«

»

The Tax Man Cometh

Jesus. I think Obama has started listening to his Lefty base.

President Obama will announce a plan on Monday to tame the nation’s rocketing federal debt that will draw a sharp contrast with the Republican vision and amount more to an opening play in the fall’s debate over the economy than another attempt at finding common ground with the opposing party.

The president will propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues as part of a plan to find more than $3 trillion in budget savings over a decade, according to senior administration officials. Combined with his call this month for almost $450 billion in new stimulus, the proposal represents a more populist approach to confronting the nation’s economic travails than the compromises he advocated earlier this summer.

Obama will propose new taxes on the wealthy, a special new tax for millionaires, and elimination or scaling back of a variety of loopholes and deductions, officials say. About half of the tax savings come from the expiration next year of the George W. Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthy.

But he won’t call for any changes in Social Security, officials say, and is seeking less-aggressive changes to Medicare and Medicaid than previously considered. He will propose $320 billion in health-care savings but will not include raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, according to the officials.

Here’s what bothers me about this. Obama knows perfectly well this will never pass Congress. He knows it wouldn’t pass a Democrat Congress. Hell, he couldn’t even get the Democrats to introduce his jobs bill. This is as dead as the budget Congress voted down something like 97-0 earlier this year.

This is just. Fucking. Politics. He has clearly thrown his hands up on any serious budget fix and is now angling for 2012. He is punting on tax reform, serious budget cuts, jobs and the economy.

I have tried very hard to give this President ever chance I can, mostly because I’m not convinced that the GOP is entirely sane. But if he is going to waste our time with this bullshit, what is the point of him? He has had a year to build something like Simpson-Bowles and huge tax hikes and spendings cuts that don’t kick in until 2017 are the best he can do?

Frankly, why should we even trust these budget numbers? Check out this story about the CLASS portion of Obamacare. They claimed it would save tens of billions of dollars. We’re now finding out that the programs, which has yet to be implemented, is already collapsing. And they’ve known it would for two years.

After spending months indicating some flexibility, the Obama Administration has, in the last few weeks, taken a hard turn to the Left, abandoning any pretense of trying to solve this nation’s problems in favor of stoking their disgruntled base. It’s pathetic.

53 comments

No ping yet

  1. InsipiD says:

    The president will propose $1.5 trillion in new tax revenues

    I hate sentences like this because I think they’re usually wrong. It should be explained in terms of what the increases in tax rates are and who they’ll be expecting to pay them, but they should never count on the result.

    I have tried very hard to give this President ever chance I can, mostly because I’m not convinced that the GOP is entirely sane.

    I have had the same questions about the GOP, but that’s a terrible reason to raise your expectations of Obama. My only expectations of Obama were that I would disagree with everything he did, and he’s done that with everything except, somehow, the wars against terror. It’s worth mentioning that your attempts to give Obama a chance on other policies have made your opinions and writings appear far less conservative, too. Giving him a chance doesn’t mean that you have to suddenly believe in his liberal policies.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  2. Hal_10000 says:

    The thing is that we’ve been down this road before: it was called the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is one of the worst parts of the tax code.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  3. InsipiD says:

    The Tax Man Cometh

    This sentence (forgive me) makes me think of the P.J-ism “dollargasm.”

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  4. Hal_10000 says:

    You know, if he just let the Bush tax rates expire, he’d get more revenue without the class warfare crap.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  5. richtaylor365 says:

    Every time Obama uses his disingenuous doublespeak “taxing the wealthy” nonsense, it should be pointed out that his definition of wealthy is a family earning 250K or more, where I live that is NOT wealthy. He can parse his class welfare tactics with phrase like “millionaire and billionaire taxes” and “Taxes only on the wealthy” but we all know better.

    I have tried very hard to give this President ever chance I can,

    For purposes of amity, I felt that way his first year, figuring that although he was green, inexperienced, and clueless wrt to how the real world works, he surrounded himself with capable people, and that he had to be smart enough to understand the differences between campaign rhetoric and what was necessary to run a nation.

    He has since bankrupted that good will, redefining the old adage of walking, talking, and quaking like a duck, now he is all feathers. He is not capable, nor is inclined to move the country in the right direction and only does more damage with every edict he proposes. He needs to be removed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  6. AlexInCT says:

    I have tried very hard to give this President ever chance I can, mostly because I’m not convinced that the GOP is entirely sane.

    That’s like saying you tried to give Charles Manson a chance because you thought that Rodney King was not entirely sane, and reflects more on you than on Charley.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  7. Miguelito says:

    I’m still somewhat amazed that anyone is still the least bit surprised at this. The writing was on the wall about this guy since long before he was voted in.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  8. Miguelito says:

    I hate sentences like this because I think they’re usually wrong. It should be explained in terms of what the increases in tax rates are and who they’ll be expecting to pay them, but they should never count on the result.

    Not to mention the bullshit spin that it’ll “lower the debt by $3 Trillion” when it’s really only (and only in theory, which will NOT pan out) going to lower the amount added to debt, not actually lower the debt. Only politicians can continually get away with that crap.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  9. CM says:

    Jesus. I think Obama has started listening to his Lefty base.

    That’s one hell of a big base….

    Every Single Poll …
    … shows that the American public overwhelmingly supports higher taxes on the wealthy as part of a package to cut the deficit. The margins are staggering: the NYT poll shows a majority of 74 – 21; even Rasmussen shows a majority of 56 – 34. What the president proposed this morning is simply where the American people are at. If he keeps at it, if he turns his administration into a permanent campaign for structural fiscal reform, I don’t see how he loses the argument.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  10. CM says:

    it should be pointed out that his definition of wealthy is a family earning 250K or more, where I live that is NOT wealthy

    Wow, things must cost a lot.

    As bad as life gets, just be thankful you’re not in line to suffer like this poor guy….

    “By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over,”

    - Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), in an interview on MSNBC, on why as a small business owner he can’t afford a tax increase.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2011/09/19/extra_bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

    Video at the link. I don’t get where she is criticising him for earning money? Where is the ‘class warfare’ in what she says? She points out that people earning way way less (the vast majorty of people) won’t find it a very sympathetic argument that $400K after feeding your family (and I assume he’s using that as an expression and means all family spending, which is $200K) isn’t very much.

    Is it ‘class warfare’ everytime a policy comes out which means a particular socio-economic group loses out?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  11. Seattle Outcast says:

    Yes, the very people that already aren’t paying any taxes support someone else paying even more…

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  12. CM says:

    Yes, the class warfare should be on the teachers and firefighters instead.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

      
  13. Dave D says:

    I’m betting that most Americans would be much less likely to put all their “faith” in this class warfare bullshit if they actually SEE the meager amounts that raping the rich more than they currently are raped would bring in relative to the spending spree that the liberals want us to maintain. bHo’s spending spree costs EACH AMERICAN about $5,000 MORE in debt each year. You can’t squeeze that much out of the rich.

    Also, how is is “more” fair to make the rich (top 20% of wager earners) pay MORE than their current ~80% of total federal tax revenues? Only in collectivist fantasy land is that NOT an already “fair” situation.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  14. Mook says:

    Except that those polls don’t specify or define the “wealthy”. No doubt many would be in favor of raising taxes on others besides themselves. It’s particularly dishonest of Obama to talk about taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” and then lump those making $200k/yr into that category.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  15. AlexInCT says:

    Leftists are always for anything that makes other people bare the pain and cost of anything to their advantage. But if you tell them they need to pay even a fraction of it more, they go bananas. Look at WI and the battle between the public unions and the WI tax payers.

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  16. AlexInCT says:

    The wealthy are anyone that the demcorats want to fleece. And as we all know, the elite don’t bother to live by the rules they create for the rest of us. I am asking Tim Geitner for his accountants name so I too can avoid paying taxes.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  17. AlexInCT says:

    As bad as life gets, just be thankful you’re not in line to suffer like this poor guy….

    “By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over,”

    - Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), in an interview on MSNBC, on why as a small business owner he can’t afford a tax increase.

    The difference between me and your average libtard is that I am not envious of what others have, and thus not prone to pretending that I am coming from some higher moral position when I demand he be robbed by government to advantage me. It’s his fucking money, and I would really like to understand by what insane logic people have reached the conclusion they have any fucking right to any of it unless they are willingly engaging in a transaction that both sides agreed upon.

    Every time I hear a liberal tell me someone has too much it is clear that the intent is for government to have it all and distribute according to it’s whims. Liberals believe that because they approve of this sort of theft given the veneer of ligitmacy by Marx and other idiots that like this shit, that they too will be big beneficiaries when this becomes the norm. As we have seen repeatedly, they are deluded idiots.

    Is it ‘class warfare’ everytime a policy comes out which means a particular socio-economic group loses out?

    Why are they losing out? Are they unable to work hard? This belief that everyone needs to cross the finish line with exactly the same things or it’s not fair is what will finally destroy humanity. A couple of hundred million people already have been murdered, and billions more have been made to live in abject misery and suffering, while the priesthood of equality lived the high life. And yet, we still have idiots that think thius shit makes any fucking sense.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  18. richtaylor365 says:

    Wow, things must cost a lot.

    The Bay Area is expensive, no doubt, but so are other areas as well, it’s all relative. But I’m sure you know the difference between being “comfortable” and “wealthy”.

    A few weeks ago my across the street neighbor moved out, got foreclosed. He and his wife (a fireman and a ER nurse, which I would assume makes just under that 250K threshold) had bought that house about 3 years ago, but could not make it work,they are now renting, I doubt they consider themselves wealthy.

    Re: your link, everything he said made perfect sense to me. He is a job creator. The host may snicker at his money and feigned outrage at being taxed more, but it is clear that he plows his profits into buying and maintaining other shops, hence his 500+ employees (if he was a greedy bastard, solely bent on getting rich then he would bank his profits and kept his employees at one). And he absolutely right about class warfare not creating jobs, he should know.

    The rich and the middle class already pay their “fair share”:

    Uploaded with ImageShack.us

    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

      
  19. sahrab says:

    Wow, things must cost a lot.

    As bad as life gets, just be thankful you’re not in line to suffer like this poor guy….

    “By the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over,”

    - Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), in an interview on MSNBC, on why as a small business owner he can’t afford a tax increase.

    Cant Youtube at work but my first take: What disengenous bullshit from your source.

    Without being able to view the interview i would guess the $400,000 is after expenses and salaries, and would normally be used for capital investment back into his business. Any Tax Increase would affect that.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  20. sahrab says:

    I was correct, the transcript to the full interview is here.

    Its refreshing to see that you rely upon out of context quotes to make up disengenous bullshit arguments

    “In my own case, I own LLCs,” Fleming told MSNBC’s Chris Jansing. “The income flows to my personal tax return and whatever is left over after taxes are paid, I feed my family on the one hand and on the other hand, I reinvest in my business.”

    “With all due respect, The Wall Street Journal estimated that your businesses, which I believe are Subway sandwich shops and UPS stores — very successful — brought you last year, over $6 million,” Jansing noted.

    “Yeah, that’s before you pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment and food,” Fleming agreed. “Since my net income — and again, that’s the individual rate that I told you about — the amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million. And so by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  21. AlexInCT says:

    One thing that is telling is how this plan again only includes $1 in cuts for every $3 in taxes. And I doubt that we ever realize anything but a single digit percentage of those cuts, if any, considering they are all backloaded and on someone else’s dime, when all is said and done. Basically the big government collectivist crooks are telling us they think we should keep less of their money yet again.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  22. Xetrov says:

    I watched a few news shows yesterday on this topic, and some of the hosts tried to tie down liberal commentators when they mentioned “fair share”. Not a single one of them would admit to what they thought “fair share” meant. The rich already pay disproportionately more than their “fair share” when you look at income tax percentages paid vs. income level.

    CM – on the $250,000 number, a small-business owner running as an S-Corp or single proprietorship could easily hit that number for “income” and have virtually nothing to actually live on. Revenue brought in by that type of business is seen as “income” in regard to taxes for the owner. That’s why it’s feared that raising that level of taxes is a job killer in the US – small businesses are the number one job creator/environment in the country.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  23. Poosh says:

    classic Nietzschean resentment.

    I just hope those rich take their money ELSEWHERE. Let every scumbag who voted ‘yay’ to taxing the rich even more suffer the maximum punishment for their filthy outlook. I hope their freebies from the government run out.

    $200,000 – $250,000 (£120,000 – £140,000 roughly?) is hardly rich, CERTAINLY NOT after that amount is taxed. That’s enough to give you a very good quality of life, but it’s far from the quality of life the actual rich can have. $200,000 is Middle Class area, in the UK anyway. And Americans generally are a lot richer than a Brit, even your “poor” are far better off.
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  24. Poosh says:

    Exactly. This guy, through his own intelligence and hard work, something the majority do not have, achieved greatly, and then was HAMMERED for daring to dare. A pathetic $400,000 for his efforts?

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  25. Poosh says:

    I have a great idea. Why doesn’t government create more jobs? Then there would be less unemployed. We could even employ some of the public sector to build like roads and stuff, infrastructure, you know, stuff that cannot create wealth. These two things will lower unemployment and make me look like I’m really fixing the country. How will we pay for it? Simples! We’ll use tax payer money, and borrow loads more money. That’s how we’ll pay for it all. In addition we’ll raise taxes on the rich of the private sector, you know, the only people who can create sustainable jobs and increase a nation’s wealth – we’ll tax them even more so they have even less money! And we’ll use this money to create more fake government jobs and build pointless infrastructure. WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

    Any problems, and we’ll just print more money. It’s fine. Don’t worry about it.
    Poosh recently posted..DAVID MITCHELL IS ACTUALLY A COMPLETE MORONMy Profile

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  26. blameme says:

    Let this be a lesson as to why businesses are not spending and hiring in this environment – they do not know what tax structure they will be under.

    If you currently earn a million dollars (or 250k as a family), you probably have an expensive home, kids in private school etc. You don’t live in a trailer or on a budget that someone who makes 50k does.

    It is not fair to change the rules of the game during the game – people that make this type of money do spend it and now we want to gash them for more and expect them to just write the check. They may be spending nearly everything they have already – I know some that if the taxes go up as proposed will probably start to be in the red.

    It is so easy for people to think, “Man, if I were making a million dollars per year, I would have 800k a year left over.” NO YOU WOULDN’T. You would spend it on nicer homes, clothes, food, education etc. So, expecting people to have extra money waiting for the government to take completely misunderstands what people when they get raises etc. They tend to upgrade their lifestyle.

    So, when the government is fickle and continuously talks of raising taxes, people and businesses hoard. Why? Because they do not know how much of THEIR money they get to keep – so they hang on to all it – stalling the economy.

    I heard this wealth envy when there were 10% pay cuts at a company I worked for. For some, the pay cut was 100k. Many said, well, they were making a million so they are fine. Not really – I bet they had million dollar commitments so relatively, they hurt just as much as the guy who made 50k a year getting a 5k cut.

    This envy of the rich is sickening. Sure, some may be assholes and deserve condemnation FOR THE KIND OF PEOPLE THEY MAY BE, but not for what they earn. How DARE those who want something for nothing take, by force of government, something rightly earned!

    Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      
  27. bgeek says:

    Yep, those two numbers should be reversed.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  28. Hal_10000 says:

    I’m a little suspicious of these graphs since they often exclude payroll taxes, which makes the lowest quintiles look they’re paying less tax than they are and fail to include capital income, which is taxed at 15% and constitutes 70-80% of the income for the wealthiest Americans.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  29. Hal_10000 says:

    His point is still BS. Capital investment and things like that are tax deductible so will be unaffected by the increase in the tax rate.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  30. sahrab says:

    No its not Tax Deductible occurs after the fact

    He would start with less, because of a tax increase, and have less to spend.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  31. richtaylor365 says:

    and fail to include capital income, which is taxed at 15% and constitutes 70-80% of the income for the wealthiest Americans.

    That statement is as misleading as the whopper about Buffett’s secretary paying more taxes then Buffett himself.

    70-80% of the wealthiest Americans (probably a higher percentage) still work, which means they draw a salary and pay income tax, this in no way should be compared with the wealthy retired Americans who do not work/do not draw a salary and live on their capital gains from their stock holdings. Those wealthy working Americans are in the highest tax bracket (35%, soon to go up to 39.5%).

    Most retired folks don’t have the luxury of a pension, they live on SS, whatever 401K money they manged to put away, if any, and dividends/cap gains from stock holdings, these folks are not rich, most are middle class, and their cap gains rate of 15% should not be messed with.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  32. Mook says:

    You’re way off base with that comment Hal. First of all, you raise the “point” of those who don’t pay income taxes but who pay payroll taxes without bothering to acknowledge that many (most?) of them receive Earned income tax credit which often equals or exceeds whatever amount they paid payroll taxes, so many of them aren’t paying shit when you net it out. And if they don’t pay income taxes, they’re paying 1/2 or less of the payroll taxes that somebody making $110k+/year is paying..

    Secondly, payroll taxes are supposedly for the direct benefit of the contributor, not a a “general fund” tax like incomes taxes to pay for shared costs like military, federal highways, etc. Payroll taxes aren’t in that category – they’re a forced retirement savings plan (according to what the govt. promises us) for which the contributor is expected to get his contributions back in the form of retirement benefits. Not the same as income taxes.. they’re not comparable for that reason.

    With regards to your comment on capital income, dividend payments are what’s left after the corporation was already taxed at a hefty rate (35% – 38%), so even at 15%, that can represent 50% or more total tax on the corporation’s profit, not including state and local taxes which can bump total corporate taxation rates over 60%. If corporate taxes were abolished, then you’d have a valid point about dividends, but just to throw out the 15% tax rate without mentioning the double taxation (triple taxation when you include state taxes) is bullshit.

    As for capital gains at 15%, I doubt capital gains amounts to 70-80% of the “wealthiest Americans” annual income. Dividends, maybe, but not capital gains. What’s more, capital gains tax is a poorly structured attempt to recognize the value-deflating effects of inflation. A $100k investment made in 1996 sold today for $130k would be a loss in real dollars, yet the the investor would be on the hook to pay $4,500 capital gains tax for this capital “gain”, because inflation is not accounted for except, loosely, in the reduced capital gains rate of 15%. Again, throwing out the low percentage tax rate talking points without context is what I expect from libtards, not you.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      
  33. Dick Fitzwell says:

    “A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

    –George Bernard Shaw

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  34. CM says:

    Righties are always making crass generalisations to support their narratives.

    Honestly, who are the 4 people who gave the thumbs up to the ridiculous comment that there are some people who don’t pay any tax?
    Pathetic. You’re not even trying.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  35. CM says:

    The whole thing is skewed by the fact that the mega-rich are now many many more times richer again than they used to be.
    We need some measurable way of determining it, otherwise the discussion is pointless. E.g. the top 20% of earners.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  36. CM says:

    I am not envious of what others have

    People who constantly repeat the mantra that it’s all just envy indicate that they have no real interest in the discussion.

    It’s his fucking money

    Well no, it’s not that simple. Every small part of what determines what he’s left with is determined by the systems that have been set up. There is nothing ‘natural’ about it.

    Every time I hear a liberal tell me someone has too much it is clear that the intent is for government to have it all and distribute according to it’s whims.

    This belief that everyone needs to cross the finish line with exactly the same things

    These are more indications that you’re not interested in any rational discussion. Why are you unable to avoid exageratting about anything?

    A couple of hundred million people already have been murdered

    In which country did a rise in the tax rate for the most wealthy led to the deaths of a couple of hundred million people?

    And yet, we still have idiots that think thius shit makes any fucking sense.

    I’m sure there are idiots that think you make sense, even though you don’t.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  37. CM says:

    How is anything I said out of context? What did my quote imply, which was found to be wrong when the full transcript is provided?

    What was my “disengenous bullshit argument”? That she is right in saying that it’s “not exactly a sympathetic position”? He makes the equivalent of eight median household incomes. So how is that statement:
    (a) disingenious?, or
    (b) bullshit?

    Where was he “hammered” for his efforts?

    What IS clear is that he deliberately avoided answering the actual question about whether he’d have to lay off employees.

    Also, how do you pay 500 employees with less than $5.7 million. Even the whole $5.7 million (($6.3 million less $600K) is $11,400 each. Clearly if he’s struggling to survive, they’re actually dead.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  38. sahrab says:

    How is anything I said out of context? What did my quote imply, which was found to be wrong when the full transcript is provided

    Aint that cute, but nice try. You and Your link tried to claim make the argument the 400,000 was somethign other than capital investment.

    Also, how do you pay 500 employees with less than $5.7 million. Even the whole $5.7 million (($6.3 million less $600K) is $11,400 each. Clearly if he’s struggling to survive, they’re actually dead

    He owns Subway restaurants, a sandwich shop in the US, the salaries are normal for that type of work.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  39. CM says:

    Not really – I bet they had million dollar commitments so relatively, they hurt just as much as the guy who made 50k a year getting a 5k cut.

    That makes no sense. If you’re way beyond a comfortable standard of living, the ‘cuts’ you can make are in no way the same as the cuts you can make if you’re scraping by.

    This envy of the rich is sickening.

    It doesn’t have to be envy of the rich.

    The Republican front-runner has been saying much the same stuff for years.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  40. CM says:

    Also, how is is “more” fair to make the rich (top 20% of wager earners) pay MORE than their current ~80% of total federal tax revenues? Only in collectivist fantasy land is that NOT an already “fair” situation.

    Depends on how you define ‘fair’. People will always use the statistic that suits their argument. Obama etc will point to the percentage of earnings as the ‘fair’ aspect, not the overall contribution rich people make to the overall pot.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  41. CM says:

    Aint that cute, but nice try. You and Your link tried to claim make the argument the 400,000 was somethign other than capital investment.

    He’s got $600K to play with. He’s saying he spends $200K personally (I take “feed my family” to be his way of saying personal spending, he’s just carefully choosing th words to make it sound good) and he chooses to throw $400K back into his business. That’s what he chooses to do. He’s looking to get richer, so he throws 2/3rds of his profit back into the business. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s have some perspective.
    I reject your claim that it was an out of context quote. In order to try and claim it was out of context, you are reliant on missing the context of his choice about where he spends his money (on himself and his family, or in expanding his business further).
    Again, there is no need to claim ‘envy politics’ are at work here. The vast majority of people don’t have the luxury of complaining that they may have slightly less than $600K to divide up between personal (and family) spending and investing in their already-huge business to make more money. Perspective is what she’s pointing out. Doesn’t have to be envy.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      
  42. blameme says:

    Geez – you are a dim bulb. It someone is living at a million dollar rate, then cutting their take home pay or increasing their taxes can have just as big an impact as someone who lives within their means at 50k. I don’t know of any really wealthy people living in a trailer – they live in mansions. You can live comfortable – within your means at 50k just like you can live beyond your means at 1 million. I know many people who make 50k, put money back every month, check out of work by 5 pm and have not a care in the world. I know millionaires who work 70 hours a week and play just as hard as they work.

    The difference between us is I think the government HAS NO BUSINESS deciding what is “living comfortable.” You seem to think some bureaucrat should be able to say – hey, that guy made a million dollars, that is enough to be comfortable. I say the government has no right to take his earned money by force.

    You keep talk about living at a comfortable rate – believe me – millionaires – a lot of them, spend exactly what they make and have fun doing it – so a 100k drop to them is JUST AS BIG as a 5k drop for someone else. I HAVE SEEN IT.

    Just because YOU want to put your morals on others and define “living comfortably” doesn’t mean I should force others to give more than their EQUAL share.

    By the way, why point out to me what a Republican says? I could give two shits what some bureaucrat says. I am no more a republican than the man on the moon. Both parties grab for my wallet, they just want to spend it on their own pet projects.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but being a conservative has little to do these days with being a republican.

    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

      
  43. AlexInCT says:

    Righties are always making crass generalisations to support their narratives.

    I am not the one that posted a link to a video and then asked people to justify why they believed some guy that owned a company and worked his ass off should be allowed to keep so much money. Envy of what others have and the whole class warfare bullshit scheme is defines the left.

    Honestly, who are the 4 people who gave the thumbs up to the ridiculous comment that there are some people who don’t pay any tax?

    Because we understand how the tax system is rigged in such a way that 47% of the people not only have no federal tax obligation – and likely no state or any other serious tax obligation when they are that low – but often get money back from the government in the wealth redistribution scheme the government is running through the IRS. When you have no skin in the game, other than the fact that you get to collect even more of other people’s money if you go along with the crooks pushing this shit, you are going to agree with the crooks when they say that what they are doing is socially just, even though you know damned well that what they are doing really is just stealing more money from the productive. Thieves of a kind stick together, and all that.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  44. AlexInCT says:

    The whole thing is skewed by the fact that the mega-rich are now many many more times richer again than they used to be.

    And you don’t think that the left is helping make that happen even faster? Have you missed te fact that we have all these mega rich leftists here in the US that all tell us how much more money they could be paying while they stand to make even more from the government taxing people more?

    And again: Obama isn’t targeting the mega-rich. The left wants to tax everyone . They started with the millionaires & billionaires. Then they kept saying millionaires & billionaires, but lowered it to families making more than $250K. That number is already down to $200K, and frankly if you know what the game is, it will drop to around $80K when all is said and done, because they want far more money than the rich have.

    But you can keep pretending this highway robbery is grounded in some kind of noble reasoning if it helps you also pretend that you are not just a scumbag enabler. However, don’t expect those of us that know better to grant you the same leeway. I will call it like I see it.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  45. AlexInCT says:

    People who constantly repeat the mantra that it’s all just envy indicate that they have no real interest in the discussion.

    People that pretend there is a noble reason and there should be a discussion to hide their greedy robbery have to say that to cover their asses.

    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

      
  46. Hal_10000 says:

    Re: the payroll tax. I’ve made that point many times myself. But the fact remains that it is a tax and should be considered in any analysis.

    Here is the source on 70-80% of the income for the wealthy being from capital: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/one-simple-reason-and-two-easy-steps-to-show-why-obama%E2%80%99s-soak-the-rich-tax-hikes-won%E2%80%99t-work/

    Note it’s a Cato link opposing the tax hike.

    A LOT of stuff is now in capital gains. Most bankers and investors now count their income that way as carried interest and so on.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      
  47. Hal_10000 says:

    Here is a more accurate assessment. I’m not clear if it includes capital gains, but it includes the corporate tax rate. Effective tax rate for the wealthiest is about 25%.

    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=3190&topic2ID=40&topic3ID=41&DocTypeID=2

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  48. Biggie G says:

    Everyone who wants the government to rob Peter to pay Paul needs to realize that while they think that they are Paul, there’s someone behind them that thinks they’re really Peter.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  49. Hal_10000 says:

    I’m a little confused. As far as I can tell, this “Buffet Rule” applied to income, but not cap gains. So it wouldn’t raise taxes on Buffett anyway. Am I missing something?

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  50. Poosh says:

    What I don’t understand is, if your president really was caring about the deficit etc, and real ways to fix it, why the CLEAR class warfare? (yeah I know, cause he’s a good boy socialist at heart)

    Why, after lying and saying “this isn’t about class warfare” did he then clearly present to your nation, class warfare (in no less than two sentences! who are his speech writers!?)

    Our Prime Minister used a phrase which was far more apt, he said, “we’re all in this together”. Which implied yes, the rich might have to bear a burden that is unfair. The simple fact that Obama went straight for class warfare is what is really nasty about this, no doubt playing politics as those polls show a general enjoyment of the rich paying more. A sort of Robin Hood thing going on here. It doesn’t matter if taxing the rich is unsound, in terms of economics, if you honestly believed this was the right thing to do, one would not use the language Obama had been using. If you really believed this was about the right thing to do, and not about class, he would have been very apologetic to the rich and said “this is a burden you are more equipped to bare” or some such.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  51. AlexInCT says:

    Why, after lying and saying “this isn’t about class warfare” did he then clearly present to your nation, class warfare (in no less than two sentences! who are his speech writers!?)

    The left still thinks that if you repeat the lie often enough, even when it is as blatant as it was in this case, that enough people will fall for it. Especially when they stand to gain from it at no cost to them.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      
  52. Mook says:

    Hal, those charts lump together in the “capital” category interest income, oridinary dividends, and income from business profits, all of which qualify for the highest 35% (soon to be 39.5%) tax rate, not including the state and local taxes lumped on top of income taxes. You naively swallowed the visual of the chart you cited, you swallowed it whole without looking under the surface, just like you accused others of doing with richtaylor’s chart.

    If you go to the Excel spreadsheet, even a cursory examination reveals what bullshit it is you’re peddling. From the Excel spreadsheet, the richest above $10 million/year pay AT LEAST 54% of their income at the highest tax levels if you add together salary+interest+ordinary dividends+Net business income+short term capital gains less short term capital losses+rental income. I didn’t bother to go through short term gains from property sales, farm income and other sources which would undoubtedly increase that 54% percentage even higher – blowing your Cato 19% “capital percentage” number out of the water, because you are conflating Cato’s definition of “capital” lumping together short term capital gains, interest and ordinary income with long-term capital gains. Again, total BULLSHIT on your part Hal. It’s dishonest to conflate interest and short term capital gains taxed at same rate as salary and lump them with long term capital gains just like the libtartds are so prone to do.

    You accused others of not looking past the charts, yet you are the one most guilty of superficial analysis swallowing a graphic whole. You also don’t address the valid point that dividend income represents double and triple taxation, because that too would cut the legs out from underneath your argument that the rich aren’t paying their share.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      
  53. Poosh says:

    But it was so blatant! It was like something from another planet. He actually mocked those in a predictive way, who would claim this is about class warfare, and then, in the next sentence, engaged in class warfare.

    It was like, double-think! Insane.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      

Comments have been disabled.