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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Last year, the Obamas paid a 25% higher tax rate than Mitt Romney - on only 3.5% of his last reported income   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 329
    More: Obvious, First Lady Michelle Obama, Dr. Jill Biden, tax rates, adjusted gross income  
•       •       •

4337 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Apr 2013 at 3:10 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-12 06:33:08 PM  
So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.
 
2013-04-12 06:33:48 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.


What is it with Obama's critics and they're massive obsession with his penis?
 
2013-04-12 06:34:24 PM  

skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.

Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.

Define "poor". If it is anything less than money to cover the necessities and some spending money, why don't you read what I said again.

In any case, I meant progressive in terms of an income tax structure. I would never suggest something "progressive" as you interpreted the word ;)


Gah... I retract my comments about the poor saving for retirement. That was stupid.

The healthcare thing was valid though.

I think a progressive system is, basically, a graduated tax bracket structure like we have. When you acknowledge that economic activity is driven by the 'masses'... ie. the not wealthy... devising a tax strategy that applies the same rate to everyone, essentially, out of a childish sense of fairness, does nothing but undercut the very driver of economic activity.

The wealthy pay the same rate on the first X dollars of their income as someone who just makes X. that's fair. You want to give everyone a tax cut... cut the lowest rates. The wealthy get the same benefit as the poor. That's fair.
 
2013-04-12 06:38:07 PM  

theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: theknuckler_33: skullkrusher: A deduction indexed to a typical basket of goods in your area to cover necessities and some spending money. No credits, if you make less than the deduction, you just pay no income tax.
25% on all income above that, no exemptions.
Progressive, simply, revenue generating.

No charge, America.

Poor people can't save for retirement, I see. What about health care? Yea, real progressive.

Define "poor". If it is anything less than money to cover the necessities and some spending money, why don't you read what I said again.

In any case, I meant progressive in terms of an income tax structure. I would never suggest something "progressive" as you interpreted the word ;)

Gah... I retract my comments about the poor saving for retirement. That was stupid.

The healthcare thing was valid though.

I think a progressive system is, basically, a graduated tax bracket structure like we have. When you acknowledge that economic activity is driven by the 'masses'... ie. the not wealthy... devising a tax strategy that applies the same rate to everyone, essentially, out of a childish sense of fairness, does nothing but undercut the very driver of economic activity.

The wealthy pay the same rate on the first X dollars of their income as someone who just makes X. that's fair. You want to give everyone a tax cut... cut the lowest rates. The wealthy get the same benefit as the poor. That's fair.


What does this have to do with healthcare? A progressive tax means your effective rate increases as you earn more. You don't need anything more than 2 rates to achieve that. 0% up to x income and flat rate past that is progressive. It is a tax hike on the wealthiest who live on LTCG income
 
2013-04-12 06:38:16 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: odinsposse: So it's a large sales tax

You're learning! Keep up the good work!

mak3_7up_y0urs: I'm trying to figure out how the Fairtax is supposed to work.

Read up.


So what, is the Fairtax website just a sneak peek? Does the book actually explain prebates for taxes that are supposed to paid on consumption, when the highest spending a poor family will undertake is for untaxed expenses like used vehicles and rents/mortgages, and therefore not be subject to the prebate? Does it explain how the wealthy will be taxed way more efficiently under this system because all the untaxed capital gains they're going to be earning are totally going to be used to buy way more stuff?
 
2013-04-12 06:39:03 PM  
"remember everybody... do as i say, not as i do!"
 
2013-04-12 06:39:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: How does anybody know what Romney paid?


ALL YOU PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW IS YOUR PLACE!
QUESTION ME NOT, PEON!!!

[/edict]
 
2013-04-12 06:40:21 PM  

theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.

Wrong. Your company gives you a grant of X shares at Y dollars. They didn't give you any money at all. You can choose to exercise that grant... ie. buy the shares. If you buy the shares when the current price of the stock is Y+Z, you pay ordinary taxes on X(Z-Y).  I have done exactly this several times the in the past year. Nowhere near 500k of course, but the cost of my transaction was thus:

(number of shares being bought X option price) + ((current stock price - option price) X applicable regular income tax rates)

This assumes the current stock price is higher than the option price. I'm not sure what happens if you buy at a lower price than the option price.


Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.
 
2013-04-12 06:41:07 PM  
Don't blame Romney, blame the system. I'll use whatever loopholes I can find, personally.
 
2013-04-12 06:44:06 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.


Dear Tebow in Gainesville, people are dumb.
 
2013-04-12 06:44:15 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Philip Francis Queeg: Oh sweet mother of God....

Yes?

madgonad: f the Federal Fair tax was 30%, at my local Target it would be:

$100 for product, $30 for Federal Fair Tax, $7.85 for local, state, and city. So you would pay $137.85 at the register.

Perhaps you should read it.

Jackson Herring: apparently the only time taxes aren't legal theft is when they are disproportionately collected from the poors

You too.

Until you have you are attempting to discuss something that you know nothing about. And y'all keep trying to tell me that you're the learned....Well, go do some learnin' and get back to me.


So far it seems you're the only one discussing the fair tax proposal who doesn't have the barest of clues as to what it is. You apparently can't even attempt to describe it. All you can do is say "you didn't read it". I've read it, I've quoted it directly on fark many times, including in the thread I linked earlier. I've shown I know the details of the proposal, you can't even provide an outline.

Why don't you at least attempt to describe or cite something relating to the proposal to counter what people have said instead of just projecting your personal ignorance. You can't even answer the basic question about what the tax rate will be and you claim others need to do some learning.
 
2013-04-12 06:47:24 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: theknuckler_33: Debeo Summa Credo: madgonad: What do you mean"rich people can afford to get paid in stock". You realize that the only portion that gets taxed at cap gains rates is the gains after exercise, right?

If your company gives you a grant of $500k in stock, and you hold it for a year and sell for $600k, you pay ordinary taxes in the $500.

Wrong. Your company gives you a grant of X shares at Y dollars. They didn't give you any money at all. You can choose to exercise that grant... ie. buy the shares. If you buy the shares when the current price of the stock is Y+Z, you pay ordinary taxes on X(Z-Y).  I have done exactly this several times the in the past year. Nowhere near 500k of course, but the cost of my transaction was thus:

(number of shares being bought X option price) + ((current stock price - option price) X applicable regular income tax rates)

This assumes the current stock price is higher than the option price. I'm not sure what happens if you buy at a lower price than the option price.

Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.


D'OH!  my bad.
 
2013-04-12 06:48:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes


It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.
 
2013-04-12 06:50:05 PM  
I gotta say, there'd be a huge boom in the thrift shop industry if the Fairtax were ever actually enacted.

Someone should open a thrift shop for luxury yachts.
 
2013-04-12 06:51:47 PM  

Thrag: Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes

It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.


I just thought they couldn't do basic math. Well...I suppose that still right even after this finding.

Makes me wonder if the same creative accounting skills were the same creative accounting skills used in Ryan's budget.
 
2013-04-12 06:54:36 PM  
Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.

No part of the FairTax makes any sense, and every time it's explained to me, I can think of 15 loopholes that would be exploited worse than those girls in the dark corners of the internet before College-to-Middle-Aged White Guy is done "explaining" it.

The argument literally boils down to: "The rich will totally play fair this time, because now taxes are FAIR, you see."

// and furthermore
 
2013-04-12 06:55:29 PM  

Lawyers With Nukes: Wow, just wow. The hypocrisy of the POTUS & FLOTUS is just too delicious for words.

$608,611 in income....18.4% in taxes. Let that sink in for a while you guys.


A couple with two kids, MFJ, who made $50,000 last year, all wages, taking only standard ($11,900) + exemptions ($14,600, 2 PEs and 2 Dependents), and no other credits, has $23,500 TI. They'll pay $2,655 on that TI ($1,740 on the first $17,400, plus $915 on the other $6,100), for an effective federal tax rate of 5.31%.  If this couple isn't getting back a sizable refund check, they're doing it wrong.

Had the Obamas done the MFJ/only standard + exemptions on their income, and assuming it's all regular income, they'd've paid $172,878.35 in taxes, for an effective tax rate of about 28%. Obviously, they got a lot more out of itemizing their deductions, which anyone can do.  They got so much out of Schedule A'ing that they paid AMT as well, or that effective tax rate would've been a lot lower.
 
2013-04-12 06:58:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Thrag: Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: You're learning! Keep up the good work!

Yeah, let's have a 23% sales tax. I mean it's no where close to being revenue neutral. But Neil Bortz said it was a good idea so he must be onto something.

/rolls eyes

It is of course a 30% sales tax. They get 23% by the disingenuous trick of saying "if we add $30 in tax to a $100 item, that's 23% because 30 is 23% of 130", where here in the real world we calculate sales taxes as a percent of the pre-tax price, not the tax included price.

I just thought they couldn't do basic math. Well...I suppose that still right even after this finding.

Makes me wonder if the same creative accounting skills were the same creative accounting skills used in Ryan's budget.


When fair tax advocates demand that it's only 23%, I link this page from the fair tax site where they try to explain how calling it a 23% tax is not disingenuous, which only succeeds in confirming how completely disingenuous it is. At that point the fair tax advocate usually doubles down and shows they don't even understand what's written on the fair tax site.
 
2013-04-12 07:02:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.


Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.

From their site

Important to note: the FairTax is the only tax plan currently being proposed that includes the removal of the payroll tax.

So this 30% sales tax is supposed to not only generate all the money that personal and corporate incomes taxes generate, but the money that payroll taxes generate as well.
 
2013-04-12 07:02:26 PM  

Thrag: When fair tax advocates demand that it's only 23%, I link this page from the fair tax site


The FairTax Rate: a 23% tomato or a 30% tomato?

// you have to assume a spherical tomato...
// the honest conclusion would be: "you can call it 23%, or you can call it 30%. We prefer the lower number, for obvious reasons."
 
2013-04-12 07:02:57 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dancin_In_Anson: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.

This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.

You can't explain it to us?


Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.  It's in there so it must be true.
 
2013-04-12 07:05:26 PM  

Thrag: Dr Dreidel: Yabbut with the TOTALLYFairTax(IswearrichpeoplelovemeLOVEMEEEEEEE!), you owe Uncle Sam NOTHING on April 15th, and you only lose 4.2% of your paycheck to SS and 2% to Medicare (and whatever else), so therefore everyone has more money so prices are lower.

Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.

From their site

Important to note: the FairTax is the only tax plan currently being proposed that includes the removal of the payroll tax.

So this 30% sales tax is supposed to not only generate all the money that personal and corporate incomes taxes generate, but the money that payroll taxes generate as well.


Not to mention estate taxes.

And it's "revenue neutral" plus it will give everyone a huge bonus in pay.
 
2013-04-12 07:06:45 PM  

Thrag: Actually, the fair tax is supposed to eliminate payroll taxes too.


Oh, my mistake:
How is the Social Security system affected?
How does the FairTax affect Social Security reform?


Neither of which contain actual math. "Nothing is affected. Go about your business. Consume. Consuuuuuuuume."

// jerkoff hand motion
 
2013-04-12 07:06:47 PM  

Mrtraveler01: You can't explain it to us?


I can. I have read the book...twice. However, I think it best that you read it first hand rather than in a fragmented fashion. I would be happy to share my copy with you if you want. Hell, I'll even send Thrag a copy.
 
2013-04-12 07:07:23 PM  

Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.


What's your degree in?
 
2013-04-12 07:14:38 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.

What's your degree in?


And this matters because?  Are you going to wow us with your GED in economics?
 
2013-04-12 07:15:04 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: The part of the fairtax is that after the elimination of income and business taxes, companies will magically lower the prices as opposed to tacking on the new tax rate, shrugging their shoulders and pocketing the savings.

This is also addressed in the book. Perhaps you should read it too.


No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.
 
2013-04-12 07:15:35 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: UNC_Samurai:

There it is again. Thank you.

Count how many times the plumbing business' income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, how many times the shop's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket, and how many times the bank's income is taxed before it gets to the owners pocket. One of those is double the other two.


Debeo, I appreciate 'n' all what you're trying to do here, jousting at windmills in the Fark politics tabs, but so what? Yeah, it's double-taxation; stop giving them ideas. It's gonna be double and triple-nipple dog-dare taxation on everything before it's over and done with. Ain't no rhyme or reason to it, though they got you thinking there is.

One day, the Lawyers in DC take too much from us and it's "tyrany and theft!" The next day, 51% of us schmoes line-up and vote and make it legit and viola: The victim is now a criminal, the criminals are now victims, and previously ethical behavior is now unethical...nay, "a cardinal sin!" says the pope on tax evasion. Democracy is the philosopher's stone of modern morality, and logic and reason be damned.

The whole thing is just an ex-post-facto justification for what they were going to do anyway, all the way back to Jean-Jacques Farking Rousseau and the "Social Contract", whatever THAT is. So just chill, baby, before you get on the IRS's "perma-audit" list. Read my username a couple of times, and remember who's calling the shots.
 
2013-04-12 07:22:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Mrtraveler01: You can't explain it to us?

I can. I have read the book...twice. However, I think it best that you read it first hand rather than in a fragmented fashion. I would be happy to share my copy with you if you want. Hell, I'll even send Thrag a copy.


I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).

How about for the first time in your life you actually make and honestly attempt to support a point? Is that so hard for you?
 
2013-04-12 07:24:18 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: Fair Tax advocates refer to their book like the Bible.

What's your degree in?


Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in? Did you also get a GED in economics from a top 50 school like the coconut guy whose been posting here recently?
 
2013-04-12 07:25:51 PM  

Fart_Machine: And this matters because?


I would assume that you read books to gain an understanding of the subject matter in order to attain your sheepskin. This is no different. It's not like it's some religious text as you said. It's a legislative proposal and it's a hell of a lot shorter than say The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.


Why are you so against even learning about the proposal? I just don't get it. Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting  by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!

Is it perfect? Not by a damn sight. But it's a shiatton better than the way you and I are getting farked up the ass now.
 
2013-04-12 07:27:11 PM  

Thrag: I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).


Have you read the book?

Thrag: Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in?


Don't have a degree.
 
2013-04-12 07:33:56 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Thrag: I've directly quoted the fair tax site itself to support everything I have said and you persist in this delusion that only you know what the fair tax is about (yet you can't even attempt to explain any part of it).

Have you read the book?


No, I have however read all the material on the fair tax site and I have read the legislative proposal. Why would I also need to read a book written by advocates? I have the primary source material in front of me already. If there is something in the book that is so incredibly relevant you can quote it. I mean, you have and have read the book, right?

Now, are you going to be able to make any sort of actual argument here, or are you going to cling forever to the "read this book" deflection? It is amazing how after all this time on fark you don't realize how pathetic your little answer avoidance games make you look.

You claimed that saying the "fair tax" is a 30% sales tax is wrong, yet I have directly linked to the fair tax site to prove that is exactly what is being proposed (there are other aspects of course, but that is the core component of the proposal). Will you actually admit that it is indeed a 30% sales tax or will you make an actual argument as to why that is not the case and give something to support it?

I have asked you what the amount the "fair tax" taxes on an item that costs $100 before tax. You have answered "$100", yet you contradicted yourself by admitting that the fair tax is indeed a sales tax. Do you want to give an actual answer to the question now or do you want to support how you believe it is a sales tax that charges 0%?

Thrag: Since you are bringing it up, what is yours in?

Don't have a degree.


What a huge farking surprise.
 
2013-04-12 07:35:27 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?


By rulemaking? Perish the thought.

// the 80/20 rule, for example
 
2013-04-12 07:40:32 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: And this matters because?

I would assume that you read books to gain an understanding of the subject matter in order to attain your sheepskin. This is no different. It's not like it's some religious text as you said. It's a legislative proposal and it's a hell of a lot shorter than say The Affordable Care Act which was passed just to find out what was in it....Hell of a way to govern eh?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: No thanks. I'm still working on the Twilight saga to scratch the "magic and delusions for teenagers" itch.

Why are you so against even learning about the proposal? I just don't get it. Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting  by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!

Is it perfect? Not by a damn sight. But it's a shiatton better than the way you and I are getting farked up the ass now.


I have to commend you on getting those ACA talking points in while presenting a complete non-sequitur. Bravo sir. Yes it's a proposal whose proposed outcome of revenue neutrality is absurd based on how it claims to do it. You might as well be using The Secret to "manifest" the math they try to use.
 
2013-04-12 07:44:58 PM  
So let's do some simple math here.

The 2012 US GDP(which is essentially all new products and services produced in a given year) was roughly 15.65 trillion dollars. Link

Personal consumption is approximately 70% of US GDP (Link), so in 2012 it would've been valued at about 10.955 trillion dollars.

2012 US federal spending was about 3.538 trillion dollars and 2012 federal revenue was about 2.449 trillion dollars, giving a budget deficit of 1.089 trillion dollars. Link

The Fairtax is 23% on consumption of new products and services, so the maximum amount collected in 2012 would have been 2.52 trillion dollars.

So far so good, however, you must include the prebates that everyone gets. According to the "Prebate Explained" PDF on the FairTax website, in 2011, the total prebate cost to the federal government would be 543 billion dollars if everyone participated. I assume that number would increase slightly for 2012, but I'll just use the number provided.

That would leave about 1.98 trillion in revenue, which is about 469 billion dollars less revenue than the feds collected last year under the current system.

That leaves us with a budget deficit of 1.558 trillion dollars.

Where does the revenue neutral part come into play again?

Did I do the math wrong?
 
2013-04-12 07:46:18 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: So Obama pays less in taxes than somebody making 40k per year and Farkers still line up to suck his manhood? Sounds about right.


that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.

I don't know about sucking his "manhood" but everyone agrees he should be paying more (along with everyone else that are in the same income bracket).
 
2013-04-12 07:48:58 PM  

AeAe: that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.


You can pay as much in taxes as you'd like.
 
2013-04-12 07:53:57 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: Hell, you and I can agree on how the current tax system is best described as a Mongolian cluster fark. Do you really think that after almost 100 years...100(!)...of tweaking this and twisting by a legislative body that does it's biding not at your or my behest but at the behest of K Street can be fixed by a little more tweaking and twisting by the same people?!


How can we agree when I'm a radical liberal who supports jacking the capital gains rate, raising the estate and gift taxes by at least double, and offering a direct cost of living deduction to help the poorest in exchange for an across the board increase in income tax rates that are still progressive? Please, enlighten me.
 
2013-04-12 07:57:00 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: that's right, he is taxed too low.  In fact, he said so himself.  He *wants* to pay more because people that make as much as does (and those that make more) are taxed too low.

You can pay as much in taxes as you'd like.


One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.
 
2013-04-12 07:57:55 PM  

AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.


You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.
 
2013-04-12 08:09:01 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.

You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.


Pfft.  He does, along with all high income earners.  Don't be a fool.  You know exactly what he wants to do.
 
2013-04-12 08:13:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: AeAe: One guy paying more in taxes will not address the financial issues.  It has to be across the board.

You said that Obama wants to pay more taxes, the fact is that he can. Stop moving the goal posts.


I really hope for your sake this is how you act online but in real life you aren't this moronic.
 
2013-04-12 08:15:32 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Christ you people are farking stupid. Capital gains and dividends were already taxed at the corporate level. So you need to add corporate taxes to Romney's (and Obama's, to the extent any of their income was from such income) to get an appropriate comparison.

Dont bother posting that cartoon that proves my point even though you think it proves yours. Just answer me this: how much of each dollar in pretax corporate income do you believe should end up in the pockets of owners, and how much should be taken by government? Be precise. Throw out a number.

/to the extent Romneys earnings were on carried interest, then that is a different story


If corporations are people (as Romney himself stated), then why shouldn't they pay their own separate income tax?
 
2013-04-12 08:19:53 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Wut? If they give you a grant of shares, they give you shares. There's no exercising or buying of a stock grant. You are talking about options. Yes you pay ordinary rates on gains on options, but so does every other investor.


Unless, of course, you do what Romney did: get stocks valued at $0.01, put 500,000 of them into your IRA, and then watch the value multiply after the IPO.
 
2013-04-12 08:22:58 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-12 08:38:15 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?


Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk
 
2013-04-12 08:42:37 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk


This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread
 
2013-04-12 08:54:03 PM  

Thrag: Have you read the book?

No

Nuff said.

Fart_Machine: Yes it's a proposal whose proposed outcome of revenue neutrality is absurd based on how it claims to do it.


Have YOU read the book?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: How can we agree when I'm a radical liberal who supports jacking the capital gains rate, raising the estate and gift taxes by at least double, and offering a direct cost of living deduction to help the poorest in exchange for an across the board increase in income tax rates that are still progressive?


How much stroke do you actually think you have in making that happen?

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Please, enlighten me.


None. But keep hope alive eh?
 
2013-04-12 09:00:40 PM  

skullkrusher: Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: Don't you think the price of the stock reflects the fact that DSCCS has to pay taxes on its earnings?

Really? You used to at least seem like you put effort into it.  /plonk

This is the most sensible thing he's said in the thread


Everything I've said in the thread has been sensible.

You yourself have stated that you have no problem with dividends being deductible, which would remove the extra layer of tax.

Wait, maybe I'm misinterpreting. Perhaps you think that everything I've said made sense, and the above post was just particularly sensible.
 
Displayed 50 of 329 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | 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