Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Tech Crunch)   Deafened by screams of despair from wealthy Americans targeted by Obama's tax plan? Me neither. Here's why   (techcrunch.com ) divider line 64
    More: Fail, Americans, obama, carried interest, interest rate risk  
•       •       •

7214 clicks; posted to Business » on 02 Jan 2013 at 8:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-02 05:25:05 PM  
Except that the article didn't go into detail about why the majority of people earning over $400K will generally see little increase in their tax liabilities.  Most of the wealthy make their money from investments, not from wages, so they're more concerned about capital gains taxes than they are about payroll taxes.  The article's author just briefly touched on how his effective capital gains rate may have risen from 15% to 20% under the new laws.

What the article was generally about is how managers of some types of funds and securities get to consider their performance fees as carried interest under tax law as opposed to wages.  The author himself manages the CrunchFund, and his fees are taxed as long-held capital gains.  He believes that this is ethically wrong and would like to see it changed.

A quick Google-fu shows that the president and several Democratic representatives have fought to get such fees reclassified, but haven't had much luck. This article discusses the topic further, and uses Romney as an example (he saved millions in taxes by being able to utilize the loophole while at Bain Capital). I could see why top investment managers would lobby hard to keep things as-is.
 
2013-01-02 06:21:05 PM  
 
2013-01-02 07:13:17 PM  

fusillade762: - The tax on capital gains and dividends will be permanently set at 20 percent for those with income above the $450,000/$400,000 threshold


That's what I was looking to see in the article.  So even people who would have avoided an increase in income tax liabilities because of their income source will see their taxes go up.

So to sum things up, the article is about a small subset of wealthy Americans who use a loophole to get their income classified as capital gains as opposed to wages.  The new tax law does not close this loophole, but it does hit them with a 5% increase in their long-term capital gain rate if they make over $400K.

Not really getting subby's choice of title at this point.
 
2013-01-02 08:10:58 PM  

Dinjiin: fusillade762: - The tax on capital gains and dividends will be permanently set at 20 percent for those with income above the $450,000/$400,000 threshold

That's what I was looking to see in the article.  So even people who would have avoided an increase in income tax liabilities because of their income source will see their taxes go up.

So to sum things up, the article is about a small subset of wealthy Americans who use a loophole to get their income classified as capital gains as opposed to wages.  The new tax law does not close this loophole, but it does hit them with a 5% increase in their long-term capital gain rate if they make over $400K.

Not really getting subby's choice of title at this point.


Because most people would think that the type of income they are talking about is nothing more than ordinary income and the rate should go up 24.9% rather than 5%?

I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here.
 
2013-01-02 08:40:36 PM  
Because... the wealthy have hired people to do their screaming for them?
 
2013-01-02 09:10:30 PM  
Well part if it is that money provides growth income where it is invested that feeds back into the machine for middle class folk to start businesses to hire the poor.

Why does subby hate the poor so much?
 
2013-01-02 09:15:20 PM  

steamingpile: Well part if it is that money provides growth income where it is invested that feeds back into the machine for middle class folk to start businesses to hire the poor.

Why does subby hate the poor so much?


heh...that's cute
 
2013-01-02 09:17:51 PM  
We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!
 
2013-01-02 09:24:40 PM  
Duh, 'cause they've gone Galt.
 
2013-01-02 09:26:10 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!


No more taxes! No more taxes!
 
2013-01-02 09:26:50 PM  
You simply can't quantify the benefit of being "safe and sound" in these United States.

If Caesar wants a few more nickels, here, take mine. Just leave me alone.
 
2013-01-02 09:59:43 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!


Yeah, you could even go really mad and massively hike tax rates back to the same levels when Reagan was in power, that power crazy, socialist, high tax destroy the economy president everyone hates. It would fix the deficit, but only crazy people would think an economy could work with tax levels that high - just over half what they are in France and Germany.

Does it gall you that your opinions are completely bought and paid for by rich people, or are you completely at peace with being a gullible rube that goes to bat for people that are never going to notice the difference in any meaningful way, but you will fight tooth and nail to screw everyone else just so they can get a higher "score" in their bank account/investments than they otherwise would?
 
2013-01-02 10:12:31 PM  

Minus 1 Charisma: We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!


It's funny how people have been characterizing American entitlement programs as "unsustainable" for the past 3+ decades. On a long enough timeline, the sun isn't sustainable either.
 
2013-01-02 10:25:32 PM  
the "income tax" shouldn't exist, what is called capital gains/dividend share today is what "income" was..

wages are not "income", anything that is bought with your body cannot be taxed in any measure beyond being called slavery. to tax the average man who subsists on labor as if he is receiving an income is unconscionable. but i wouldn't expect americans to truly understand the difference, or anyone in the west.

same with sales tax, when you tax essentials you subsidize those who hold the top tier of financial assets at the expence of the average man. BUT DUUUURRRR REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS HAAAR$RR HARRR WE SO SMAR>TTTTTTTT.\

fark all of you retards, i'm glad VAWA expired.
 
2013-01-02 10:30:16 PM  

knowless: the "income tax" shouldn't exist, what is called capital gains/dividend share today is what "income" was..

wages are not "income", anything that is bought with your body cannot be taxed in any measure beyond being called slavery. to tax the average man who subsists on labor as if he is receiving an income is unconscionable. but i wouldn't expect americans to truly understand the difference, or anyone in the west.

same with sales tax, when you tax essentials you subsidize those who hold the top tier of financial assets at the expence of the average man. BUT DUUUURRRR REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS HAAAR$RR HARRR WE SO SMAR>TTTTTTTT.\

fark all of you retards, i'm glad VAWA expired.


A few of us over here agree with you. The problem is drawing the line. No one can agree on that.
 
2013-01-02 10:37:05 PM  

Dinjiin: So to sum things up, the article is about a small subset of wealthy Americans who use a loophole to get their income classified as capital gains as opposed to wages. The new tax law does not close this loophole, but it does hit them with a 5% increase in their long-term capital gain rate if they make over $400K.


Actually, no. Of the people who make more than $1 million per year, most of them derive their income from capital gains not wages.

There are however a lot of highly skilled engineers, doctors and other professionals who make a wage over $200,000 a year. If you have a family of 4 or 5 and are living on $200K you're comfortable, but you still have to worry about a mortgage, braces for your kids, paying for college etc.

The article is correct. Increasing rates on wages but not capital gains lets the idle rich off the hook.
 
2013-01-02 10:47:21 PM  
All we need to do is put a 1 % tax on every stock transfer that occurs in Wall Street. That should shape it up real well, also might get rid of the rapid volatility of the market if some companies start to worry about the tax implications of high volume stock sales.
 
2013-01-02 10:50:10 PM  

knowless: the "income tax" shouldn't exist, what is called capital gains/dividend share today is what "income" was..

wages are not "income", anything that is bought with your body cannot be taxed in any measure beyond being called slavery. to tax the average man who subsists on labor as if he is receiving an income is unconscionable. but i wouldn't expect americans to truly understand the difference, or anyone in the west.

same with sales tax, when you tax essentials you subsidize those who hold the top tier of financial assets at the expence of the average man. BUT DUUUURRRR REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS HAAAR$RR HARRR WE SO SMAR>TTTTTTTT.\

fark all of you retards, i'm glad VAWA expired.


move to somalia then
 
2013-01-02 10:50:37 PM  
i, like a child, will continue on in the same manner until there is measurable change. I do not see your discussions, and only feel the derision.

the democrats have failed, the republicans have failed, and my party has no representation.

i see no need to discuss something that to me is so obvious that the bereft and ludicrious examinations of the system are accepted as exceptional.

let men be free.
i'll see you in the streets.

let my person be destroyed or ignored, it means nothing.

we all face the same fate, no matter obfuscation.
 
2013-01-02 11:04:15 PM  
Not too clear on which "loophole" the author wants closed. The one where, once the money is in your bank account and part of your net worth, you get to keep it without government siphoning it off bit by bit just because you've got it and they want it? Or is the "loophole" that, after you've put your funds at risk and navigated all the labyrinthine regulations and barriers government erects managed to have made money instead of losing it, that the gains aren't taxed the same as if you were a cubicle dwelling office drone who hazards nothing?

I hope the day comes when some people stop thinking that money is like pizza and that if you yourself have too many slices somebody else ends up eating the box. If you're investing and profiting, you're growing the pie, and the more you tax it, the more it shrinks.
 
2013-01-02 11:24:26 PM  

jjorsett: Not too clear on which "loophole" the author wants closed. The one where, once the money is in your bank account and part of your net worth, you get to keep it without government siphoning it off bit by bit just because you've got it and they want it? Or is the "loophole" that, after you've put your funds at risk and navigated all the labyrinthine regulations and barriers government erects managed to have made money instead of losing it, that the gains aren't taxed the same as if you were a cubicle dwelling office drone who hazards nothing?

I hope the day comes when some people stop thinking that money is like pizza and that if you yourself have too many slices somebody else ends up eating the box. If you're investing and profiting, you're growing the pie, and the more you tax it, the more it shrinks.


No. Look up carried interest
 
2013-01-02 11:32:53 PM  

jjorsett: Not too clear on which "loophole" the author wants closed. The one where, once the money is in your bank account and part of your net worth, you get to keep it without government siphoning it off bit by bit just because you've got it and they want it? Or is the "loophole" that, after you've put your funds at risk and navigated all the labyrinthine regulations and barriers government erects managed to have made money instead of losing it, that the gains aren't taxed the same as if you were a cubicle dwelling office drone who hazards nothing?

I hope the day comes when some people stop thinking that money is like pizza and that if you yourself have too many slices somebody else ends up eating the box. If you're investing and profiting, you're growing the pie, and the more you tax it, the more it shrinks.


He is talking about the fact that the rules oftentime treat carried interest as capital gains rather than income. Meaning wealth managers (investing other peoples money for a fee) get paid at a lower tax rate than doctors (performing surgery for a fee) or automechanics (fixing your car for a fee). They all are performing services, yet wealth managers pay lower taxes on their income.

If you are investing your own money, that should be considered capital gains, because the lower tax rate encourages investment and wise ROI based decision making. If you are investing other peoples money, lower taxes doesn't encourage more investment. The people would find a way to invest whether through a wealth manager or scottrade.

Of course, there are always more complications than mere tax code technicalities. If you tax wealth managers too much they will just set up a Grand Cayman account and pay zero capital gains taxes. What most people forget is that you can only force sell burgers to the wealthy for filet mignon prices for so long. They can get up and leave any time they want. People complain that it's unpatriotic, completely forgetting that this country was settled and later founded, only a few hundred years ago nonetheless, by people fed up with paying taxes for services they don't want nor need.
 
2013-01-02 11:59:43 PM  

knowless: i, like a child, will continue on in the same manner until there is measurable change. I do not see your discussions, and only feel the derision.

the democrats have failed, the republicans have failed, and my party has no representation.

i see no need to discuss something that to me is so obvious that the bereft and ludicrious examinations of the system are accepted as exceptional.

let men be free.
i'll see you in the streets.

let my person be destroyed or ignored, it means nothing.

we all face the same fate, no matter obfuscation.


Actually, I don't think most of us are taking nearly as many bad drugs as you appear to be.

jjorsett: Not too clear on which "loophole" the author wants closed. The one where, once the money is in your bank account and part of your net worth, you get to keep it without government siphoning it off bit by bit just because you've got it and they want it? Or is the "loophole" that, after you've put your funds at risk and navigated all the labyrinthine regulations and barriers government erects managed to have made money instead of losing it, that the gains aren't taxed the same as if you were a cubicle dwelling office drone who hazards nothing?

I hope the day comes when some people stop thinking that money is like pizza and that if you yourself have too many slices somebody else ends up eating the box. If you're investing and profiting, you're growing the pie, and the more you tax it, the more it shrinks.


On the other hand, it could be argued that there is no morally acceptable reason to tax money earned by actual work (the expenditure of one's life) at a higher rate than money "earned" by sitting on one's ass watching money grow. And most people agree - so the fairest thing is to tax both on the same basis. Which is where we are headed, it appears.
 
2013-01-03 12:03:42 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: All we need to do is put a 1 % tax on every stock transfer that occurs in Wall Street. That should shape it up real well, also might get rid of the rapid volatility of the market if some companies start to worry about the tax implications of high volume stock sales.


Not a bad idea, but since Wall Street already owns both parties it will never happen.
 
2013-01-03 12:59:09 AM  
Do you know how in the tank the media is for the corporations?

EVERYONE'S PAYROLL TAXES JUST WENT UP.

And here they are crying about those poor folks making over $400K. The middle class just took it in the ass and they're busy telling you what an awesome deal it was.
 
2013-01-03 01:26:06 AM  

Minus 1 Charisma: We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!


Can't we do both?
 
2013-01-03 01:47:29 AM  
douchbag
 
2013-01-03 02:23:30 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Actually, no. Of the people who make more than $1 million per year, most of them derive their income from capital gains not wages.


To which I never made a contradictory statement about.  That was why before fusillade762 pointed out that last night's tax bill included the 5% raise in capital gains, I was making the statement that people earning over $400K would probably see little increase in their tax liabilities.  The statement implies that high income earners make the majority of their money from gains and not from wages.

Mr. Eugenides: There are however a lot of highly skilled engineers, doctors and other professionals who make a wage over $200,000 a year.


For surgeons and medical doctors who are not GPs, sure.  Outside of that, you're looking at some very niche specialties and/or very high seniority to get wages that high.  Getting to $150K isn't terribly hard as a professional.  Getting over $200K is.
 
2013-01-03 04:31:57 AM  

plcow: If you tax wealth managers too much they will just set up a Grand Cayman account and pay zero capital gains taxes.


And those sods not rich enough to have offshore accounts, we're gonna tax 'em more, because we can. They can't afford to wriggle free. Kick 'em when they're down!

You put forth one of the few sound arguments for current policy - cynical as all hell, but sound. It sure beats Romney's hamfisted incoherent explanation of why it's right for me to pay 22% while he pays not quite 14%.
 
2013-01-03 04:36:33 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: All we need to do is put a 1 % tax on every stock transfer that occurs in Wall Street. That should shape it up real well, also might get rid of the rapid volatility of the market if some companies start to worry about the tax implications of high volume stock sales.


Pushes button. Moves all transactions to the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Lights cigar with $500 Euro bill. Smiles
 
2013-01-03 04:37:50 AM  

dumbobruni: knowless: the "income tax" shouldn't exist, what is called capital gains/dividend share today is what "income" was..

wages are not "income", anything that is bought with your body cannot be taxed in any measure beyond being called slavery. to tax the average man who subsists on labor as if he is receiving an income is unconscionable. but i wouldn't expect americans to truly understand the difference, or anyone in the west.

same with sales tax, when you tax essentials you subsidize those who hold the top tier of financial assets at the expence of the average man. BUT DUUUURRRR REPUBLICANS DEMOCRATS HAAAR$RR HARRR WE SO SMAR>TTTTTTTT.\

fark all of you retards, i'm glad VAWA expired.

move to somalia then


Or to some Caribbean island that has 0% income tax.
 
2013-01-03 06:05:08 AM  

Austinoftx: Because... the wealthy have hired people to do their screaming for them?


No, they just use staffing agencies to deflect any harm onto the people doing the screaming. You wouldnt want them to be able to cause real litigative harm if their voice goes out permanently, y'know?
 
2013-01-03 07:31:11 AM  
I love talking about taxes.

This guy sound like a blast
 
2013-01-03 07:44:37 AM  

CujoQuarrel: DarkSoulNoHope: All we need to do is put a 1 % tax on every stock transfer that occurs in Wall Street. That should shape it up real well, also might get rid of the rapid volatility of the market if some companies start to worry about the tax implications of high volume stock sales.

Pushes button. Moves all transactions to the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Lights cigar with $500 Euro bill. Smiles


You know China already taxes the SSE and the largest companies on it are state owned enterprises?
 
2013-01-03 08:10:53 AM  

Mr. Eugenides: Dinjiin: So to sum things up, the article is about a small subset of wealthy Americans who use a loophole to get their income classified as capital gains as opposed to wages. The new tax law does not close this loophole, but it does hit them with a 5% increase in their long-term capital gain rate if they make over $400K.

Actually, no. Of the people who make more than $1 million per year, most of them derive their income from capital gains not wages.

There are however a lot of highly skilled engineers, doctors and other professionals who make a wage over $200,000 a year. If you have a family of 4 or 5 and are living on $200K you're comfortable, but you still have to worry about a mortgage, braces for your kids, paying for college etc.

The article is correct. Increasing rates on wages but not capital gains lets the idle rich off the hook.


Maybe my 35k and your 200k worry about those things are much different levels of worry.
 
2013-01-03 08:51:31 AM  

Justin Bieber's Acne Medication: plcow: If you tax wealth managers too much they will just set up a Grand Cayman account and pay zero capital gains taxes.

And those sods not rich enough to have offshore accounts, we're gonna tax 'em more, because we can. They can't afford to wriggle free. Kick 'em when they're down!

You put forth one of the few sound arguments for current policy - cynical as all hell, but sound. It sure beats Romney's hamfisted incoherent explanation of why it's right for me to pay 22% while he pays not quite 14%.


Exactly. The very wealthy have the liquidity and resources available to work around taxes. Any increase in the new laws won't affect them that much. The "poor" (which threashold continually gets raised) have exemptions and don't pay taxes. It's will basically be everybody between the 50%-95% that end up paying for any tax increase, no matter how they word it. All of these people just had their payroll taxes increased and can do very little about it. And everybody wonders why the middle class is shrinking so much lately and why it is so difficult to move from the lower class to the upper class. Because doing so requires you to take an increasing set of tax burdens porportionate to your income. In other words, the percentage of taxes and other burdens actually goes up, and peaks somewhere around $250,000. But you don't see this just looking at the tax code. You have to consider how much an accountant costs, and a lawyer in the Bahamas, and to develop a good investment strategy, etc.

Romney wouldn't say it precisely because it does come across as cynical which isn't good when you are running for president; but you know he was saying it behind doors. Same with two-faced Buffet and all the celebreties trumping higher taxes while buying condos in Monaco to avoid them. The reason republicans argue for lower taxes from the very wealthy is because those are the hands that feed them. If you want a loan for your small business, that is who you go to. And you want them to pay lower capital gains, because otherwise they will expect a higher interest rate to invest in you. Tired of typing, but my point is that most people don't think through all of the real life implications of the current tax code when making arguments. It's supply demand, shortages and surplusses, and alternatives. And no, I'm not an MBA, I'm an engineer, we should all know this shiat.
 
2013-01-03 09:05:20 AM  
Al Jazeera did not disclose the purchase price, but people with direct knowledge of the deal pegged it at around $500 million, indicating a $100 million payout for Mr. Gore, who owned 20 percent of Current. Mr. Gore and his partners were eager to complete the deal by Dec. 31, lest it be subject to higher tax rates that took effect on Jan. 1, according to several people who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. But the deal was not signed until Wednesday.

Yeah, Al will probably pay at the capital gains rate, but it's shame he missed out by 2 days.
 
2013-01-03 09:40:26 AM  

plcow: Exactly. The very wealthy have the liquidity and resources available to work around taxes. Any increase in the new laws won't affect them that much. The "poor" (which threashold continually gets raised) have exemptions and don't pay taxes. It's will basically be everybody between the 50%-95% that end up paying for any tax increase, no matter how they word it. All of these people just had their payroll taxes increased and can do very little about it. And everybody wonders why the middle class is shrinking so much lately and why it is so difficult to move from the lower class to the upper class. Because doing so requires you to take an increasing set of tax burdens porportionate to your income. In other words, the percentage of taxes and other burdens actually goes up, and peaks somewhere around $250,000. But you don't see this just looking at the tax code. You have to consider how much an accountant costs, and a lawyer in the Bahamas, and to develop a good investment strategy, etc.


All of the poor just had the payroll tax raised (or un-lowered, depending on your perspective) too.  Except the unemployed, of course, but you can't get blood from a stone.
 
2013-01-03 10:12:44 AM  
they don't scream.  That would be uncouth.  They just disappear.
 
2013-01-03 10:27:09 AM  

you have pee hands: plcow: Exactly. The very wealthy have the liquidity and resources available to work around taxes. Any increase in the new laws won't affect them that much. The "poor" (which threashold continually gets raised) have exemptions and don't pay taxes. It's will basically be everybody between the 50%-95% that end up paying for any tax increase, no matter how they word it. All of these people just had their payroll taxes increased and can do very little about it. And everybody wonders why the middle class is shrinking so much lately and why it is so difficult to move from the lower class to the upper class. Because doing so requires you to take an increasing set of tax burdens porportionate to your income. In other words, the percentage of taxes and other burdens actually goes up, and peaks somewhere around $250,000. But you don't see this just looking at the tax code. You have to consider how much an accountant costs, and a lawyer in the Bahamas, and to develop a good investment strategy, etc.

All of the poor just had the payroll tax raised (or un-lowered, depending on your perspective) too.  Except the unemployed, of course, but you can't get blood from a stone.

the payroll tax cut was an obscenely stupid policy. at a time filled with hand wringing over the sustainability of social security and medicare/medicaid, the payroll tax cut cut the funding of those programs by $90-$125 billion per year.

if the GOP proposed a trillion dollar ($100 billion) cut to benefits over ten years, liberals would go apeshiat. So why do they support a trillion dollar cut to funding, that would force future benefits to be cut?
 
2013-01-03 10:38:53 AM  

Carth: CujoQuarrel: DarkSoulNoHope: All we need to do is put a 1 % tax on every stock transfer that occurs in Wall Street. That should shape it up real well, also might get rid of the rapid volatility of the market if some companies start to worry about the tax implications of high volume stock sales.

Pushes button. Moves all transactions to the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Lights cigar with $500 Euro bill. Smiles

You know China already taxes the SSE and the largest companies on it are state owned enterprises?


and with the country's strict capital controls....good luck on taking your money out once its there.
 
2013-01-03 10:44:16 AM  

MrEricSir: Minus 1 Charisma: We'll never have to reform our completely unsustainable entitlement programs so long as we keep raising taxes on the rich! What could possibly go wrong?!

It's funny how people have been characterizing American entitlement programs as "unsustainable" for the past 3+ decades. On a long enough timeline, the sun isn't sustainable either.


So do you believe that A) the current system of spending more than you make is completely sustainable or B) the system is unsustainable but it will be billions of years before it crashes? I can't tell from your comment.
 
2013-01-03 11:08:46 AM  

RickN99: So do you believe that A) the current system of spending more than you make is completely sustainable or B) the system is unsustainable but it will be billions of years before it crashes? I can't tell from your comment.


I believe the Government needs to quit kicking the can down the road and address the ACTUAL problem rather than symptoms of it. Cut spending!! I understand raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans is an inevitability at this point, but you cannot balance the budget by raising taxes alone - not by a long shot. Even raising taxes and cutting the defense budget in half doesn't change the fact that our socialized programs are completely unsustainable. Anyone with common sense and/or a calculator can tell you this. So why aren't they making reforms? Because the voters are addicted to Government programs. The funny thing is - that in refusing to reform the programs - the voters will be completely without them some day when the programs go completely broke. Those that whined about Soc Sec and Medicare reforms choices were to make some concessions now to hopefully sustain the program or allow to to (inevitably) go completely bankrupt. Somehow the Democrats convinced the people that the latter was a smarter choice.

Meh, we're all doomed at this point no matter what we do I suppose. Carry on, robots!
 
2013-01-03 11:17:03 AM  

dumbobruni: if the GOP proposed a trillion dollar ($100 billion) cut to benefits over ten years, liberals would go apeshiat. So why do they support a trillion dollar cut to funding, that would force future benefits to be cut?


It was effectively a gov't stimulus plan, obviously, and it was intended to be temporary from the start.  As for the rest, I dunno, Washington?  Politicians aren't what they say they are.  Why would "fiscally responsible" republicans start two wars without even trying to pay for them?
 
2013-01-03 11:40:49 AM  

you have pee hands: dumbobruni: if the GOP proposed a trillion dollar ($100 billion) cut to benefits over ten years, liberals would go apeshiat. So why do they support a trillion dollar cut to funding, that would force future benefits to be cut?

It was effectively a gov't stimulus plan, obviously, and it was intended to be temporary from the start.  As for the rest, I dunno, Washington?  Politicians aren't what they say they are.  Why would "fiscally responsible" republicans start two wars without even trying to pay for them?


Oil
 
2013-01-03 12:59:51 PM  

Austinoftx: Because... the wealthy have hired people to do their screaming for them?


Dream on. They just tortured their existing reduced workforce until they had the desired level of volume.
 
2013-01-03 01:30:08 PM  
Do you know how in the tank the media is for the corporations?

EVERYONE'S PAYROLL TAXES JUST WENT UP.

And here they are crying about those poor folks making over $400K. The middle class just took it in the ass and they're busy telling you what an awesome deal it was.


Exactly. These are the people that should be screaming, but they're too stupid to read and understand what went down.
 
2013-01-03 01:52:04 PM  
steamingpile: Well part if it is that money provides growth income where it is invested that feeds back into the machine for middle class folk to start businesses to hire the poor.

Did you choose that username, or was it assigned to you after a few posts like this one?
 
2013-01-03 01:57:38 PM  
My taxes went up a fairly healthy amount and I am far from wealthy; don't even clear six figures, much less 400k. But if Obama is planning on increasing the debt another 5 trillion during his second term, perhaps Democrats will need more tax revenue that they can then siphon off to their friends, now that the Stimulus pork is drying up a little.

Spendocrats!
 
2013-01-03 02:14:36 PM  

doodad98: Do you know how in the tank the media is for the corporations?

EVERYONE'S PAYROLL TAXES JUST WENT UP.

And here they are crying about those poor folks making over $400K. The middle class just took it in the ass and they're busy telling you what an awesome deal it was.

Exactly. These are the people that should be screaming, but they're too stupid to read and understand what went down.


What's not to like about this administrtaion? The dude is so cool. He's stopped wars, given prisoners trials, lowered health care cost, legalized marijuana, lowered everyone's taxes, and he's not at all anti-2nd Amendment. You'd have to be some kind of Republican troll to not love him;)
 
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report