney.

However, what is casually ignored by some, the vast majority of these job creators aren't the one's who fall into upper tax brackets.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:19 PM

And when we lose more tax payers, what's next?

Didn't seem to be a problem in 1999 when we had a balanced budget.

That's what's next.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:19 PM

I think if you add the current economic climate, you would still have a deficit. This isn't 2004.

2004 Spending is roughly what 2010 receipts were. I think that's Yoni's point.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:21 PM

A plan too simple for those we elect. I don't believe there is a single person in the house or the senate who has been able to specifically point to what would be cut to get there.

And I wouldn't really call it a surplus, it would pretty much even. In my opinion we need to generate a $500B/year surplus.
Well, our GDP hasn't been static for over 200 years either -- it's grown; and not because of government taxing and spending, either. Allow private interests to do what they do best, and I'm willing to bet (on them before government) the $500B/year surplus could be raised.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 11:22 PM

Didn't President Obama, himself, allow that raising taxes during a recession was a bad idea?

What's different now?

Politics. Obama would have had to raise taxes on the middle because of the republicans hardline tactics insisting all of the bush tax cuts would expire if the upper income levels did.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:24 PM

I think I answered this: Some are paying their fair share.

The problem is those that abuse the system and skip paying what they owe and get away with it. It's not your case (I don't think), but looking at the billions (trillions?) parked overseas, you can tell it's fairly widespread.

I don't like to pay X in taxes either, but I can't opt out of it.

I wasn't speaking to you specifically. I think what you're saying is more or less reasonable - but I'd question which "loopholes" you have in mind. I don't think cap gains should be taxed at 15%. But would you consider the state property tax and mortgage interest deductions loopholes?

What I was speaking to was the fact that people say "fair share" without really explaining what that means. That's thinly veiled class warfare. And even those who do have an explanation tend to say the rich should pay more (i.e. a higher effective rate). My question then is: what is enough?

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:27 PM

2004 Spending is roughly what 2010 receipts were. I think that's Yoni's point.

2010 receipts were $2.1T. The matching budget would be 2002 ($2T budget). The thing is, what was budgeted didn't necessarily end up equating the outlays. IE: The wars weren't originally budgeted.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:27 PM

True, you generally remain more rational than the vast majority of us in here.

You mentioned the Laffer Curve in your post. Isn't there a school of thought that, during a time of economic contraction, lowering taxes, lifting regulatory restrictions, and encouraging private business growth result in an increase in revenue?

Isn't this the reason Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush sought tax cuts?

Didn't President Obama, himself, allow that raising taxes during a recession was a bad idea?

What's different now?

I could be wrong about the specific year but, it was during the past decade, if we cut our spending to 2004 (I think) levels, the budget would result in a surplus, just as you suggested.

The Laffer Curve is a good theory. The problem is that it's a theoretical curve without data points and there are no empirical guidelines to help us. The same school of thought says that raising taxes would lead to an increase in revenues. Unfortunately there is no definitive answer of where on the curve we are.

What's different about Kennedy and Reagan versus Bush and Obama is the starting points at which they chose to lower rates from. At the extremes of the Laffer Curve you have a point where lowering taxes will lower revenue and raising taxes will lower revenue. There are also points where vice versa is true. It's a dynamic curve, and the policy action of choice changes depending on the circumstance (where you are on the curve).

Given the observed empirical inelasticity of effective tax rates on the top end, I'd argue we're on the left hand side of the peak, which indicates higher tax rates would result in increase revenue. However, my opinion is there is an exogenous upper limit to how far to the right on the curve we could go, because we have international competitiveness to deal with as well.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:27 PM

I don't know about socialist but, it just introduces another government control on business. Why not just simplify the tax code, eliminate corporate taxes, and collect taxes through consumption?

Because we have the problem of people hoarding cash - not using it to consume.

And two other points:

(1) how is this another government control on business? the business would be free to come up with the type of job. The government wouldn't force them to be high or low paying, manufacturing or secretarial, low level or managerial. Fuck, I'd even be ok with not even creating jobs - but incentivizing businesses to invest in infrastructure or use the cash to extend low interest loans.

(2) Even if it is a government control on business - why is this specific idea bad?

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:27 PM

Yes...

What is enough.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:30 PM

Post #88:

I simply belive in fairness. Your solution is class warfare.

At what percentage do you finally decide the rich pay enough?

Admit it It is based on jealousy that you believe rich people should pay a higher tax rate.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:32 PM

I wasn't speaking to you specifically. I think what you're saying is more or less reasonable - but I'd question which "loopholes" you have in mind. I don't think cap gains should be taxed at 15%. But would you consider the state property tax and mortgage interest deductions loopholes?

No, I'm talking about the massive (billions, trillions) blatant tax evasion (I don't know what else to call it) condoned in DC (both parties).

I also agree that cap gains should be taxed higher, or be made progressive, much like every other income tax. I have no problem creating an incentive for the small investor to invest. But on the other hand, I want to also discourage moving a shitload of capital there that could be better used propping up the economy.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:33 PM

The Laffer Curve is a good theory. The problem is that it's a theoretical curve without data points and there are no empirical guidelines to help us.
We agree to some point.

We know that sustained revenue is zero at both ends, 0% and 100%.

Problem is knowewing where the peak is, and what side of it we are on.

However, we are at least near the peak, and that means the slope of change is near zero.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:34 PM

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:34 PM

Yes...

What is enough.

1999 levels?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:35 PM

Because we have the problem of people hoarding cash - not using it to consume.
People consume. People are going to consume.

And two other points:

(1) how is this another government control on business? the business would be free to come up with the type of job. The government wouldn't force them to be high or low paying, manufacturing or secretarial, low level or managerial. Fuck, I'd even be ok with not even creating jobs - but incentivizing businesses to invest in infrastructure or use the cash to extend low interest loans.
If you want to incentivize business to invest. Quit fucking with them on everything from healthcare to environmental overcontrol to taxes. They'll invest.

I think the CEO of Home Depot has written an OpEd that pretty much addresses this point...

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578920/201107201835/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews)

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

(2) Even if it is a government control on business - why is this specific idea bad?
Because it is yet another government control on business which will, at best, result in more bureaucracy to monitor it and, at worst, employ heavy-handed means to control business decisions.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:35 PM

However, we are at least near the peak, and that means the slope of change is near zero.

What evidence leads you to this conclusion? Because there exists evidence to the contrary.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:35 PM

Yep...

You are talking class warfare.

Tax evasion dictated by the amount of money in your pocket is indeed class warfare. The poor are simply the losers.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:37 PM

No, I'm talking about the massive (billions, trillions) blatant tax evasion (I don't know what else to call it) condoned in DC (both parties).

I also agree that cap gains should be taxed higher, or be made progressive, much like every other income tax. I have no problem creating an incentive for the small investor to invest. But on the other hand, I want to also discourage moving a shitload of capital there that could be better used propping up the economy.

I'm not sure what you mean by tax evasion. I know of the off-shore shell game corporations like Google and GE play to end up paying nothing. I think that's pretty fucked too - so we're in agreement that those "loopholes" should be closed

But loopholes are not what I'm talking about (or what I think is engendered by the "fair share" call). I think that is used as a personal attack on individuals with the understanding that they need to pay more taxes than their fellow citizens.

Wild Cobra

09-20-2011, 11:39 PM

But loopholes are not what I'm talking about (or what I think is engendered by the "fair share" call). I think that is used as a personal attack on individuals with the understanding that they need to pay more taxes than their fellow citizens.
That's exactly how I see it too. Code words for "Fuck the rich."

scott

09-20-2011, 11:39 PM

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:41 PM

Bottom line: everyone thinks that everyone ELSE should pay higher taxes.

I'm willing to stand up and say that *I* should pay higher taxes. I'd like for the rest of America to stand up and do the same.
Set the example, scott. Start writing larger checks to the U. S. Treasury. They take gifts.

As for me, I think the government should quit wasting money and stop choking the jobs out of business.

If they'll do that and, still, need more of my money, we'll talk.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:41 PM

If you want to incentivize business to invest. Quit fucking with them on everything from healthcare to environmental overcontrol to taxes. They'll invest.

I think the CEO of Home Depot has written an OpEd that pretty much addresses this point...

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578920/201107201835/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews)

Because it is yet another government control on business which will, at best, result in more bureaucracy to monitor it and, at worst, employ heavy-handed means to control business decisions.

But they're not re-investing. They're sitting on cash. And they're sitting on it because (1) they're scared and (2) the incentives to investing don't outweigh the risks of investing.

And we're not talking about health care or the environment. We're talking about a specific tax "incentive" that encourages business to re-funnel their gains into the economy.

Is "big government" to blame for economic problems? Fuck if I know. But I don't see a reason why this specific idea is all that bad. And I really don't see how this increases any beuracracy. We already have an IRS that's inundated with forms and papers. Do you honestly think asking a business how many jobs it created creates a morass of paperwork?

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:42 PM

That's exactly how I see it too. Code words for "Fuck the rich."

You're raping my credibility right now.

scott

09-20-2011, 11:42 PM

Set the example, scott. Start writing larger checks to the U. S. Treasury. They take gifts.

As for me, I think the government should quit wasting money and stop choking the jobs out of business.

If they'll do that and, still, need more of my money, we'll talk.

Can you start a thread about the ways they are choking the jobs out of business for me?

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:43 PM

But they're not re-investing. They're sitting on cash. And they're sitting on it because (1) they're scared and (2) the incentives to investing don't outweigh the risks of investing.

And we're not talking about health care or the environment. We're talking about a specific tax "incentive" that encourages business to re-funnel their gains into the economy.

Is "big government" to blame for economic problems? Fuck if I know. But I don't see a reason why this specific idea is all that bad. And I really don't see how this increases any beuracracy. We already have an IRS that's inundated with forms and papers. Do you honestly think asking a business how many jobs it created creates a morass of paperwork?
It's a bad idea for business because they don't like pissing their money away like the government.

vy65

09-20-2011, 11:45 PM

It's a bad idea for business because they don't like pissing their money away like the government.

They're not pissing anything away. They're given the choice of re-investing money, on their terms, into their own business by expanding and creating more jobs -- or -- giving 20% of their cap gains to Uncle Sam.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 11:46 PM

Bottom line: everyone thinks that everyone ELSE should pay higher taxes.

I'm willing to stand up and say that *I* should pay higher taxes. I'd like for the rest of America to stand up and do the same.

I agree. And I surely don't make as much money as you. But, I could shoulder a larger tax burden. I'd love to see the money be spent more efficiently, but that would require money being removed from politics. Not going to happen.

ElNono

09-20-2011, 11:46 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by tax evasion. I know of the off-shore shell game corporations like Google and GE play to end up paying nothing. I think that's pretty fucked too - so we're in agreement that those "loopholes" should be closed

That's what I mean by tax evasion. Dutch sandwich, Double Irish, etc. It's not even a "secret" what they do.

But loopholes are not what I'm talking about (or what I think is engendered by the "fair share" call). I think that is used as a personal attack on individuals with the understanding that they need to pay more taxes than their fellow citizens.

Well, I can only speak for myself, and I'm on the record I would like to see anybody with a positive income chipping in, even if it's a diminutive amount (0.5%). Some of the exemptions should just go away. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the current progressive tax system. A flat tax rate simply shifts the burden to those that have less and have more problems making ends meet, that's why it's a non-solution.

Th'Pusher

09-20-2011, 11:48 PM

But they're not re-investing. They're sitting on cash. And they're sitting on it because (1) they're scared and (2) the incentives to investing don't outweigh the risks of investing.

And we're not talking about health care or the environment. We're talking about a specific tax "incentive" that encourages business to re-funnel their gains into the economy.

Is "big government" to blame for economic problems? Fuck if I know. But I don't see a reason why this specific idea is all that bad. And I really don't see how this increases any beuracracy. We already have an IRS that's inundated with forms and papers. Do you honestly think asking a business how many jobs it created creates a morass of paperwork?

They're sitting on cash because there is no demand. Increase demand and they'll invest. Regardless of current policy.

Yonivore

09-20-2011, 11:48 PM

Can you start a thread about the ways they are choking the jobs out of business for me?
One example would be the NLRB's decision to not allow Boeing to open up its plant in a right-to-work state. There are several thousand jobs being held up because the Obama administration is doing the unions' bidding.

The thresholds in Obamacare have caused small business to retard their growth in order to avoid falling under its onerous regulation and caused others to reduce staff so they would fall under the same thresholds.

Gulf drilling moratorium.

EPA regulations forcing Coal plants to close and spend billions on retrofits.

That's just off the top of my head.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 01:46 AM

Not allowing child labor is also killing jobs, Yoni. Think of all those children that could be put to work at lower prices which would help stave inflation. Win win, IMO.

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 02:00 AM

Not allowing child labor is also killing jobs, Yoni. Think of all those children that could be put to work at lower prices which would help stave inflation. Win win, IMO.
Hyperbole; the place to where those losing the argument flee.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 08:03 AM

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 08:40 AM

I don't believe you know what hyperbole is. The statement I made is factually correct and is not exaggeration. Child labor laws undeniably curtail jobs as that is their main purpose. We would undoubtedly see lower prices for goods if we allowed child labor as the labor pool would grow and there would be more competition for the openings allowing manufacturers to lower production costs.
Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

It was the "killing jobs" statement that was hyperbolic.

The point you missed was that we make sacrifices economically for value outside of a simple job figure. That is not hyperbole, that is fact. EPA regulations exist for a reason.
The EPA has gone beyond their mandate in designating CO2 a toxin.

And, what about the NLRB's decision to deny Boeing the right to locate and employ where they choose?

George Gervin's Afro

09-21-2011, 08:49 AM

Can you start a thread about the ways they are choking the jobs out of business for me?

I'm waiting for Yoni to tell you how the govt is choking the jobs out of your business.. He must have missed the question the first time..

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 08:55 AM

I'm waiting for Yoni to tell you how the govt is choking the jobs out of your business.. He must have missed the question the first time..
I think scott was asking me to explain, to him, how jobs were being choked out by this administration. I didn't take that to mean his business, personally.

Not knowing scott's business, I can't know how he's affected.

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 08:56 AM

I'm waiting for Yoni to tell you how the govt is choking the jobs out of your business.. He must have missed the question the first time..
But, if you want to see how a successful CEO see's it, see my earlier link to an Investor Business interview with the CEO of Home Depot.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 09:58 AM

One example would be the NLRB's decision to not allow Boeing to open up its plant in a right-to-work state. There are several thousand jobs being held up because the Obama administration is doing the unions' bidding.

The thresholds in Obamacare have caused small business to retard their growth in order to avoid falling under its onerous regulation and caused others to reduce staff so they would fall under the same thresholds.

Gulf drilling moratorium.

EPA regulations forcing Coal plants to close and spend billions on retrofits.

That's just off the top of my head.

Fairly good examples.

Now, for bonus points, tell me how many jobs in this country are created because of a secure regulatory environment, and the fact that when people decide to invest here, or buy products/services from the US, they can be reasonably sure that the rule of law and those regulations will provide solid reassurance those products are not shoddy, and the services or investments won't vanish in a haze of corruption or bad accounting?

You harp a lot on the costs, but can you be honest about the benefits to the economy of regulation?

If these things that you hate hinder some jobs visibly, but create a stable, less risky environment to do business and create far more economic activity than might otherwise be the case, that is a price I am willing to accept.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2011, 10:04 AM

I think scott was asking me to explain, to him, how jobs were being choked out by this administration. I didn't take that to mean his business, personally.

Not knowing scott's business, I can't know how he's affected.

I'm pretty sure he owns a brewpub.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2011, 10:07 AM

Hyperbole ( /haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-pur-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή, 'exaggeration') is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.

It was the "killing jobs" statement that was hyperbolic.

Except its not hyperbole. Child labor laws are quite responsible for killing off jobs for children. Thats their purpose. I don't get what you fail to understand about that. We CHOSE to kill those jobs as a society.

The EPA has gone beyond their mandate in designating CO2 a toxin.

And, what about the NLRB's decision to deny Boeing the right to locate and employ where they choose?Your making a mistake in applying your value judgments to society.

RandomGuy

09-21-2011, 10:09 AM

The EPA has gone beyond their mandate in designating CO2 a toxin.

The EPA didn't designate CO2 as "a toxin".

That is hyperbole.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html

They found that CO2 is an

air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [the EPA's] judgment cause[s], or contribute[s] to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.

It is something that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare through climate change.

If you want to revisit your flawed arguments on climate change, there is a thread for that already. :toast

boutons_deux

09-21-2011, 11:00 AM

"how jobs were being choked out by this administration"

nothing but Repug talking point, aka, LIE

taxes were MUCH HIGHER in the 1990s while the Clinton economy produced 300k+ jobs per month. Taxes much higher in the 1950s when the US real wealth (not debt-financed) exploded. Now, GFY.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 01:22 PM

True, a toxin is a type of pollutant. The EPA didn't deem it a poison. However:

EPA: EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/08D11A451131BCA585257685005BF252);Release date: 12/07/2009

EPA: Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html)

Forbes: What The EPA's Ruling Means For Business (http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/17/epa-carbon-dioxide-business-energy-epa.html); Andy Stone, 04.17.09, 01:00 PM EDT

NY Times: E.P.A. Clears Way for Greenhouse Gas Rules
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/science/earth/18endanger.html)By JOHN M. BRODER Published: April 17, 2009

I wonder how many of our jobs went overseas because CEO's decided not to worry about CO2 regulation likely coming?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 01:45 PM

I think the CEO of Home Depot has written an OpEd that pretty much addresses this point...

Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Choking Recovery (http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578920/201107201835/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews)

I think a few thing he said are key:

IBD: President Obama has promised to streamline and eliminate regulations. What's your take?

...As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going to end up being 150,000 pages of regulations.

IBD: If you could sit down with Obama and talk to him about job creation, what would you say?

Marcus: I'm not sure Obama would understand anything that I'd say...

IBD: Why don't more businesses speak out?

Marcus: They are frightened to death — frightened that they will have the IRS or SEC on them. In my 50 years in business, I have never seen executives of major companies who were more intimidated by an administration.

Th'Pusher

09-21-2011, 02:24 PM

I think a few thing he said are key:

Do you think Bernie might have a political agenda?

Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support the GOP 'Should Be Shot'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/home-depot-founder-retail_n_144863.html

I like the way you guys completely disregard what Warren Buffet has to say,but it's gospel when the guy is cheering for your team.

boutons_deux

09-21-2011, 02:35 PM

Do Regulations Really Kill Jobs Overall? Not So Much

http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/whats-the-evidence-that-regulations-kill-jobs

of course, the CEO of Home Depot would tell any lie to hype the "regulation scare" like bubba Congressmen and state politicains hype the "sharia and communist scares".

ElNono

09-21-2011, 03:00 PM

I like the way you guys completely disregard what Warren Buffet has to say,but it's gospel when the guy is cheering for your team.

Shouldn't surprise you. You're talking to team players.

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 03:07 PM

I like the way you guys completely disregard what Warren Buffet has to say,but it's gospel when the guy is cheering for your team.
Warren Buffet knows how to accumulate wealth. When he talks about how to invest my personal fortune, I'm all ears. When it comes to his faith in government, we part ways.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2011, 03:17 PM

Do you think Bernie might have a political agenda?

Home Depot Founder: Retailers Who Don't Support the GOP 'Should Be Shot'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/19/home-depot-founder-retail_n_144863.html

I like the way you guys completely disregard what Warren Buffet has to say,but it's gospel when the guy is cheering for your team.
That's just a well known older phrase:

sb should be shot (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sb-should-be-shot)

He clarified:
"should be shot; should be thrown out of their goddamn jobs."

He was also referring to "Norm Coleman and these other guys," which doesn't necessarily mean republican only, but more likely a type of candidate.

Your spin is effectively a lie.

Th'Pusher

09-21-2011, 04:06 PM

That's just a well known older phrase:

sb should be shot (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sb-should-be-shot)

He clarified:

He was also referring to "Norm Coleman and these other guys," which doesn't necessarily mean republican only, but more likely a type of candidate.

Your spin is effectively a lie.

What are you talking about? the guy is a shill for the GOP so I am not surprised at all that he's on board with their new job killing regulation mantra.

DarkReign

09-21-2011, 04:57 PM

I got Fox news posting in one ear and theory-world rambling in the other. I dont know why I am choosing this thread to rant, but I am. Here goes;

My advice; start your own business. See how that works for you. Pay the fed taxes, the state taxes, the bills, the employees, the equipment, the raw material. Then, pay your own personal income taxes. Depending on the status of your incorporated business, let me know how fucking charitable you feel when every dollar your company makes is your personal income which you also have to pay taxes on.

People are running out of excuses for their lot in life. I find the difference between me and Joe Blow is, I work day and night, 7 days a week. I took a "vacation" this week for the first time in 4 years (my wedding was 4 years ago)...and I am posting this from my desk at work. Thats the third day in a row of my scheduled vacation that I have spent at work.

Motherfuckers arent dedicated. People dont want to work, period. They want a 9-5, maybe one Saturday a month if they feel like kissing the boss' ass, and think theyre busting thier balls at work. You aint doing shit, part-timer. Youre a full-time hobbyist with a part-time job.

If youre between the ages of 20 and 40 and work isnt your very first priority, before family, before health, before fun, before vacation, youre lazy.

My tolerance level for people in the prime of their life whining about this or that in relation to money/time/taxes/etc wore thin years ago. Because, IMO, unless the person speaking is on par with my level of dedication, its all pops and buzzes. Like adults in Charlie Brown...wa wa wa wa waaaa.

Nbadan

09-21-2011, 07:11 PM

Ummm.......I think Obama is pro-small business, but I digress....

You sound like you need some time off DR...life isn't about pocketing change...

Yonivore

09-21-2011, 07:16 PM