If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   If you thought pigs would fly before you saw a well-written article about how tax increases will impact the wealthy, then get ready for airborne bacon   (npr.org) divider line 153
    More: Interesting, progressive taxes, personal income taxes, Palm Beach Gardens, Tax Foundation, media proprietor, land trust, Boehner  
•       •       •

4393 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Dec 2012 at 12:42 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



153 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-14 01:17:46 PM

geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.


LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!
 
2012-12-14 01:18:21 PM

Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS


When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?
 
2012-12-14 01:18:54 PM
If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?
 
2012-12-14 01:20:18 PM

jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!


RINO = rich in news only
 
2012-12-14 01:20:24 PM

jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!


New keyboard, I haz needz one.
 
2012-12-14 01:21:24 PM

Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?


I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?
 
2012-12-14 01:22:00 PM

monoski: jst3p: geek_mars: Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

LIBERAL PLANT! He probably isn't even rich! Sounds like "new money" at best!

RINO = rich in news only


Nicely done.
 
2012-12-14 01:23:22 PM
"There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.
 
2012-12-14 01:24:08 PM

pacified: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

Yes, but I didn't inherit millions of shares of stock, nor is my primary income from dividends.

And "risk of investing"? Ha! Investing is a choice. You don't have to. You don't want to risk losing your money, put it in a CD. Why should you get special benefits?

Income is income is income is income is income. There is nothing more special about a dividend v. labor. None. Just because some rich people paid some nerds to come up with word salad to justify it doesn't make it true.


Their investments are needed, so they is an incentive (large reward) in place to encourage the investment.

Also, I love that you are one of those that think all rich people inherited their wealth. Keep farking that lie.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:04 PM

Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.


We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.
 
2012-12-14 01:25:22 PM

Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"


Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?
 
2012-12-14 01:25:26 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?


If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?
 
2012-12-14 01:25:58 PM

theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*


do you even have a 401K?
 
2012-12-14 01:26:19 PM

Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong


It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:00 PM

Arkanaut: Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"

Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?


They were already married to Romenin, so it's hard to go out in public with Ovronsky. People talk.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:16 PM

geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.


One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared among all of the successful. I know a guy who's cutting back to compensate for tax increases. That means only 1 less job at his particular small business, but I bet he isn't the only one that feels that way just as there are others that feel like your guy.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:23 PM

quatchi: But he adds that he thinks Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," which he says is a mistake.

Spot the FOX viewer in this sentence.


May I suggest that you actually speak to some of these "Democrats" and ask them personally if that's in fact what they believe. Instead of, you know, just going with what someone else is telling you they believe.
 
2012-12-14 01:27:24 PM

qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.


The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.
 
2012-12-14 01:28:03 PM

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*


It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.
 
2012-12-14 01:28:37 PM
Silly Jesus: Keep farking that lie.

lolwut
 
2012-12-14 01:29:17 PM

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?


Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?
 
2012-12-14 01:29:28 PM

theknuckler_33: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money."

What is your after-deductions taxable income? If it is still over $250K, then yea, that IS a lot of money. How much over $250K is your taxable income? 10K? 50k? An extra 4% on 50K is $2000. If your TAXABLE income is $300K, even in Washington, DC with 3 kids and 2 in college, yea that IS a lot of farking money and even so, your taxes would go up $2000... about $165 a MONTH!

The more tax someone would pay as a result of the tax increase, the less it will hurt them because it means they are making a farking shiat-ton of money!


It is hilarious how little this guy knows about how the tax code works. If he's just a little over $250,000 in total income, there is no chance at all he's affected by the tax increase at all after the ~~$18,000 reduction in taxable income from 5 personal exemptions and probably about $40,000 in itemized deductions.that is standard for his income group.
 
2012-12-14 01:30:48 PM

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


Jesus, you're silly.
 
2012-12-14 01:31:26 PM

tstrimp: Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong

It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.


What percentage of the country's income taxes WOULD it be fair for 1% of the population to pay?
 
2012-12-14 01:32:01 PM

urbangirl: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Jesus, you're silly.


Tee-hee!
 
2012-12-14 01:36:33 PM

Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA


You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.
Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.


Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.
BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:01 PM

Pro Zack: theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

do you even have a 401K?


Of course, what does that have to do with anything? Dividends on your 401k investments (well, at least mine) are immediately reinvested (again, pre-tax, just like my contributions) into the plan. I won't pay taxes until I withdraw funds after, hopefully, I retire, at which time those withdrawals will be taxes as regular income.
 
2012-12-14 01:38:11 PM

jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?


Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...
 
2012-12-14 01:38:43 PM

Pro Zack: qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.

The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.


You really are this dumb, aren't you?

He is saying you don't need to give wealthy people incentive to invest, that's what wealthy people do.
 
2012-12-14 01:39:58 PM

Pro Zack: qorkfiend: Pro Zack: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."


This guy is an idiot.

We can only assume you've got contradictory evidence, then.

The guy contradicts himself. what will he do with extra money, according to his quote? invest it.


Wrong. What he said was he wouldn't stop investing if he had slightly less money.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:08 PM

Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?

 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.
 
2012-12-14 01:40:15 PM

Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...


By your logic we should just abolish income tax all together, peopel will all pay their fair share without it being mandatory right?
 
2012-12-14 01:41:39 PM

sweetmelissa31: Arkanaut: Jackson Herring: Let me sum up the entire article:

"It won't effect me at all, but gosh I hate that President Ovronsky"

Rich people want to have an affair with Obama, then throw themselves in front of a train?

They were already married to Romenin, so it's hard to go out in public with Ovronsky. People talk.


Ahhhh Anne Romenina.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:08 PM

Silly Jesus: Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?


No, we haven't seen the imaginary liberals in your head and what they post on your alternate reality Fark.
 
2012-12-14 01:44:54 PM

urbangirl: Silly Jesus: The Jami Turman Fan Club: Silly Jesus: Durr.

Yo, mod alt. Question for you:

As a percentage of your income, how much are you, personally, willing to pay in additional taxes if it means:

1) Everybody gets health care.
2) The economy gets stronger.
3) The federal budget gets under control.

I'm willing to spend 4% on that. Are you?

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it? 

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.


From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?
 
2012-12-14 01:45:30 PM

Teufelaffe: Silly Jesus: Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

No, we haven't seen the imaginary liberals in your head and what they post on your alternate reality Fark.


Selective reading on your part I reckon.
 
2012-12-14 01:45:37 PM

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.


Of course. The already rich invest 10s, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on dividend paying stocks of well-established companies acquiring thousands and thousands of shares and making thousands upon thousands of dollars taxed at 15%. The middle-class, after putting away whatever they can into their 401K, might be lucky enough to have a few hundred dollars or maybe even a couple grand to buy some stocks... you know, maybe 3-4 shares of Apple, for example. God forbid they need a new roof on their house or the engine in their car takes a shiat on them and they have to sell those stock before a year goes by and pay regular income on whatever capital gains they might make on the short term holdings. Yea, that was put in place for everyone. Totally. I remember the big middle-class swell of support for that when it was being proposed because of how much it was going to benefit joe six pack.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:20 PM

Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...


Yeah, voluntary charity has been so successful at alleviating poverty and suffering.
 
2012-12-14 01:46:36 PM

Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.


On your points, in order:
1. Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Some of the most prosperous times for the US economy have been when we had MUCH higher top marginal tax rates. Our economy was booming when the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Wealth has its own sort of gravity - wealth attracts more wealth. If you don't keep it flowing through the economy with taxes it will simply accumulate in the hands of the very wealthy, and make it progressively more difficult for everyone else in society to improve their lot in life.

2. It depends by how much, but you're factually incorrect there. The extremely MODEST tax increases being suggested by the Obama administration would raise somewhere around 1 and 1/2 trillion dollars. If you think well over a trillion dollars is negligable (you said "negligent", but I'm sure negligable is the word you were looking for) then you're simply being obstinate.

3. When did he say that? I've heard no such thing. Could you provide a citation, please? The justifications I've heard from the Obama administration are actually the opposite of what you've claimed - that the extra taxes are necessary to help keep our economy healthy going forward.

As far as class warfare... We ALREADY are in a state of class warfare, and have been for around three decades now. And the poor and middle class have been getting their asses utterly and absolutely kicked. Both wages and household wealth for the lower and middle classes have sunk over the last few decades. Meanwhile, the very, very, very most wealthy (think the 0.1%) have been who that wealth has been being plundered by - and they now hold an incredibly disproportiate amount of the wealth in society. It's not the just rewards of a hardworking few, it's the spoils of the class warfare they've been waging against the rest of the society using the changes to the law that they've been purchasing.

This is a HUGE problem for the economy. As the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the few the purchasing power of the rest of society plummets. That purchasing power IS the strength of the US economy. If current trends continue the middle class and poor will continue to be able to afford less and less as time goes on. What good exactly is investing in businesses that no one can afford to purchase from any more? The lower that purchasing power of the hoi poloi drops, the weaker and less able to recover from shocks and downturns our economy becomes.

The wealthy will ALWAYS invest their wealth, where else do you think they're going to keep it? Under their mattresses? But those investments aren't necessarily job creating investments. The middle class wealth is the job engine of our economy, as that's where the small businesses which will become our future big businesses so often begin. But if the poor and middle class have both less and less purchasing power and less household wealth those small businesses will increasingly have too few customers and will be started less and less frequently without the wealth to invest in entrepenurial endeavors.
 
2012-12-14 01:48:24 PM

Silly Jesus: If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any federal income tax, but still pay a myriad of other taxes, but I already knew that, I'm just a disingenuous douche?


FTFY, douche
 
2012-12-14 01:48:26 PM

theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

You're dividend tax rate is also 15% and their income tax rate is also 40%.

And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class.

Of course. The already rich invest 10s, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars on dividend paying stocks of well-established companies acquiring thousands and thousands of shares and making thousands upon thousands of dollars taxed at 15%. The middle-class, after putting away whatever they can into their 401K, might be lucky enough to have a few hundred dollars or maybe even a couple grand to buy some stocks... you know, maybe 3-4 shares of Apple, for example. God forbid they need a new roof on their house or the engine in their car takes a shiat on them and they have to sell those stock before a year goe ...


Everyone is completely equal and everyone, no matter their accomplishments in life should have the same end result. A participation trophy, if you will.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:16 PM
What percentage of the country's income taxes WOULD it be fair for 1% of the population to pay?

Commensurate to their share of income would be "fair". However I don't think the taxes need to be fair. Lets call it what it is though and not pretend like the top 10% aren't already bearing the burden of the entire country. I think fixing the capital gains tax would go a long way toward taking the undeserved attention off the evil wage earners making over $250k.
 
2012-12-14 01:50:38 PM

Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"Instead, you're made to feel like you're a bad guy," Krall says. "People resent the notion that somehow they've done something wrong by becoming successful."

THIS

When and how was he 'made to feel like he is a bad guy'?

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?


That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?
 
2012-12-14 01:50:45 PM

Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.
2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.
3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."
That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared among all of t ...


Yea, one guy. I intended to indicate it was one guy by using the word "particular". It seemed like a singularly explicit term, to me.
As to the questions I actually asked, while you didn't answer me, you made some comments in other posts that are on the subject and brought to mind something else I'd like to ask.

"Their investments are needed, so they is an incentive (large reward) in place to encourage the investment."
"It was put in place to encourage investment...from anyone, including the middle class."

Do we still need these encouragements? I mean, if they were put in place when the stock exchange was being created* then I can see why they would have been needed. Now, though, there are stock exchanges all over the world. Investments and stock exchanges are an every day reality in the modern world and the system has evolved to provide its own encouragement, so I don't see why something that was put in place to encourage investments and is no longer needed should be maintained.

*I have no idea when they were put in place, but it's not important to the point I'm making.
 
2012-12-14 01:53:36 PM
After her torrid affair with Mitt Mittovich Ovronsky cools off, Anne Romenina throws herself under the hooves of a ballet-dancing horse
 
2012-12-14 01:53:56 PM

Silly Jesus: Everyone is completely equal and everyone, no matter their accomplishments in life should have the same end result. A participation trophy, if you will.


You know what's fair? All income from all sources being taxed as regular income.

Putting a special tax rate on income from a source that overwhelmingly goes to the wealthy is unfair.
 
2012-12-14 01:56:22 PM

tstrimp: Elandriel: I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong

It's definitely wrong. The top 1% bring in 11% of all income and pay 37.4% of all income taxes. By your logic they are overtaxed.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html

I agree with the sentiment in the article that the people at the top of the income chain pay their fair share of taxes, and they shouldn't be vilified for not paying enough. Those who are making millions of dollars on capital gains however are clearly not paying their fair share. It's disgusting that someone like Romney can get by only paying 14% on their millions of dollars of income.


That article is only on income nothing about the "income" that they get from capital gains.
 
2012-12-14 01:58:44 PM

mongbiohazard: On your points, in order:
1. Actually, you have it exactly backwards. Some of the most prosperous times for the US economy have been when we had MUCH higher top marginal tax rates. Our economy was booming when the top marginal tax rate was 91%. Wealth has its own sort of gravity - wealth attracts more wealth. If you don't keep it flowing through the economy with taxes it will simply accumulate in the hands of the very wealthy, and make it progressively more difficult for everyone else in society to improve their lot in life.

Folks pull out the 91% nonsense a lot but conveniently (or out of ignorance) fail to mention all of the other differences at that time, like all of the deductions on all interest etc. So, essentially, that's an absurd comparison.
I am fine with money being moved around through law if it is genuinely needed in order to keep the economic machine functioning, but I am not OK with the redistribution out of some emotional "fairness" concept.



2. It depends by how much, but you're factually incorrect there. The extremely MODEST tax increases being suggested by the Obama administration would raise somewhere around 1 and 1/2 trillion dollars. If you think well over a trillion dollars is negligable (you said "negligent", but I'm sure negligable is the word you were looking for) then you're simply being obstinate.

People are saying / thinking that if those greedy rich people just gave a little more all of our problems would be solved. I'm saying that in that context it's negligible.

3. When did he say that? I've heard no such thing. Could you provide a citation, please? The justifications I've heard from the Obama administration are actually the opposite of what you've claimed - that the extra taxes are necessary to help keep our economy healthy going forward.

In the debate that Charles Gibson moderated. He said (paraphrasing) "Mr. Obama, what if raising taxes reduced revenue, would you still be for it?" Obama responded along the lines of "To me, it's an issue of fairness."

As far as class warfare... We ALREADY are in a state of class warfare, and have been for around three decades now. And the poor and middle class have been getting their asses utterly and absolutely kicked. Both wages and household wealth for the lower and middle classes have sunk over the last few decades. Meanwhile, the very, very, very most wealthy (think the 0.1%) have been who that wealth has been being plundered by - and they now hold an incredibly disproportiate amount of the wealth in society. It's not the just rewards of a hardworking few, it's the spoils of the class warfare they've been waging against the rest of the society using the changes to the law that they've been purchasing.

I agree that many of the laws are corrupted by wealth (buying congressmen etc.) and that should be stopped.
This is a HUGE problem for the economy. As the wealth continues to accumulate in the hands of the few the purchasing power of the rest of society plummets. That purchasing power IS the strength of the US economy. If current trends continue the middle class and poor will continue to be able to afford less and less as time goes on. What good exactly is investing in businesses that no one can afford to purchase from any more? The lower that purchasing power of the hoi poloi drops, the weaker and less able to recover from shocks and downturns our economy becomes.

The wealthy will ALWAYS invest their wealth, where else do you think they're going to keep it? Under their mattresses? But those investments aren't necessarily job creating investments. The middle class wealth is the job engine of our economy, as that's where the small businesses which will become our future big businesses so often begin. But if the poor and middle class have both less and less purchasing power and less household wealth those small businesses will increasingly have too few customers and will be started less and less frequently without the wealth to invest in entrepenurial endeavors.

I'm not seeing that argument being made though. I'm seeing the "fairness" argument. Those are two completely different things. If the increase is needed to keep the system in check, fine. If it's for the arbitrarily and emotionally dictated concept of "fairness", then I am opposed to it.

 
2012-12-14 01:59:28 PM

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Silly Jesus: If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and a great portion of people aren't paying any federal income tax, but still pay a myriad of other taxes, but I already knew that, I'm just a disingenuous douche?

FTFY, douche


The rich pay other taxes as well, cupcake.
 
2012-12-14 02:02:24 PM

Silly Jesus: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/10/30/nyregion/where-the-one- p ercent-fit-in-the-hierarchy-of-income.html


You also ready that wrong.
the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.
 
Displayed 50 of 153 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report