You didn build that !

Romney's tax position is important, as a matter of fact, it is the most important issue in this election. If Romney thinks the working middle class are doing OK, give him their tax deal, or conversely, give the working middle class his.

Every wage earner pays 11.85 percent is OASDI and Medicare taxes, another few percent in workers comp and unemployment taxes. ( I know I'm lumping together employer and employee portions, but the tax burden is still the same)

Every wage earner pays a higher tax rate than Romney does prior to paying anything in Federal income taxes.

The government does not get a "second bite of the apple" in capital gains, if Romney invested 250 million in 2011 and the net growth of his investment was zero, he would owe nothing in taxes. Show me how the government would tax the same dollar twice.

Romney actually never did pay regular income tax rates on any of that money not when the company made it as they ran it through overseas companies to avoid that liability, and not when he made it as the manager of the fund because then it was treated as carried interest. He also pays no payroll taxes and less than 1% of his income goes to gas tax, sales tax, or property taxes each year, he pays no tax on alcohol, and no tax on tobacco..

Whereas the average 50k a year guy working 60 hours a week would be paying all that jazz to the tune of 35+% to help keep the roads in one piece and the kids in schools. This isn’t romneys fault I expect him to act in his own best interest, it is our fault for electing guys willing to take money from the romneys of the world to build that complicated tax system to benefit them against our best interests.

Why is it class warfare for me to act in my interest and want those who have benefitted so much to pay the same amount of their income as me, but it is just good business for them to spend billions lobbying so they can pay a much smaller percent of their income than the guy that actually builds things pays.

When republicans talk about simplifying the tax code I look at who is supporting them and assume whatever they do will benefit those who are putting a billion dollars into the race for them.   That just means my taxes and debt are going to go up.. maybe not at the federal level but probably on my gas, sales, or property tax on the commercial property I always have my eyes on.

Designing the tax code for the purpose of redistributing wealth rather than to raise revenue to fund the government seems very unAmerican and anti capitalist to me. It's two schools of thought that people will never agree on. That seems like socialism, communism or fasicm to me. I don't pay tobacco tax and as time goes on I pay less and less alcohol tax, so I'm not sure where that leaves me. I do pay way more than avarge gas tax. Should these taxes be tied to income rather than purchases?

He doesn’t drink or smoke, taxes on alcohol and smoking are class warfare on those that drink or smoke!
What about the class warfare on the boating class who need to drive SUVS.

You have to bundle them together cause that is reality. It’s a sucker’s game to only consider federal income tax.   

The entire “conservative” platform and strategy for the last 20 years has been to bankrupt the federal government and push more requirements onto the states, this does not benefit the country it only benefits the ultra rich. That was not the Reagan strategy he actually understood economics (he took a couple things too far but was smart enough to correct in his second term) and didn’t hate the country.

Funding education is tied to property taxes, yet those who employ large numbers of people are the ones that benefit the most from their workers educations.

There is no justification for Capital gains to be taxed at anything other than the marginal income tax rate.   The above article neglects to mention that any losses derived by those who put their money at risk are tax deductible and so also covered by the government. We only tax the win and the win should be taxed at the same rate as those of us that work for our money. Treating capital gains better than we do dividends rewards bad management of companies.   Dividends are actually hard to produce, they require making something and turning a profit it on it. This takes long term thinking, investment, development, and actually employing people that produce something. Capital gains on the other hand are based off the valuation of the company which is easily manipulated in the short term, sell off a profitable division to look cash flush.. bad for long term profits and dividends but good for Capital gains. Move production to china, convince the market that it will be good.. stock goes up.. three years later you find out it takes just as much to produce in china but quality is worse and shipping is killing you.. don’t worry private equity already sold the company and got their big capital gains check.

There is a double taxation argument that can be made for dividends, but it does not apply to capital gains. That one change alone has caused more damage to manufacturing in this country than just about every other factor combined.

Our tax code should in fact fund government and not redistribute wealth, but currently it takes it out of the pocket of the middle class and puts it in the pockets of those who have the money and power to work the system. But when your dead, you should have already given your money away and those that get more than 5 million dollars from you shouldnt be so worried about paying taxes on some of it.. maybe it will inspire them to invest thier paltry 15 million inheritance instead of living off the 25 million they would have gotten.


At its greatest our tax code is designed to fund government and ensure economic growth that benefits everyone, then the lobbyists come in. The simple fact is George promised his tax cuts would do a certain thing within a certain time and if they didn’t then they would expire. They didn’t do what they promised and now Romney says well lets try it again and this time it will work. I don’t believe it.

Sowell's argument is simply one of assertion: "The gains on risked capitol should be taxed a lower RATE than income earned as wages."

The underlying argument is one of risk / reward: wages are guaranteed, and the capital gains are not. The risk / reward equation is already in place with the investment of capital: the return could be negtative, ten percent, one hundred percent, ten fold, or one hundred fold, while the wages are fixed. The RATE paid should be the same.

Once I try to open a year past 2008 I get a message - internet explorer cannot open page. page does not exsist.    Interesting!

I tried this on Facebook but since the CIA controls facebook I couldn't get anywhere that way either.

You tried Facebook to find the US budgets????

I'm sure the CIA will block your attempts at that.


I'm thinking Faux News must control your puter

Careful there ole white boy, the libatards will send the race police to your house....john b will be in the the agent with the *************** eating grin ..........

harddock wrote: Will he be with his reveverend friends Jeese and Al? Still no budget during the Obama years. I don't know where your finding it cause it doesn't exsist. [IMG]http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f129/offcenterracing/inaugurationsuit.jpg[/IMG I hope he will be with his friend and supporter, the Reverend John B., everyone's favorite ordained minister! As for the budget, you can lead a conservative to water, but....... I showed you the government web site. Read it if you like, or not. You can buy a copy too.

GlassSeeker wrote:

I tip my hat to you and raise a toast in your honor.......Billy

john b wrote: harddock wrote: Will he be with his reveverend friends Jeese and Al? Still no budget during the Obama years. I don't know where your finding it cause it doesn't exsist. I hope he will be with his friend and supporter, the Reverend John B., everyone's favorite ordained minister! As for the budget, you can lead a conservative to water, but....... I showed you the government web site. Read it if you like, or not. You can buy a copy too.

harddock wrote: john b wrote: harddock wrote: I hope he will be with his friend and supporter, the Reverend John B., everyone's favorite ordained minister! As for the budget, you can lead a conservative to water, but....... I showed you the government web site. Read it if you like, or not. You can buy a copy too. I did not write this. Do not quote me with things I did not write! There was no Obama Budget since he took office. I don't know what your reading.

I am not sure why my comment appeared in your quote box, I am going to chalk it up to the Android phone I am using.

The 2011 budget was enacted on April 15, 2011, as Public Law 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011.

The 2012 budget was enacted November 18, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-55) December 23, 2011 (Pub.L. 112-74 and Pub.L. 112-77)

It sounds like you are listening to the "crazy voices in your head". Turn off Faux news!

Android, its just like an iPhone......that's broken.

[.




[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]

I did not write this. Do not quote me with things I did not write!


There was no Obama Budget since he took office. I don't know what your reading.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure why my comment appeared in your quote box, I am going to chalk it up to the Android phone I am using. Android, its just like an iPhone......that's broken.[/QUOTE]

You rise above us again john b,


"It was someone else's fault. The guilty party was my Android. "

Anybody watch the debate tonight? I think Romney swept the floor with Obama. Romney was crisp, clear, and dominate. Obama was off his game.

Maybe Obama should have used his fake southern black minister accent tonight!

JoeinNY wrote: He doesn’t drink or smoke, taxes on alcohol and smoking are class warfare on those that drink or smoke! What about the class warfare on the boating class who need to drive SUVS.

Now we are criticizing Romney for not drinking or smoking? That is not tax free that is just not consuming. I did not buy a new car this year, did I get a car tax free?

It is the left that loves a good sin tax. Obama care tax changes alone includes new taxes on cigars, tanning booths, and even health savings accounts.

JoeinNY wrote: You have to bundle them together cause that is reality. It’s a sucker’s game to only consider federal income tax.

Reality is we have income tax and we have consumption taxes.
Two different things. Should we include Romney's share of consumption taxes on of Romney's investments?

JoeinNY wrote: The above article neglects to mention that any losses derived by those who put their money at risk are tax deductible and so also covered by the government.

This statement blows me away and illustrates a lot. Government taxes income AFTER it is earned. Any business subtracts costs, including losses, from gains to determine their income. The government does not "cover" anything. The government will not cut a check to someone for these losses, they can only offset gains. The Investor takes the risk and does so only for potential reward. Your statement implies the money is the governments first and the investor makes a claim to what is his by filing taxes. (Makes me think communism, not individual liberty)