Buffett Debunks Galtism

[RangerM]

This is an all new level of insanity.

While I don't doubt all sides have their fringe, it concerns me when such extreme viewpoints become socially acceptable.

[partsisparts]

Unless the Dems have full control of the entire Congress AND the Presidency, we know what the American people think.

 

As it is, nothing will be different in the next two years than was in the last two years. Perhaps you should refrain from bullshitting yourself.

 

And, don't forget that taxes are already going up for everyone in the next two years regardless of "fiscal cliff". It's called Obamacare, and there's a bonus tax increase for you and everyone else inside.

The dems would have had control of both houses this year if the republicans would not have shoved through redistricting. The dems had more house votes than the republicans.

(just for Parts)

 

Whoa Nelly! Look at them Obama middle class tax increases!

 

http://dailycaller.c...-tax-increases/

It's funny how republicans complain about thier taxes going up over Obamacare but don't say a word when their party wants to cut govt social programs which will cost them more in the end.Cuts to medicare will cost them more money for needed treatment when they go for care when they are elderly and the social security will affect their retirement income.

All to preserve tax cuts for the rich job creators who haven't created any jobs. Who is bullshitting themselves?

Edited December 14, 2012 by partsisparts

[RangerM]

The dems would have .....

...not been drubbed in the 2010 elections, if the electorate had gone along.

It's funny how republicans complain...

Republicans warn the negative consequences of bad policy. The Democrats complain when they have to suffer them.

[grbeck]

The dems would have had control of both houses this year if the republicans would not have shoved through redistricting. The dems had more house votes than the republicans.

 

Based on that standard, you are right on board with the passage of right-to-work laws in Michigan and Indiana, and the effort to curb union power in Wisconsin, given that said laws were passed by elected representatives who were doing the will of the people who voted for them. (After all, the Governor of Wisconsin survived a union-led recall effort over this very issue.)

 

Good to know!

 

It's funny how republicans complain about thier taxes going up over Obamacare...

 

Apparently, a key supporter of President Obama hasn't gotten the memo that a tax increase on rich people is a good thing:

 

Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die. With the "fiscal cliff" looming and ... taxes set to rise dramatically in less than three weeks, the timing was seen as advantageous -- and, according to Berkshire watchers, also out of place in the context of Buffett's recent tax activism. ... Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks. ...Yet given his wealth and his own self-professed low tax rate, Buffett has been called out in some quarters for not practicing what he preaches.

 

Some of the employees who report directly to the President don't even like paying taxes at all:

 

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes.

 

Perhaps we would all be more convinced of the necessity for higher taxes if the people who keep preaching on this could actually be bothered to pay them.

 

It's a shame that Leona Helmsley is dead ("taxes are for little people"). She would apparently fit right in at the White House!

 

...but don't say a word when their party wants to cut govt social programs which will cost them more in the end.Cuts to medicare will cost them more money for needed treatment when they go for care when they are elderly and the social security will affect their retirement income.

 

Medicare is already in dire fiscal straits, and increasing taxes on those dreaded "rich" people isn't going to change this salient fact. The "money for needed treatments" isn't really there. It's borrowed.

 

Maybe Harry Belafonte and his rich Hollywood friends will give 91 percent of their salary and wealth - after, those same people keep preaching that those top rates were great in the 1950s - to ensure the solvency of the programs.

 

But, based on the real-world behavior of Warren Buffett and the President's own staff, I have the sneaking suspicion that they believe that higher taxes are only a good idea whenever someone else pays them.

 

All to preserve tax cuts for the rich job creators who haven't created any jobs. Who is bullshitting themselves?

 

Because, as we all know, businesses always create jobs at the same rate even if government increases regulations on them (which it has under the Obama Administration) and passes a new mandate that makes it more expensive to hire people (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and threatens them with tax increases.

Edited December 14, 2012 by grbeck

[partsisparts]

...not been drubbed in the 2010 elections, if the electorate had gone along.

 

Republicans warn the negative consequences of bad policy. The Democrats complain when they have to suffer them.

A republican quoting a dem out of context.......

[partsisparts]

Based on that standard, you are right on board with the passage of right-to-work laws in Michigan and Indiana, and the effort to curb union power in Wisconsin, given that said laws were passed by elected representatives who were doing the will of the people who voted for them. (After all, the Governor of Wisconsin survived a union-led recall effort over this very issue.)

 

Good to know!

Ummm no.

 

 

Apparently, a key supporter of President Obama hasn't gotten the memo that a tax increase on rich people is a good thing:

 

Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die. With the "fiscal cliff" looming and ... taxes set to rise dramatically in less than three weeks, the timing was seen as advantageous -- and, according to Berkshire watchers, also out of place in the context of Buffett's recent tax activism. ... Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks. ...Yet given his wealth and his own self-professed low tax rate, Buffett has been called out in some quarters for not practicing what he preaches.

 

Some of the employees who report directly to the President don't even like paying taxes at all:

 

A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama’s executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes.

 

Perhaps we would all be more convinced of the necessity for higher taxes if the people who keep preaching on this could actually be bothered to pay them.

 

It's a shame that Leona Helmsley is dead ("taxes are for little people"). She would apparently fit right in at the White House!

 

 

 

Medicare is already in dire fiscal straits, and increasing taxes on those dreaded "rich" people isn't going to change this salient fact. The "money for needed treatments" isn't really there. It's borrowed.

 

Maybe Harry Belafonte and his rich Hollywood friends will give 91 percent of their salary and wealth - after, those same people keep preaching that those top rates were great in the 1950s - to ensure the solvency of the programs.

 

But, based on the real-world behavior of Warren Buffett and the President's own staff, I have the sneaking suspicion that they believe that higher taxes are only a good idea whenever someone else pays them.

All the more reason to raise rates on the rich.

 

 

Because, as we all know, businesses always create jobs at the same rate even if government increases regulations on them (which it has under the Obama Administration) and passes a new mandate that makes it more expensive to hire people (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and threatens them with tax increases.

Lots of business leaders say that govt regulations are not keeping them from hiring. It's lack of demand. If trickle down actually worked, demand would be there. But it doesn't so the middle class doesn't have extra money to spend. Over the last 10 years 93% of America's wealth has gone to the rich. Therefore demand is low.

[RangerM]

A republican quoting a dem out of context.......

Pot calling the kettle....

[RangerM]

Because, as we all know, businesses always create jobs at the same rate even if government increases regulations on them (which it has under the Obama Administration) and passes a new mandate that makes it more expensive to hire people (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and threatens them with tax increases.

 

Our deficit has been (and will be) well over $1 Trillion for some time. With the same $1 Trillion, you could write 1 Million families checks for $1 Million each, and spur demand for all kinds of things.

 

The problem is, demand fosters economic activity, but it doesn't create. And if you make it harder to create, the money runs out with nothing to show for it.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RangerM

[Mark B. Morrow]

Apparently, a key supporter of President Obama hasn't gotten the memo that a tax increase on rich people is a good thing:

 

Warren Buffett's $1.2 billion share buyback from a single unnamed investor likely helped that person's estate save substantially on taxes, just one day after the Berkshire Hathaway CEO said the rich should actually be paying more, not less, when they die. With the "fiscal cliff" looming and ... taxes set to rise dramatically in less than three weeks, the timing was seen as advantageous -- and, according to Berkshire watchers, also out of place in the context of Buffett's recent tax activism. ... Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks. ...Yet given his wealth and his own self-professed low tax rate, Buffett has been called out in some quarters for not practicing what he preaches.

 

 

 

Stock and other investments are valued for Estate Tax purposes on the date of death. It would not make any difference for the Estate if the stock was sold in 2012 or 2013.

 

CNBC retracted the story after Warren Buffett pointed this fact out.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Mark B. Morrow

[xr7g428]

Stock and other investments are valued for Estate Tax purposes on the date of death. It would not make any difference for the Estate if the stock was sold in 2012 or 2013.

 

CNBC retracted the story after Warren Buffett pointed this fact out.

 

Mark, you are missing the point:

 

Berkshire said it bought 9,200 Class A shares from "the estate of a long-time shareholder," whom it did not name, at $131,000 per share, a price in line with where Berkshire has traded in recent weeks.

 

While the basis is determined by the value at the time of death, the estate is responsible for taxes ion the gain from that point forward. So yes, Buffett did have an investor that cared about taxes giving lie to the fiction that investors don't care about taxes.

 

His whole statement was nothing but hog wash and no one gave it serious credence. After all, even the government understands how tax efficiency effects investment strategy and they prove it by issuing tax free bonds. Thousands of companies are acting now to take steps to reduce taxes for investors and they are not doing because investors don't care about taxes.

[grbeck]

Ummm,no

 

Unfortunately for you, yes.

 

All the more reasons to raise rates on the rich

 

Several reputable analyses show that the $250,000 income threshold touted by the administration does not make a family "rich" by any stretch of imagination in many areas. (It wasn't even arrived at after painstaking research - the President pulled the number out of a hat during a campaign speech in 2008.)

 

That is why Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York has suggested raising it to $1 million, as he understands that the lower threshold will hurt his constituents. Except, of course, that this will leave less money for deficit reduction, which was supposed by the rationale for raising them in the first place. No reputabkle economist believes that the tax increases touted by the president will make any meaningful dent in the deficit, let alone generate enough revenue to keep Medicare solvent.

 

If trickle down actually worked, demand would be there. But it doesn't so the middle class doesn't have extra money to spend.

 

I'm missing where we've had a large-scale federal income tax reduction within the past five years that would prove that the "trickle down theory" doesn't work.

 

I'm guessing the lack of demand has more to do with, a. the real estate crash; b. Baby Boomers downsizing their consumption habits as they age; and, c. rising prices for gasoline, heating oil and food that have left less money to spend on other items. Those aren't necessarily the fault of either Bush or Obama, but I'm not seeing how tax increases are going to do anything to ameliorate their effects on middle-class households or anyone else.

 

Over the last 10 years 93% of America's wealth has gone to the rich. Therefore demand is low.

 

Wealth and income are two different things. Raising the federal INCOME tax isn't going to have much affect on WEALTH, which is in the form of stocks and various forms of property. These items aren't taxed unless they are sold, and the owner realizes a capital gain from the sale. Dividends from stocks are taxed as income, but few people make enough money from dividends to live on them, and taxing them at a higher rate isn't going to generate much revenue for deficit reduction.

[partsisparts]

Unfortunately for you, yes.

 

 

 

Several reputable analyses show that the $250,000 income threshold touted by the administration does not make a family "rich" by any stretch of imagination in many areas. (It wasn't even arrived at after painstaking research - the President pulled the number out of a hat during a campaign speech in 2008.)

 

That is why Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York has suggested raising it to $1 million, as he understands that the lower threshold will hurt his constituents. Except, of course, that this will leave less money for deficit reduction, which was supposed by the rationale for raising them in the first place. No reputabkle economist believes that the tax increases touted by the president will make any meaningful dent in the deficit, let alone generate enough revenue to keep Medicare solvent.

 

Taxes on the first 250k would stay the same. So a person making 300k per year would pay an extra 3% of 50k according to the Presidents plan. That equates to a little more than 150 dollars a month on 25k per month income. I don't think that is to much to ask.

 

 

I'm missing where we've had a large-scale federal income tax reduction within the past five years that would prove that the "trickle down theory" doesn't work.

You may want to go back a little further than five years, let's try eleven....According to republican logic, because of the Bush tax cuts ( the largest tax cuts for the rich this country has ever seen) the Bush tax cuts would have created more jobs than the boom Clinton years. Yet the Bush years had the worst job creation than any President in modern history. The difference is under Clinton you had demand, under Bush you had tax cuts for the rich.

 

I'm guessing the lack of demand has more to do with, a. the real estate crash; b. Baby Boomers downsizing their consumption habits as they age; and, c. rising prices for gasoline, heating oil and food that have left less money to spend on other items. Those aren't necessarily the fault of either Bush or Obama, but I'm not seeing how tax increases are going to do anything to ameliorate their effects on middle-class households or anyone else.

If the middle class had some " trickle down" the effect of these events would be far less. But the fact is there is no "trickle down". Tax adjustments are a redistribution of wealth. If the middle class had more money they would spend it and spark demand. Hiring would pick up to meet that demand and so on.

 

 

Wealth and income are two different things. Raising the federal INCOME tax isn't going to have much affect on WEALTH, which is in the form of stocks and various forms of property. These items aren't taxed unless they are sold, and the owner realizes a capital gain from the sale. Dividends from stocks are taxed as income, but few people make enough money from dividends to live on them, and taxing them at a higher rate isn't going to generate much revenue for deficit reduction.

Tax wealth with capital gains taxes that make sense. A person that does not work pays 14% on capital gains earnings and a person that works pays 35%.

Edited December 15, 2012 by partsisparts

[RangerM]

Parts,

 

If you want to tax wealth, you tax consumption. That is, if you aren't simply trying to confiscate wealth. If you want to confiscate wealth, then say so.

 

Arguing that you want rich people to pay more by taxing income (be it capital gains or otherwise), doesn't alter the fact they're already rich. But, it makes it more difficult for a person (not yet there) to get rich.

 

If your goal is to narrow the outcome-gap between people, then by all means tax income. But once you've undermined the incentive for achievement (ie. limit life's outcome), then you can expect less of it.

Edited December 15, 2012 by RangerM

[TomServo92]

But, it makes it more difficult for a person (not yet there) to get rich.

 

That's just the point. The don't want anyone to get rich. They believe that everything we have belongs to the state.

[RangerM]

The only way possible that everyone can have equal outcomes, is to make them equally bad.

[grbeck]

Stock and other investments are valued for Estate Tax purposes on the date of death. It would not make any difference for the Estate if the stock was sold in 2012 or 2013.

 

CNBC retracted the story after Warren Buffett pointed this fact out.

 

The fact that his firm offers estate planning services further shows that he is not the selfless crusader for higher taxes that he and his supporters want to believe that he is. "Estate planning" essentially is designed to avoid the federal and state death taxes. If these levies were to be repealed, business at his firm would drop, as people would no longer need that particular service. His support for the retention of the death tax is obviously linked to his business interests, at least if we apply the same standards to him that are applied to Republicans and libertarians.

Edited December 17, 2012 by grbeck

[grbeck]

Taxes on the first 250k would stay the same. So a person making 300k per year would pay an extra 3% of 50k according to the Presidents plan. That equates to a little more than 150 dollars a month on 25k per month income. I don't think that is to much to ask.

 

The only problem is that, in many areas, an annual income of $250,000 for a family hardly makes this family rich. This article, which I posted on another thread, effectively proves your claim incorrect:

 

Two years ago, The Fiscal Times asked BDO USA, a national tax accounting firm, to compute the total state, local and federal tax burden of a hypothetical two-career couple with two kids, earning $250,000. To factor in varying state and local taxes, as well as drastically different costs of living, BDO placed the couple in seven different locales around the country with top-notch public school districts, using national government data on spending. The text below was written by Karen Hube, a Fiscal Times contributor.

 

The analysis assumes that this hypothetical couple – let’s call them Mr. and Mrs. Jones – are each on the payroll of companies, with professional positions. They take advantage of all tax benefits available to them, such as pretax contributions to 401(k) plans and medical, childcare and transportation flexible spending accounts. (emphasis added)They have no credit card debt, but Mr. Jones racked up $40,208 in student loan debt in undergraduate and graduate school, and Mrs. Jones borrowed $22,650 to get her undergraduate degree (both amounts are equal to the national averages for their levels of education). They also have a car loan on one of two cars, and a mortgage for 80 percent of the value of a typical home in their communities for a family of four, which includes one toddler and one school-age child.

 

The bottom line: It’s not exactly easy street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red – after taxes, saving for retirement and their children’s education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living – in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. The worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif., followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md., Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill. and Pinecrest, Fla. In Plano, Texas, the couple’s balance sheet would end up positive, but only by $4,963. (emphasis added)

 

There is the different cost of living between varying regions, which everyone seems to ignore:

 

Consider, for example, the tab for the same assortment of ground beef, tuna, milk, eggs, margarine, potatoes, bananas, bread, orange juice, coffee, sugar and cereal: In Twin Falls, Idaho, $23.41. In New York City in December of 2010, you would have to shell out 72 percent more, $40.29, according to The Council for Community and Economic Research. That higher percentage carries across all expenditures, from child care costs to haircuts.

 

Of course, housing costs are one of the biggest variables. In Glendale, the Joneses can live reasonably well – but not extravagantly – in a three- or four-bedroom home valued around $750,000. In Twin Falls, you would need to spend about half as much on an equivalent home.

 

After covering taxes and only essential expenses for housing, groceries, child care, clothing, transportation – and their dog, the Joneses would still be in the red by $1,787 in Huntington. In Plano, Texas, they would have $27,556 to spare. Factor in common additional expenses for a working couple with two children – music lessons, day camp costs, and after school sports, entertainment, cleaning services, gifts, and a annual week-long vacation – the Joneses get deep in the red in Huntington to the tune of $23,178. In Plano, the best case scenario, they would still have money to spare, but just $4963.

 

You may want to go back a little further than five years, let's try eleven....the Bush tax cuts would have created more jobs than the boom Clinton years. Yet the Bush years had the worst job creation than any President in modern history. The difference is under Clinton you had demand, under Bush you had tax cuts for the rich.

 

You appear to have forgotten a few key events of the past 11 years, starting with the collapse of the internet bubble in early 2000, the effect of 9/11 on the economy and then the unravelling of the real estate bubble beginning in early 2008, which culminated in the financial collapse in September 2008.

 

No one - Republican or anyone else - has said that tax cuts could repeal the business cycle, or were enough to eliminate the effects of a violent contraction of the real estate market that happened a few years AFTER said tax cuts were enacted. This is what would be necessary for the tax cuts to have functioned as you claimed throughout the entire 11-year span that is the topic of this discussion.

 

The simple fact is that many economists agree that the Bush tax cuts did ameliorate the recession of 2000-01. They were simply overwhelmed by the events later in the decade. And then there is the effect of the tax cuts championed by President Kennedy in 1962, and the tax cuts later championed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, both of DID fuel a boom in the economy.

 

According to republican logic, because of the Bush tax cuts ( the largest tax cuts for the rich this country has ever seen)

 

The tax cuts were "the largest tax cuts for the rich this country has ever seen" because those awful rich people have been paying a higher percentage of the federal income tax revenues collected than anytime in the last 60 years, while over half of all taxpayers pay NO federal income tax.

 

It's impossible to give a tax cut to those who aren't paying them in the first place.

 

So while your claim may inflame those ignorant of who actually pays what when it comes to federal income taxes, it falls flat among the better informed.

 

Interestingly, Bush tax cuts accelerated this process - today the rich pay a HIGHER percentage of total federal income taxes collected than they did in 2000.

 

Tax wealth with capital gains taxes that make sense. A person that does not work pays 14% on capital gains earnings and a person that works pays 35%.

 

First, if you really believe that people who receive capital gains do not perform any work, I'd suggest you stop hanging around the Occupy Whatever gang and join the real world to become better informed. People who own securities generally bought them with money that they earned from something called a "job." We want them to invest some of their earnings from said job into stocks and bonds because that gives companies and, yes, governments, capital to expand and/or modernize their facilities.

 

What you have said does nothing to address the 47 percent who aren't paying any federal income taxes. Where I come from, 0 percent is a lot less than either 14 percent or 35 percent. And there is the fact that your plan will do nothing to cure the deficit, which was supposed to be the rationale for the tax increases in the first place.

Edited December 17, 2012 by grbeck

[partsisparts]

The only problem is that, in many areas, an annual income of $250,000 for a family hardly makes this family rich. This article, which I posted on another thread, effectively proves your claim incorrect:

 

Two years ago, The Fiscal Times asked BDO USA, a national tax accounting firm, to compute the total state, local and federal tax burden of a hypothetical two-career couple with two kids, earning $250,000. To factor in varying state and local taxes, as well as drastically different costs of living, BDO placed the couple in seven different locales around the country with top-notch public school districts, using national government data on spending. The text below was written by Karen Hube, a Fiscal Times contributor.

 

The analysis assumes that this hypothetical couple – let’s call them Mr. and Mrs. Jones – are each on the payroll of companies, with professional positions. They take advantage of all tax benefits available to them, such as pretax contributions to 401(k) plans and medical, childcare and transportation flexible spending accounts. (emphasis added)They have no credit card debt, but Mr. Jones racked up $40,208 in student loan debt in undergraduate and graduate school, and Mrs. Jones borrowed $22,650 to get her undergraduate degree (both amounts are equal to the national averages for their levels of education). They also have a car loan on one of two cars, and a mortgage for 80 percent of the value of a typical home in their communities for a family of four, which includes one toddler and one school-age child.

 

The bottom line: It’s not exactly easy street for our $250,000-a-year family, especially when they live in high-tax areas on either coast. Even with an additional $3,000 in investment income, they end up in the red – after taxes, saving for retirement and their children’s education, and a middle-of-the-road cost of living – in seven out of the eight communities in the analysis. The worst: Huntington, N.Y., and Glendale, Calif., followed by Washington, D.C., Bethesda, Md., Alexandria, Va., Naperville, Ill. and Pinecrest, Fla. In Plano, Texas, the couple’s balance sheet would end up positive, but only by $4,963. (emphasis added)

 

There is the different cost of living between varying regions, which everyone seems to ignore:

 

Consider, for example, the tab for the same assortment of ground beef, tuna, milk, eggs, margarine, potatoes, bananas, bread, orange juice, coffee, sugar and cereal: In Twin Falls, Idaho, $23.41. In New York City in December of 2010, you would have to shell out 72 percent more, $40.29, according to The Council for Community and Economic Research. That higher percentage carries across all expenditures, from child care costs to haircuts.

 

Of course, housing costs are one of the biggest variables. In Glendale, the Joneses can live reasonably well – but not extravagantly – in a three- or four-bedroom home valued around $750,000. In Twin Falls, you would need to spend about half as much on an equivalent home.

 

After covering taxes and only essential expenses for housing, groceries, child care, clothing, transportation – and their dog, the Joneses would still be in the red by $1,787 in Huntington. In Plano, Texas, they would have $27,556 to spare. Factor in common additional expenses for a working couple with two children – music lessons, day camp costs, and after school sports, entertainment, cleaning services, gifts, and a annual week-long vacation – the Joneses get deep in the red in Huntington to the tune of $23,178. In Plano, the best case scenario, they would still have money to spare, but just $4963.

 

 

 

You appear to have forgotten a few key events of the past 11 years, starting with the collapse of the internet bubble in early 2000, the effect of 9/11 on the economy and then the unravelling of the real estate bubble beginning in early 2008, which culminated in the financial collapse in September 2008.

 

No one - Republican or anyone else - has said that tax cuts could repeal the business cycle, or were enough to eliminate the effects of a violent contraction of the real estate market that happened a few years AFTER said tax cuts were enacted. This is what would be necessary for the tax cuts to have functioned as you claimed throughout the entire 11-year span that is the topic of this discussion.

 

The simple fact is that many economists agree that the Bush tax cuts did ameliorate the recession of 2000-01. They were simply overwhelmed by the events later in the decade. And then there is the effect of the tax cuts championed by President Kennedy in 1962, and the tax cuts later championed by Ronald Reagan in 1981, both of DID fuel a boom in the economy.

 

 

 

The tax cuts were "the largest tax cuts for the rich this country has ever seen" because those awful rich people have been paying a higher percentage of the federal income tax revenues collected than anytime in the last 60 years, while over half of all taxpayers pay NO federal income tax.

 

It's impossible to give a tax cut to those who aren't paying them in the first place.

 

So while your claim may inflame those ignorant of who actually pays what when it comes to federal income taxes, it falls flat among the better informed.

 

Interestingly, Bush tax cuts accelerated this process - today the rich pay a HIGHER percentage of total federal income taxes collected than they did in 2000.

 

 

 

First, if you really believe that people who receive capital gains do not perform any work, I'd suggest you stop hanging around the Occupy Whatever gang and join the real world to become better informed. People who own securities generally bought them with money that they earned from something called a "job." We want them to invest some of their earnings from said job into stocks and bonds because that gives companies and, yes, governments, capital to expand and/or modernize their facilities.

 

What you have said does nothing to address the 47 percent who aren't paying any federal income taxes. Where I come from, 0 percent is a lot less than either 14 percent or 35 percent. And there is the fact that your plan will do nothing to cure the deficit, which was supposed to be the rationale for the tax increases in the first place.

Bullshit.....If you cannot afford to live where you are living you need to move. I would love to live in Malibu, but i can't afford it.

If you cannot afford a small tax increase while making 25k per month you need to budget your money better. Perhaps lease an E-Class instead of the S-Class.

Edited December 18, 2012 by partsisparts

[grbeck]

Bullshit.....If you cannot afford to live where you are living you need to move. I would love to live in Malibu, but i can't afford it.

If you cannot afford a small tax increase while making 25k per month you need to budget your money better.

 

They can afford to live there...under the current tax rates for people in their income bracket. And the increase, as shown in the article, proves incorrect your contention that the increase under the proposed tax increase is "small."

 

Your reply is not only fails to address the points raised, but is basically simplistic and unrealistic.

 

Perhaps lease an E-Class instead of the S-Class.

 

I'd suggest abandoning your stereotypes and learn the facts. For example, a survey of people who lived in the nation's highest income zip codes showed that one of the most common brands owned by residents was...Honda.

[partsisparts]

They can afford to live there...under the current tax rates for people in their income bracket. And the increase, as shown in the article, proves incorrect your contention that the increase under the proposed tax increase is "small."

 

Your reply is not only fails to address the points raised, but is basically simplistic and unrealistic.

 

 

 

I'd suggest abandoning your stereotypes and learn the facts. For example, a survey of people who lived in the nation's highest income zip codes showed that one of the most common brands owned by residents was...Honda.

I was being fecicious,.... and simplistic on purpose. If you make 25k per month you should be able to afford a little tax increase. If you cannot afford a little tax increase how can you have any trickle down? You don't have any extra for the trickle. Then the job creators cannot afford to hire in the first place. So let's stop protecting these people.

[xr7g428]

Parts just hates people that make more money than he does and wants the government to confiscate the money so he will feel better and get the benefit of other peoples earnings. Pretty simple really.

[goinbroke2]

Parts just hates people that make more money than he does and wants the government to confiscate the money so he will feel better and get the benefit of other peoples earnings. Pretty simple really.

 

Unfortunately there are many more like him..51% apparently...

[RangerM]

Every tax increase proposed by anyone including the President, would not make up for the deficit much less pay down any of the debt.

 

And suggesting that individuals should be financially responsible in the private lives, yet not expecting the same thing from the government we all share seems hypocritical; except the word hypocritical isn't strong enough. It's malicious.

[TomServo92]

This is what makes me so angry about all the tax increase debate. Without some substantial changes to the way the government spends money,we're just pissing it away. When a ship is sinking, you don't fix it by building the hull higher, you patch the damn hole.

[grbeck]

I was being fecicious,.... and simplistic on purpose. If you make 25k per month you should be able to afford a little tax increase.

 

Again, you need read the article I posted...the tax increase will not be a "little" one. It contains a thorough analysis of the impact of the proposed tax increase on families making $250,000 a year.

 

You should also ask why New York Senator Charles Schumer (a liberal Democrat, remember) has proposed raising the annual income threshold to $1 million for a family...apparently, he doesn't believe that this tax increase will be a "little one" for families making $250,000 a year, or a little more.

 

If you cannot afford a little tax increase how can you have any trickle down? You don't have any extra for the trickle. Then the job creators cannot afford to hire in the first place.

 

So the answer is to increase their taxes? That makes a whole lot of sense.

 

So let's stop protecting these people.

 

Allowing people to keep more of their own money is not "protecting" them.

 

The federal government would be engaged in the act of "protecting" a person when it uses taxpayer money to bail out a company with incompetent management and a stubborn union, thus protecting both management and the union from their own stupidity and their refusal to accept that it's not 1965 anymore.

 

Now, when has that scenario happened within the last five years...? But I seem to recall that you supported that "protection" effort, even though both management and the union deserved to face the consequences of their own stupidity.

Edited December 19, 2012 by grbeck