Debt

Yeah, exactly, almost, with some clarification. That was the Dylan Ratigan piece I posted a page back or so, everybody is out for their best interest without a common goal. I think the "debt deal" was a true "set up" for Obama. Here is why. The deal allows Obama to increas the debt, on his own accord, and with Congress approval other times. So now when he or they do increas it, the Republicans can jump all over it. I can see the headlines now "Obama raises debt again". Republicans should have the pie on their faces as they approved the deal, when they wanted nothing to do with a raise in the first place. Politcal gamesmanship at it's finest.

Let's face it we all want a job that will provide for our families. You and I both know they do not exist right now. I do not think there really is a huge amount of folks out there who just want to get a handout for the rest of their lives, there are some I know.
I'd bet if you offered many of those folks a choice;
- Get welfare etc, live in an apartment, never earn enough to save a bankroll.
Or
- Keep a job, earn a living, earn a retiremnet etc.

Most would chose the later. The economy just isn't supporting those jobs now. Many reason for this, but is all the peoples fault? not likely. So what happens to those people in the mean time?
You started your own business, congrats, but let's face it, most cannot do that. They need a job.

Republicans think lowering the taxes will create those jobs. They think the taxes are too high to make any profit. But we see in the news all the time of the current record profits, and you admitted here many rich never pay any actual taxes because of the loopholes and havens. The Bush tax cuts were supposed to create all these jobs too.

SO WHERE ARE THE JOBS LOW TAXES BRING?

There are some qualifiers to the above statements, because we are competing as a nation with other countries that can, and do produce for less than we can, but that cannot be used in the argument as there costs of living are so much lower.

When I say you are arguing against your best interest, meaning you backing the current Republican party, you really are. There are so many examples of Republican contradictions I cannot understand why you cannot see it. If you are not ULTRA RICH, the current republican party isn't for you, not that turning into a liberal is.
The contradictions are like spotting a snowflake in a blizzard.

i feel so sorry for him, he shouldnt be taxed on that money, maybe when it hits a half a billion, then we'll tax em

Obama in response to the criticism he is taking on not leading in the debt crises said the system is broken (Not his fault). When Obama took over Goverment Motors he said their systems where broken, complained about their Ceo's flying on private jets, taking lavish vacations, so what was his fix? Fire the CEO who for bad leadership of the system. I say we follow his lead. Obamas spoksman said this week that Ob ama will not rest untill the economy is fixed. Then Obama took Airforce one to Marthas vineyard to stay in a 20 million dollar mansion. The US has a failed CEO, It is time to fire him.

Hows that working in England?

Your example of the construction worker above is nice....

Isn't it screwed up when two working people in the household, one works simply to cover the cost of daycare so they can work?

Or you could say that construction worker, works, just to cover his work.

Yeah, and peter piper picked a pail of pickled .......

But yet, he still pays taxes, and went back to work when asked.

Did you tell him you are a member of a forum, and on the forum you are trying to make an argument where folks like him are abusing the system, and you'd rather not see others like him receive unemployment benefits?

Dave when I get to sucking down these cold coors lights I get angry and very passionate about my country when these lefties are our really out in left field.

eric lavine wrote: in hindsite, hiring those IRS bastards was a good thing, only from personal experience, i believe they collected 590 million in back taxes, to me thats a solid business plan as for the welfare thing, I look at it this way, its paid protection and a necessary evil, its like drugs, if you dont have them the crime rate goes up and they will only bog down the penal system which is now at about a 200% capacity. we dont need a third world gunslinging nation, you have to take care of the poor or the end result would be devastating, with every action there is a reaction...i dont think the government looks at the welfare as a way to keep the poor fed, they look at it as keeping the poor under control

Eric, so what you are saying (and one wheel seems to agree) is that if the poor are left to their own devices they are just a group of thugs and extortionists who only behave if they are paid to? That is a pretty harsh view of humanity form the party of compassion. Dispite the evidence of recent events in London supporting your viewpoint, I feel people are people and the poor are for the most part good people in bad circumstances. Our current policys incent them to be idle. We give them enough to make entry level employment unattractive, and If they go out and earn a little money they are punished by guickly losing the services they rely upon. It almost seems like someone or some party is bennefiting from a permanant class of dependant voters and is determined to keep them there.

Ok, my turn, hold that thought.

I soo bad want to answer this point you have proposed, but I am on break right now in a poker tourney, and there just isn't enough time.

My name is Seth, I'll edit profile on Sunday after I return from the lake.

Ok, Dave.   I'm back from the poker table, and I did do well, not enough to become rich.

It's fitting I was playing poker tonight, well I play almost every night, for this topic but more on that a little later.


I understand you are getting a little tired of repeating the same “facts” over and over. But the thing is, I agree with you on the information you quoted from the IRS.gov website. It does say what you proclaim about income taxes, there I said it. But the last bit where you quoted a range of years, you did not quote the Clinton years, which was I think, 39.5%. Ironically that was also a time of huge growth.
As a side note, those are “effective rates” not “marginal rates” which is important to note.

Here is the great half truths to your argument, and being a small business, you should know this, or ask your tax man about it. I too used to own a small company, and how I put this together. Opps, real quick before I get started. You claim unemployment benefits just make people want to sit home and collect. You own a business right, just put an ad in the newspaper asking for help, one position available. How many responses to that think you'll get? I'd bet you'll get plenty, and many of them might just be the ones collecting unemployment. People want to work, and the amount of responses you get would verify that.

When you state the tax rates you are only stating half of the fact and I think it is because you are just restating the “talking points” we all hear too often .

Here is my understanding to how the rich pay little to no taxes in proportion to their actual wealth. Stay with me.
STEP ONE

First, conservatives and republicans cite that around 50% of Americans pay no income taxes. That an outright lie, unless you include the retired, disabled, young, etc. All working folks pay into FICA, which is about 15.5%. including the 50% the employer contributes. These would be paid to said employee otherwise. In reality, with the accounting charges, fees and penalties it brings the figure to around 17% of gross wages. For most this makes up the largest portion of direct income taxes.
BUT, since this is considered an INVESTMENT in their future, and NOT in the republican figures, even though the gov, borrows against them from Social Security and Medicare.

STEP TWO, (I'm jumping around a bit here, but stay with me)
The republican idea of trickle down economics does make a certain bit of sense. By granting the rich tax breaks they are free to invest in job creating projects. If the government taxes away their income, from where will new jobs come? Republicans argue that only the government will be able to provide them, and we certainly do not need more government. And why Rommey's statement of “corporation are people” comes into play right about now.

This is the republican's idea of the truth;

Under American tax law, the standard corporation involves double taxation. The corporation as a legal entity pays taxes on its own income. Then, when it makes distributions to shareholders those distributions are taxed again as capital gains but not at the same rates as people who earn wages, nor subject to FICA taxes. Similarly, the C corporation pays taxes on its income, then pays its officers and directors, who, in turn, must pay income taxes on the money they receive in wages from the C corporation. As a result, a closely held corporation (one owned by just a few stock holders, usually a family), is arguably unfairly taxed since the income is taxed twice: once when it comes into the corporation as profit and again when disbursed to the corporate owners.

The real truth is this;

Tax breaks for wealthy individuals only makes those individuals more likely to take profits out of any corporations they control, and they do not make that withdrawal with the intent of creating more jobs but of avoiding taxes. Very high marginal tax rates on the wealthy forces them to keep the corporate profits within the corporation where there is nothing to do with that capital except to find ways to reinvest it profitably, thereby creating jobs. As a result, low corporate tax rates for domestic corporations combined with high marginal rates for the wealthy is the true job creation. Low corporate tax rates attract corporations to invest in manufacturing in the United States, while high marginal tax rates for wealthy individual taxpayers forces them to continue to reinvest in the American labor force. Since we are supposed to have a progressive tax rate, even wealthy taxpayers can control their tax rate by simply taking less from the lightly taxed corporation.

Step three, back to FICA,


When it comes to FICA taxes it is important note that the taxpayer only pays FICA taxes on the first $106,800 earned in a tax year. All earnings after that amount of yearly income is reached are free of FICA taxation. This makes FICA tax extremely regressive and very favorable to the highly paid executive or professional. Moreover, regardless of financial status, upon reaching the age of eligibility, whether one be a billionaire or a pauper, one is equally entitled to his or her social security and Medicare, despite the fact that as a percentage of income the pauper paid 20% of his entire income on FICA while the billionaire may have paid as little as .001% of his income. The obvious way to reform Social Security and Medicare to protect their viability is to remove this arbitrary limit which has been imposed to protect the wealthy wage and salary earners in America, and to simultaneously means test the receipt of Social Security and portions of Medicare.

In their many misleading pronouncements about taxation, the Republicans and Democrats also ignore the glaring discrepancy between the income tax paid on the wages and salaries of workers who must actually do hard or difficult physical or mental labor every day of their lives and the capital gains taxes paid on income derived from investment in stocks, bonds, land, and other transferable assets. Currently, the capital gains tax, a tax which applies mostly to only the wealthy, runs between 0% on qualified investments up to a maximum of 15%. The hedge-fund manager, stock broker, or wealthy coupon clipper invested in municipal bonds, pays a mere 15% capital gains tax at most on his or her yearly income despite the fact they are not directly involved in working and creating anything of value at all. While all logic suggests that the hard working wage earner should pay the lower tax rate, it is in fact the class that works the least that enjoys the benefit of the lowest tax rates. Finally, to ultimately cap off the injustice of the capital gains tax as compared to the income tax we find that the FICA tax does not apply to capital gains.

And the last step;
Inheritance, or death tax, as Republicans have renamed it, closes out the list as the crown jewel of Republican half-truths. They argue the fundamental injustice of taxing the passing of wealth from one generation to another since the assets passed were presumably taxed when the decedent first earned them. This is double taxation, they urge. Ignoring the point that double taxation occurs all of time to lesser folk, the inheritance tax is, in fact, designed to capture a tax upon value that has never been taxed before at all. How could that be? Because the inheritance tax is designed to capture the increase in the value of the assets the decedent held throughout his or her life from the time of acquisition until the time of inheritance, just as if the decedent had sold the asset and realized a capital gain. For example, if I buy 10,000 shares of X Corp at $10.00 per share, my basis in those shares is $100,000. Ten years later I die leaving my X Corp shares to my son. The shares are now worth $50.00 per share. 
My son receives untaxed income in the amount of $500,000, of which only the original $100,000 of value was purchased with taxed funds. While it is possible to make a weak argument that the first $100,000 of the inheritance should not be taxed, as this is double taxation, (even though the government is taxing two distinct people on two distinct transactions), no justification exists for not taxing my son on the capital gain of $400,000. The inheritance tax is not on death, but on the exchange of capital, which is nearly always a taxable event. Since the Republicans have been able to effectively eliminate the inheritance tax through the misleading argument that it is a tax upon death and double taxation, fortunes in lost revenues have passed between the generations which never saw the tax man's blade at all. Current law provides for a $5,000.000 tax credit on the front of an inheritance, and trust law allows the wealthy to skirt any remainder of the estate right around any tax law that might otherwise generate revenue from this completely untaxed transfer in value.

Did any of this make sense?

AS for the loopholes.... whether you like them or not they are in place and an incentive for the wealthy to not feel like they are giving everything to the government. They give to a charity or donate to a city and take a tax write off. The money still goes out for the good of someones or somethings but not directly as a tax. People benefit and the giver feels better than giving it all to government. If you take this away the government will take in the money and spend it how they please. Your local Boys/girls club, YMCA, churches, and other city, town and civic organizations will surely feel it.

harddock wrote: AS for the loopholes.... whether you like them or not they are in place and an incentive for the wealthy to not feel like they are giving everything to the government. They give to a charity or donate to a city and take a tax write off. The money still goes out for the good of someones or somethings but not directly as a tax. People benefit and the giver feels better than giving it all to government. If you take this away the government will take in the money and spend it how they please. Your local Boys/girls club, YMCA, churches, and other city, town and civic organizations will surely feel it.

Really nice. So then, dodge the tax through a loophole, then take a tax write off. Hummmmm, so is that like getting paid twice?

Wow, wish I could take advantage of the loopholes, too bad it's only for the wealthy.

I suppose the gov. getting the money is a bad thing, because they use it for things they please including police, fire, etc.


And giving it to churches and the like, hummm, seems I have heard that argument before. Yes, right here in Wisconsin, except it was the other way around. Get rid of the unions, the peoples money went to the unions, which in turn spent it on electing democrats. Churches do the same thing but the right stands behind that.

As for FICA, or taxes deducted for medicare and social security, this is basically a forced retirement plan, In thoery you get back what you pay in. There is maximum of what will get paid out and thus a maximum on the income level that gets taxed. Social secuity will not replace a millionaires full income in retirement so why should they tax a millionaires full income while they are working. Unless of course you are just looking for another paln to redistribute wealth, which is not the job of the government. Fica is a big ponzi schme, relying on the proceeds of the working to pay for the curretn benificiaries. This has landed many private sector business men in jail. When social security was established there were 44 workers for every retirey, and the average life span was 65 years, so the ponzi scheme worked, with baby boomers retiring it will be less than ten working per retirey, and 100+ is the fastest growing demographic in the country., between that and the government borrowing from the fund and never repaying it, (How can they pay us back when the only money they have to spend comes from us in the first place)the system will go broke and all of us who where told we could count on the bennefit will get screwed. Again if an insurance company did this, it would result in some execs jail time.

OverMyHead wrote: As for FICA, or taxes deducted for medicare and social security, this is basically a forced retirement plan, In thoery you get back what you pay in. There is maximum of what will get paid out and thus a maximum on the income level that gets taxed. Social secuity will not replace a millionaires full income in retirement so why should they tax a millionaires full income while they are working. Unless of course you are just looking for another paln to redistribute wealth, which is not the job of the government. Fica is a big ponzi schme, relying on the proceeds of the working to pay for the curretn benificiaries. This has landed many private sector business men in jail. When social security was established there were 44 workers for every retirey, and the average life span was 65 years, so the ponzi scheme worked, with baby boomers retiring it will be less than ten working per retirey, and 100+ is the fastest growing demographic in the country., between that and the government borrowing from the fund and never repaying it, (How can they pay us back when the only money they have to spend comes from us in the first place)the system will go broke and all of us who where told we could count on the bennefit will get screwed. Again if an insurance company did this, it would result in some execs jail time.

Dave, you are still not getting it.

in your first few sentences you point out the maximums it can pay out and such, right?


So now, it still equals 17% for you right? Unless you make more than x number in contributions.


So when the wealthy gets to stop paying at x, whatever he makes beyond that, just reduces the percentage he has to pay, right?



And you are arguing for the party that wants to further lower the amount the wealthy gets to pay, right?
And even if you call it "forced retirement" , it is still a tax, and nothing more than a tax. You even said they borrow the money without much chance of putting it back. That is a tax my friend.


And then we come to your sentence about "why should they tax a millionaires full income while they are working"
You confuse me on this, because I thought you were for fair tax, or flat tax.
Why the heck not, they tax mine, and I take no more from the government than the millionaire does.


You are making the US out to be such a terrible place. I wonder why the wealthy are even here. (I really do know why they are here)

OverMyHead wrote: To say it again, the IRS says that top 1% of earners (Even after loopholes and havens) pay 40% of the taxes, the top 5% pay 60%.

But what percentage of wealth do they own? The top 1 percent owns more financial wealth than bottom 95 percent. And 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined! Yep, sounds like trickle down economics is doing great for the masses.

phospher wrote: OverMyHead wrote: To say it again, the IRS says that top 1% of earners (Even after loopholes and havens) pay 40% of the taxes, the top 5% pay 60%. But what percentage of wealth do they own? The top 1 percent owns more financial wealth than bottom 95 percent. And 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans combined! Yep, sounds like trickle down economics is doing great for the masses.

I would say they own the same percent that they earned through hard work, smart investing and financial risk taking.