So after over 20 post I think it's safe to assume that Harry Reid, bide, and Obama pay only the taxes required of them and not one red cent more. Correct? A simPle yes or no will do.

 

Easy enough to find out as they've made several years public. Go look, too bad we can't do the same with Mr. Romney.

What sound bite, I think it was George Will talking a couple of weeks ago on meet the press or one of those Sunday morning shows that Mitt Romney probably didn't pay any taxes in 2009? Did you, I know I did? Is George Will from the left? I see our deficit as a revenue problem because I'd rather make sure those making over $250k pay a little more than I would have seniors decide between medicine, food or rent. If our elected officials don't want taxes raised then cut spending on defense which takes up way more of the budget than social safety net programs.

 

A little more? They already pay the freight for everything and drop the poor old people crap. You know and I k ow that seniors aren't the ones milking the system.

 

And when you get a chance try answering the origional question of the thread

What sound bite, I think it was George Will talking a couple of weeks ago on meet the press or one of those Sunday morning shows that Mitt Romney probably didn't pay any taxes in 2009? Did you, I know I did? Is George Will from the left? I see our deficit as a revenue problem because I'd rather make sure those making over $250k pay a little more than I would have seniors decide between medicine, food or rent. If our elected officials don't want taxes raised then cut spending on defense which takes up way more of the budget than social safety net programs.

 

So you are in favor of doing away with the capital loss deduction? For everyone or just the "rich"? What do you think will happen?

 

Why $250,000? Why not $50,000? Those people are considered rich to a large segment of the population so they should be able to pay more taxes.

A little more? They already pay the freight for everything and drop the poor old people crap. You know and I k ow that seniors aren't the ones milking the system.

 

And when you get a chance try answering the origional question of the thread

 

A little more, 3 or 4 % for the the existing 25% and up brackets. The people milking the system, welfare queens and other silly fire up the base talking points make up a fraction of the federal budget. Very few can milk the system. A lot of the people getting SNAP assistance these days are your neighbors and maybe friends. Do you know anyone thats been laid off, downsized, or otherwise can't find work? Chances are they may be milking the system. Habib answered the original question perfectly.

So you are in favor of doing away with the capital loss deduction? For everyone or just the "rich"? What do you think will happen?

 

Why $250,000? Why not $50,000? Those people are considered rich to a large segment of the population so they should be able to pay more taxes.

 

No I'm not, but I'm not in favor of being able to structure compensation in a way that allows someone making a large amount of money to avoid thier 35% bracket for the 15% capital gains bracket and then using the loss deduction to further avoid paying any taxes. Which likely wouldn't happen if these folks were compensated like most Americans. The national median income at the end of 2011 was around $51k meaning what percentage of the population has a household income above $250k?

Edited August 23, 201214 yr by 2 Humped Camel
forgot a word.

So, there is nothing in between trickle down capitalism and full throated Socialism or Communism? Hank Jr. would be impressed with that line of nuanced thinking.

Hank Jr? Really?

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. You either do or do not want to allow capital losses. You want to make capital gains taxable but not allow capital losses. Again, what do you think would happen under that scenario?

 

$50,000 is rich to many people. Why not increase the taxes for anyone making more than that?

 

I'm in favor of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for everyone, including myself.

I thought, that the reason for the argument that the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent was that it has and would spur capital investment. This in turn would create jobs by all the hiring from existing business expansion and new start up businesses being created. I agree that tax rates don't effect job creation one bit which is why I don't believe those tax cuts should be extended. I personally believe our economy is what it is from now on because of the ability to off shore manufacturing. I read somewhere the other day that unemployement amoung college graduates is 3 or 4 %, the days of highschool graduates or less being able to get a good factory job and having a good middle class life style are for right or wrong reasons gone forever.

 

??? I never said taxes don't affect job creation. They do. I can't fathom how anybody says they don't.

 

You ignored everything I said and your circling your taking points.

So, there is nothing in between trickle down capitalism and full throated Socialism or Communism? Hank Jr. would be impressed with that line of nuanced thinking.

 

Again, why do folks buy into the notion that we, as a society are undertaxed?

A little more, 3 or 4 % for the the existing 25% and up brackets. The people milking the system, welfare queens and other silly fire up the base talking points make up a fraction of the federal budget. Very few can milk the system. A lot of the people getting SNAP assistance these days are your neighbors and maybe friends. Do you know anyone thats been laid off, downsized, or otherwise can't find work? Chances are they may be milking the system. Habib answered the original question perfectly.

 

People in the 25% bracket are far from rich, trust me.

 

Habib answered the question like Obama. I want a yes or no and examples.

 

My question for you is did you vote for John Kerry?

Not when our country is relying on them to pay taxes on their income and they are utilizing "investments" to avoid that tax responsibility.

 

Income tax is theft and counterproductive to a free society. We never had an income tax until 1913. We don't need one and the government has shown it is irresponsible with the money it receives.

 

They are utilizing investments as a way to make money. That's the incentive. Money is what creates jobs. The whole notion of us 'relying' on them is a form of enslavement. They don't owe you or me anything. If I were an investor, I wouldn't owe you a single penny.

2humped, how do you expect the private sector to grow if more money is taken from the private sector and going to the government?

 

Its like saying a plant can grow even though I'm cutting off its water supply.

People in the 25% bracket are far from rich, trust me.

 

Habib answered the question like Obama. I want a yes or no and examples.

 

My question for you is did you vote for John Kerry?

 

Yes, I did. Being rich doesn't keep me from voting for a candiate, if it did then I'd never vote. If you'd have read my original post you will notice that I didn't say Mr. Romney did anything wrong or illegal. I said it's a system problem so what or whom takes deductions is irrelevant.

2humped, how do you expect the private sector to grow if more money is taken from the private sector and going to the government?

 

Its like saying a plant can grow even though I'm cutting off its water supply.

 

If more people are employeed by the government, socially secured by the government, helped with unemployement by the government then more people are buying items, creating demand, spurring manufacturing. How do you expect there to be a increase in demand to allow the private sector to grow if the bulk of the money in our system is in the hands of a few who aren't spending it? That's like saying a plant can grow even though I'm going to remove all the nutrients from the soil.

Income tax is theft and counterproductive to a free society. We never had an income tax until 1913. We don't need one and the government has shown it is irresponsible with the money it receives.

 

They are utilizing investments as a way to make money. That's the incentive. Money is what creates jobs. The whole notion of us 'relying' on them is a form of enslavement. They don't owe you or me anything. If I were an investor, I wouldn't owe you a single penny.

 

We'll agree to disagree, I don't subscribe to that notion of enslavement for paying taxes. I believe the government has a place and provides and secures many aspects of our society that allow us to enjoy our freedoms and pursuit of happiness safely.