Politics

[BobD]

Even if you did get your wish and had absurd tax rates on the "rich" (throw out whatever % you want, hell how about 75), it still wouldn't fix our spending problems. So while punishing the man might make you feel good, still doesn't do the country any good.

Medicare, medicaid, social security would still all be broke by 2030. And then there's obamacare...$hit.

That's exactly what many rich people want you to believe. Taxing them and creating more revenue won't do any good so why bother. Just cut things that benefit the wretched working class.

 

[GoIrish41]

Therrrrrre we go, the new left reveals itself in one sentence. Demonize and damn those who are successful. They don't deserve it. We'll show them what they get for making that kind of money. So much for all that tolerance and understanding...

Modern dems used to call millionaires and billionaires rich. Then it was anyone who made $400k or more, then it was $250k or more, now you say it's $100k or more. On this progression in a few short years, "rich" is a salary of $60k according to you lol

All day I've quoted the words "rich" and "fair" because progressives either a) can't define either or b) change their minds too quickly

First off, I was making a joke about someone making a billion dollars a year. I think we can safely say that a person making that much is rich. -- that isn't someone who is simply successful, that is a person who has more money than God. You are just being silly if you think the idea behind taxation is to punish people for making money or that ANYONE believes that.

The bolded portion are not my numbers except for the $100K one. That is the point at which I think it is fair for people to start paying the same rates they did when Clinton was president. I acknowledge that you disagree with that, but to say we can't set rates because we can't define the concept "fairness" is BS. Why can't we, as a country, set income levels at which people are taxed at certain rates? We've been doing that for decades. Who cares where "rich" is -- set the rates.

 

[BobD]

The shoot out here in California seems to be wrapping up just in time for the State of the Union.

CNN is in heaven.

 

[chicago51]

Even if you did get your wish and had absurd tax rates on the "rich" (throw out whatever % you want, hell how about 75), it still wouldn't fix our spending problems. So while punishing the man might make you feel good, still doesn't do the country any good.

Medicare, medicaid, social security would still all be broke by 2030. And then there's obamacare...$hit.

Actually those rates would do a great deal in debt reduction.


The beltway media is doing a great job getting everyone off focus. The real problem is not debt it is jobs.

If I had those I would not use it all to pay down the debt. I would invest it in America create jobs. If we have full employment and everyone is buying goods and services corporations and small businesses are going to reap the benefits. Everyone will get richer including the billionaires.

 

[chicago51]

Fun fact Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is the designated successor. Meaning if God forbid something catastrophic happens a the Capital to the POTUS VP Speaker of the House Senate Leaders etc then Stephen Chu will be the new president.

 

[MJ12666]

chicago51, no disrespect but you are financially clueless. You of course can prove me wrong by answering the following:

1. How much additional tax revenue would be collected if the the tax rate on all income over $1M was set at 100%.

2. What impact would this additional tax revenue have on the debt for the 2013 fiscal year?

Now since you couldn't answer my last simple question regarding loopholes, I sincerely doubt you even know where to look up this information.

 

[BobD]

Fun fact Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is the designated successor. Meaning if God forbid something catastrophic happens a the Capital to the POTUS VP Speaker of the House Senate Leaders etc then Stephen Chu will be the new president.

Where does he hide out during the speech? Buffalo Wild Wings?

 

[GoIrish41]

I've been busy and didn't get a chance to answer this. Yes that is equal. They are both paying an equal percentage of their income to the government. Just because you are rich shouldn't mean you should pay more percentage to the government. As I mentioned we are all equal under the law, but when it comes to taxing the rich should be punished more? That's crap. So what if some man/woman makes $200,000 per pay check. Good for them! Don't blame that person because another is working in the factory. They didn't force the factory worker into a life of "poor."

I also want to make it known I am a substitute teacher making $75 a day because I can't find a full time teaching job for the time being. My parents never went to college. My dad has worked in the factory for 30 years, and my mom has spent my life at various jobs, supermarket, Kraft food rep, stay at home mom, store manager, unemployed, etc. I don't come from a rich family. I just believe we there should be an equal tax plan, or if possible abolish income tax (though, as others have said, would be quite hard to accomplish)

I don't look at taxation as punishment, I view it as a means to pay for our society, our infrastructure, our protection. I would think that the owner of a factory, for example, would put more wear and tear on our roads and benefit far more from our national highway system. How about the electrical grid and public water systems? I'd say that the factory owner has far more to lose if the police don't do their jobs than the factory worker does. Schools paid for by taxpayers have made it possible for them to have an educated workforce. Why shouldn't they pay more? They have benefitted far more from US taxes than any average citizen. Isn't that fairness too?

 

[chicago51]

The shoot out here in California seems to be wrapping up just in time for the State of the Union.

CNN is in heaven.

I am an MSNBC guy but yes I'm looking forward to the state of the union glad they got the shooter.

 

[GoIrish41]

chicago51, no disrespect but you are financially clueless. You of course can prove me wrong by answering the following:

1. How much additional tax revenue would be collected if the the tax rate on all income over $1M was set at 100%.

2. What impact would this additional tax revenue have on the debt for the 2013 fiscal year?

Now since you couldn't answer my last simple question regarding loopholes, I sincerely doubt you even know where to look up this information.

if you set the rate at 100%, you wouldn't get any additional revenue because who would work extra to pay it all in taxes. It wouldn't have any impact because the number would be 0. But nobody is suggesting setting the rate at 100%.

 

[chicago51]

I don't look at taxation as punishment, I view it as a means to pay for our society, our infrastructure, our protection. I would think that the owner of a factory, for example, would put more wear and tear on our roads and benefit far more from our national highway system highways. How about the electrical grid and public water systems? I'd say that the factory owner has far more to lose if the police don't do their jobs than the factory worker does. Schools paid for by taxpayers have made it possible for them to have an educated workforce. Why shouldn't they pay more? They have benefitted far more from US taxes than any average citizen. Isn't that fairness too?

Been reading some interesting theories on government's role. One theory states that role of government should be balancing the economy. Meaning making sure we have jobs have good roads good education etc.

Great point on the electrical grid. Internet infrastructure is out of date too.

I got so much more on this but I am going to focus on this speech and come back to this.

 

[chicago51]

chicago51, no disrespect but you are financially clueless. You of course can prove me wrong by answering the following:

1. How much additional tax revenue would be collected if the the tax rate on all income over $1M was set at 100%.

2. What impact would this additional tax revenue have on the debt for the 2013 fiscal year?

Now since you couldn't answer my last simple question regarding loopholes, I sincerely doubt you even know where to look up this information.

In regards to loopholes check out Bernie Sanders tax fairness bill. It will raise 590 billion over 10 years.

 

[Downinthebend]

I've been busy and didn't get a chance to answer this. Yes that is equal. They are both paying an equal percentage of their income to the government. Just because you are rich shouldn't mean you should pay more percentage to the government. As I mentioned we are all equal under the law, but when it comes to taxing the rich should be punished more? That's crap. So what if some man/woman makes $200,000 per pay check. Good for them! Don't blame that person because another is working in the factory. They didn't force the factory worker into a life of "poor."

I also want to make it known I am a substitute teacher making $75 a day because I can't find a full time teaching job for the time being. My parents never went to college. My dad has worked in the factory for 30 years, and my mom has spent my life at various jobs, supermarket, Kraft food rep, stay at home mom, store manager, unemployed, etc. I don't come from a rich family. I just believe we there should be an equal tax plan, or if possible abolish income tax (though, as others have said, would be quite hard to accomplish)

I disagree with this. People don't have a right to pay an equal percentage. If you have more, it isn't that absurd to claim that you should have to pay more. Now 43%, that is ridiculous. I don't think the spending laid out in the constitution would require anyone paying over 10 percent, much less 43.

 

[BobD]

It's awesome to see the diversity in that room today. It looked a lot different when I was a kid.

Still needs some work though.

 

[chicago51]

I disagree with this. People don't have a right to pay an equal percentage. If you have more, it isn't that absurd to claim that you should have to pay more. Now 43%, that is ridiculous. I don't think the spending laid out in the constitution would require anyone paying over 10 percent, much less 43.

Right or wrong Eisenhower presidency had a top end rate of 91 percent.

LBJ and Kennedy had a 68 percent rate.

Nixon 73 percent.

We didn't fall apart then.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's awesome to see the diversity in that room today. It looked a lot different when I was a kid.

great observation Bob. Could not agree more.

 

[MJ12666]

So let's see. By eliminating loopholes (which you have yet to define) we will collect $590 billion over the next ten years. Unfortunately that equals $0.5 trillion. Do you understand that we are adding debt of $1.0 trillion EVERY YEAR!.

If you can do some simple math, that will mean that our debt level will go from approximately $16.5 trillion to $26 trillion in ten years; and that is taking into consideration the alleged $0.5 trillion in "loopholes".

Please explain to me how this is sustainable.

 

[GoIrish41]

So let's see. By eliminating loopholes (which you have yet to define) we will collect $590 billion over the next ten years. Unfortunately that equals $0.5 trillion. Do you understand that we are adding debt of $1.0 trillion EVERY YEAR!.

If you can do some simple math, that will mean that our debt level will go from approximately $16.5 trillion to $26 trillion in ten years; and that is taking into consideration the alleged $0.5 trillion in "loopholes".

Please explain to me how this is sustainable.

I don't think he is suggesting closing loopholes only. in fact he spoke about restructuring programs like Medicare as well, ans well as raising rates further on upper income Americans. He's now talking about creating jobs, which would broaden the tax base bringing in more. listen to the whole speech instead of pulling out one line and attacking it.

 

[MJ12666]

GoIrish41. You missed the point of the question (which Chicago51 of course did not answer). The point is that the impact on debt would not even be a rounding error. The only possible benefit is that people like Chicago51 would get some sadistic pleasure that he and his comrades inflicted pain on some who are doing financially better then he is. I guess misery love company.

Now that does not mean I do not believe in higher taxes. Actually I do. The problem is that simply raising taxes on the "wealthy" is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I personally believe that we do need to go back to the tax rates in effect in the 90's, but for everyone, not just those over some arbitrary level.

 

[BobD]

Raise taxes on the wealthy, close loop holes that enable tax evasion by the wealthy & big business and redo our subsidy program.

 

[MJ12666]

GoIrish41

Seriously, if you can't even give an example of one "loophole" and explain why it is considered a "loophole", how can you take any of his suggestions seriously. It is pretty clear that he is just regurgitating nonsense that he hears from liberal talking heads. If you start quoting Bernie Sanders you are truly clueless. Did you ever listen to that clown. He is actually someone who would implement a 100% on incomes over $1M.

 

[GoIrish41]

I like Bernie Sanders because he looks out for the little guy -- more politicians should follow his lead (not on the 100% tax, that is dumb)

Pretty sure he has talked in detail about loopholes in the past ... carried interest, removing overseas tax shelters, etc.

 

[Downinthebend]

Right or wrong Eisenhower presidency had a top end rate of 91 percent.

LBJ and Kennedy had a 68 percent rate.

Nixon 73 percent.

We didn't fall apart then.

That didn't address me at all, not sure why you quoted me O:

 

[MJ12666]

GoIrish41. I give up. This is a waste of time. As a CPA I could explain the theory behind why "carried interest" may be taxed at capital gains rates (not all of it is) but you will not understand nor will you accept my explanation. And as far as "overseas tax shelters", there is no such vehicle except in wonderland.

 

[DSully1995]

GoIrish41. I give up. This is a waste of time. As a CPA I could explain the theory behind why "carried interest" may be taxed at capital gains rates (not all of it is) but you will not understand nor will you accept my explanation. And as far as "overseas tax shelters", there is no such vehicle except in wonderland.

Welcome to arguing politics over the internet. Ive yet to see anyone concede anything to this point.

 

[BobD]

I saw an empty chair, you think that's Clint Eastwood?

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Well done Mr. President!

 

[Buster Bluth]

I've taken lots of land use classes. So trust me on this one.

Well if Houston is your idea of acceptable land use, then I will not trust you.

I'm interested in your opinion on switching to consumption tax and its impact on land use, so please elaborate.

 

[BobD]

I thought it was an awesome speech! Now we have to listen to an hour of divisiveness by the Republicans.

 

[GoIrish41]

GoIrish41. I give up. This is a waste of time. As a CPA I could explain the theory behind why "carried interest" may be taxed at capital gains rates (not all of it is) but you will not understand nor will you accept my explanation. And as far as "overseas tax shelters", there is no such vehicle except in wonderland.

here's a couple of articles on the topic:

The Ten Most Corrupt Tax Loopholes - Page 1 - News - Houston - Houston Press

David Callahan: Loophole Land: How the Wealthy Dodge Taxes

How Buffett Saves Billions On His Tax Return - Forbes

there are multiple loopholes identified in them.