FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ric...XN0Aw--;_ylv=3

They should get Buffet's tax return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

They should get Buffet's tax return.

---

they're not entitled to anything unless they can demonstrate they are on Buffetts level or contribution, if that's what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ric...XN0Aw--;_ylv=3

---

Do ya think the URL is long enough? heh.

Everything after the "l" in "html" is simply identifiers for your computer that yahoo uses to track your activities online as a cookie.

Simply pasting the following will get the same link, but without the key to your cookies.

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-ric...070642868.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

they're not entitled to anything unless they can demonstrate they are on Buffetts level or contribution, if that's what you're saying.

---

That's not what I'm saying.

You need to try to understand what you post before trying to understand what others post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

That's not what I'm saying.

You need to try to understand what you post before trying to understand what others post.

---

That's why i said, "if that's what you're saying" because i'm acknowledging that i don't know what you're alluding to.

Save the drama for your mama.

Quote:

---

Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent.

---

And there's nothing wrong with it hinging on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

That's why i said, "if that's what you're saying" because i'm acknowledging that i don't know what you're alluding to.

Save the drama for your mama.

---

You sure as hell don't know to what I am alluding.

That is clear.

lol drama

lol rhyming

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

You sure as hell don't know to what I am alluding.

That is clear.

lol drama

lol rhyming

---

Sure, you're not exactly worth understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

Sure, you're not exactly worth understanding.

---

lol drama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

lol drama

---

You're so indignant. Calm down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

You're so indignant. Calm down.

---

lol drama

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leonard E. Burman

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/publi....cfm?ID=901447

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

lol drama

---

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

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

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.

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/201...k-obama-taxes/

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

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/201...k-obama-taxes/

---

Which facts were incorrect?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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.

---

You didn't read anything, did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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

---

Why are you subtracting 35?

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.

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

---

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

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%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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

---

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your tax advice is pure bullshit.

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?

Key grafs:

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Your tax advice is pure bullshit.

---

How so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy

: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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

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/taxplannin...e_sale_tax.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Nope, didn't read it.

---

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

Catch up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ignignokt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

What's eliuding? Or do you mean alluding?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vy65

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Apples and Oranges.

---

Not really. Depends on where their income comes from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I don't care to whom he is referring.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Does that fix this problem liberals see?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You keep up.

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

That's with no deductions, obviously.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

When they begin fueling the economic engine sufficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Th'Pusher

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

They're getting the least ever. Fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

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

---

How many jobs were created under the bush administration?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

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.

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