Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

Double entendres are fun.

On 1/23/2012 at 6:57 PM, UNTflyer said:

e-t-r-a-n-s-f-e-r-i-e-s

This thing was tipped for the Hall of Fame anyway, but this exchange will ensure first ballot status.

Double entendres are fun.

This thing was tipped for the Hall of Fame anyway, but this exchange will ensure first ballot status.

I don't wanna oversell myself, but I'd hoped GOP Primary: The Musical pushed it over.

Well, what he doesn't tell people is that 99.99% of his income is dividends and capital gains on long-term etransferies INVESTMENTS which is taxed at 15%. Wanna raise that? Then you raise taxes on seniors' 401K and pension earnings.

But if Buffet really feels he is not paying enough, he can send a check to the Treasury Department.

---I pay more than15% on my TRS pension earnings now... I am over 65... they are not taxed at 15%. ....and because of my total income I pay more than on my social security check as well... Those do not fall under long term capital gains.. even in retirement accounts.

Buffett... he did pay more.

Apparently you are not reading my posts closely.... keep the first $50,000 or whatever at 15%.... above that go to 20% or may be more at some point... just as the rest of income tax is "stepped".. So I guess you are protesting because you make millions in capital gains each year.??? instead of $50,000 or less...lucky you .....

------------

unt-girl04:

My 40%-40%-20% did not come from a political site... Your posts are very good and reasonable and thought out. I have read about so much income tax not being paid.... it may be right... but I doubt the quantity is that much.... none of us can prove either is true.... might be right but I doubt it is so much.... but the reduced enforcement (due to budget cutbacks) in recent years has has made it worse no doubt....

..

Rather than drone on about the difference between investment income and salary income, deductions, the 51% of Americans who pay no taxes at all, Warren Buffet having a personal agenda regarding tax policy, etc...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/

In short, Buffet is full of crap.

Rather than drone on about the difference between investment income and salary income, deductions, the 51% of Americans who pay no taxes at all, Warren Buffet having a personal agenda regarding tax policy, etc...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/sep/21/does-secretary-pay-higher-taxes-millionaire/

In short, Buffet is full of crap.

and has a lot of money.... and wasn't stupid when he earned it. What is his agenda.... ?? wants more money... that makes no sense.

I finally agree with you the 51% or close to it that pay nothing is way too much... I was even paying some income taxes when I was a poor grocery sack-boy trying to pay my way through college in the sixties (true). Who cut all of them??? I don't think you want to know or state that.. The part about some getting more in refunds that they pay in is even worse... It happens.

Edited January 24, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

As long as folks, wealthy or not, are following the law, I have no problem with any one's personal tax rate. Why the class warfare envy stuff? I don't get it. If you don't like the tax code, get it changed...I'm all in favor of a flat tax system...it would eliminate a ton of IRS folks, and tax attorneys...good deal!

The problem is with the tax code, not the folks who work within the tax code to pay as little income tax as they are legally required to do. EVERYONE...and I mean everyone wants to pay fewer taxes when it comes down to it. The idea that "others should pay more" come from the folks who feel it's OK to pay more as long as they don't have to personally pay more. Ridiculous class warfare crap! Yes, even from Warren Buffet.

Take a look at the charitable donations Romney made as well as his tax bracket. Check out the charitable donations of many of those rich folks you want to tax at higher levels. Then, go check out the contributions from many of the folks screaming for "others to do more" while they do less or nothing at all.

Again, I could care less what you pay in taxes, not any of my business...what I see is my business is that everyone is following the laws and regulations pertaining to the tax code...and that they are actually filing a return.

When I sit down to do my taxes I will look for every possible legal way to reduce my tax bill...every single one...and I will look twice and three times just to make sure I didn't miss anything. I'll then take out the checkbook and write that check as I grit my teeth knowing how much of that money is going to be wasted by sending it to Washington.

It is what it is folks...worry about your own taxes...I'll worry about mine...good for Buffet, Gates, Romney and all the other rich guys...class warfare makes for great politics, but doesn't get much accomplished and has never led to helping me pay any of my taxes.

--- Gingrich is a real puzzle to me and I think a GOP problem... He does come across as the the most informed of all GOP candidates but his history is completely opposite of the image that the GOP brags about.... family values .. and their claim to be the most moral party (which doesn't hold water either... maybe not worse but not any better). He is getting more votes than I expected but there are a lot of women who would vote for anyone but him or just not vote at all. Gingrich even left office because the GOP wanted to go after Clinton's infidelity... and he was far worse and their own.

Gingrich is an interesting situation. I don't buy into the "if he's nominated, Obama wins, no contest" type of statements I've seen made here and in other places. ...partially because people think they know Newt, but then pay attention and he has had success changing minds when people have actually engaged and started paying attention. He has a couple of debates with "ugh, er, where's my Teleprompter Obama" and I think lots of folks may come around. ...that being said, the election instead of being about Obama, are you better off, has his policies worked for you becomes about Newt as well. While my gut REALLY wants to see Newt clean Obama's Clock on the debate stage, I am just nervous that he has too many negatives going in. Romney is sort of Milquetoast in many ways, but if he makes a good Veep pick, I think he'll get the conservatives on his side and would have an easier run to victory.

---I thought it a bit odd how much Newt was bragging about when he was Speaker that the budget was balanced for four years [only time in recent history or past 30 years] but not mentioning that the White House was occupied by Clinton and that Gore was in charge of the Senate (VP). He was also claiming the national debt was under control then [ true ... it grew less than 2% per year in Clinton years... so much for the liberal spending claims ] That could come back to bite him later if he gets the nomination... that and the fact his wives couldn't trust him.

As Civics class taught us, the ONLY time the VP has any power in the senate is when there is a tie. The statement that "Gore was in charge of the senate" is just purely false. After the election of 94, some party defections and some retirement and replacement of a senator from Washington, the final tally was a 53 seat majority for Republicans in 94, a number that increased in 96. The Senate Majority leader Bob Dole, not the Vice President was (and really always is unless the tie breaking vote is needed) in control of the Senate after the election of 1994. Clinton did after '94 EXACTLY what Obama hasn't done after '10 which was moderate, listen to what the people said with the election and work with Republicans. As a result, he got a good deal of social policy he wanted, but became a virtual rubber stamp for good conservative fiscal policy. I give Bill Clinton a LOT of credit. he knew what he needed to do to stay relevant and in power and as a result is viewed (probably rightfully so) as a good president by most, even those who were not a big fan of his, shall we say, extracurricular activities.

--Meanwhile Romney has been claiming that the private sector is the area that creates jobs and not government... which is true ... government can do a few things to encourage job growth but not create many of them. That comment could eventually haunt him as well since that is where the GOP has been attacking Obama. Having off-shore accounts is not going to help him any either.... they are obviously there to avoid paying more income tax... and he is paying 15% now which is less than what many pay that go to work every day.

Obama is going to have a hard time painting Romney as a Rich guy. Obamas worth a hell of a lot of money himself, and he sure isn't writing extra checks to the treasury either. ...in fact, i think the class warfare argument is really starting to backfire on Obama.

--The extreme T-Party folks have pretty much disappeared... most people realize you can't maintain a decent government without collecting a reasonable amount of taxes... that is why we have the large debt now that has appeared since 2001... almost triple now of 2000 numbers and not getting better. Spending does need to be cut and most "earmarks' (very common from 2001 to 2009, Santorium was one of the worse ) need to disappear... but at the same time some taxes that were cut need to be reinstated... Those with high "earned income" are paying 30% or more while Wall Street types just pay 15%... that just isn't right. The rich are not being soaked as some love to claim. It amazes me that some here defend that.... they, the high income working people, are the ones being hit the worse .... not people worth 100's of millions. No problem with exempting an amount, maybe first $50,000.. ( retirement? income accounts ) for 15% but not the millions or 100's of millions that the super wealthy make yearly..

We're not maintaining a decent Government. We have a government who has its hands in so much stuff that it doesn't have authority to be in the middle of it isn't funny. I agree, the government needs income, but the idea that tax cuts have created debt is such an intellectually devoid concept that I can't see straight. That you or anyone would take seriously something that states "tax cuts caused 40% of the debt" is beyond my ability to comprehend. Not having money DOESN'T CAUSE DEBT! SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE CAUSES DEBT!!!!! We can argue all day long about what is wise or wasteful spending, but it is spending, not tax cuts that create debt. You don't accumulate debt simply by getting paid less. You accumulate it by whipping out that credit card and using it when you don't have the funds.

Regarding pushing the Rich to pay more taxes, and those of you who support this, I have only one question - how much is enough? The rich aren't being soaked, according to you. How much SHOULD they pay to be considered their fair share? When answering this, consider the following -

The top 1% of the population earns 16.7% of the income in this country, and pays 39% of the tax burden.

The top 5% of the population earns 31.2% of the income in this country, and pays 55% of the tax burden.

The top 10% of the population earns 42.36% of the income in this country, and pays 66% of the tax burden.

The top 25% of the population earns 64.86% of the income in this country, and pays 86% of the tax burden.

The top 50% of the population earns 86.01% of the income in this country, and pays 97% of the tax burden.

The bottom 50% of the population pays 3% of the tax burden.

...so the "SUPER-RICH" which are being targeted. let's call 'em the top 10%... already pay 66% of the TOTAL tax burden. How much of the total burden should they be responsible for? How much of their income should be taxed?

What would the United States gain if in fact the government did confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich and taxed at 100% all the income above $200,000.00 per household per year?

Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million. If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate that type of wealth again as it would simply be confiscated. Why do the extra work to earn more if you're never going to see it? Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with this Government, as it would be spent, but I digress) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.

Assuming Barak Obama & Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government. The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year for the same reason the millionaires stop working harder... Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts.

The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

Gingrich is an interesting situation. I don't buy into the "if he's nominated, Obama wins, no contest" type of statements I've seen made here and in other places. ...partially because people think they know Newt, but then pay attention and he has had success changing minds when people have actually engaged and started paying attention. He has a couple of debates with "ugh, er, where's my Teleprompter Obama" and I think lots of folks may come around. ...that being said, the election instead of being about Obama, are you better off, has his policies worked for you becomes about Newt as well. While my gut REALLY wants to see Newt clean Obama's Clock on the debate stage, I am just nervous that he has too many negatives going in. Romney is sort of Milquetoast in many ways, but if he makes a good Veep pick, I think he'll get the conservatives on his side and would have an easier run to victory.

As Civics class taught us, the ONLY time the VP has any power in the senate is when there is a tie. The statement that "Gore was in charge of the senate" is just purely false. After the election of 94, some party defections and some retirement and replacement of a senator from Washington, the final tally was a 53 seat majority for Republicans in 94, a number that increased in 96. The Senate Majority leader Bob Dole, not the Vice President was (and really always is unless the tie breaking vote is needed) in control of the Senate after the election of 1994. Clinton did after '94 EXACTLY what Obama hasn't done after '10 which was moderate, listen to what the people said with the election and work with Republicans. As a result, he got a good deal of social policy he wanted, but became a virtual rubber stamp for good conservative fiscal policy. I give Bill Clinton a LOT of credit. he knew what he needed to do to stay relevant and in power and as a result is viewed (probably rightfully so) as a good president by most, even those who were not a big fan of his, shall we say, extracurricular activities.

Obama is going to have a hard time painting Romney as a Rich guy. Obamas worth a hell of a lot of money himself, and he sure isn't writing extra checks to the treasury either. ...in fact, i think the class warfare argument is really starting to backfire on Obama.

We're not maintaining a decent Government. We have a government who has its hands in so much stuff that it doesn't have authority to be in the middle of it isn't funny. I agree, the government needs income, but the idea that tax cuts have created debt is such an intellectually devoid concept that I can't see straight. That you or anyone would take seriously something that states "tax cuts caused 40% of the debt" is beyond my ability to comprehend. Not having money DOESN'T CAUSE DEBT! SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE CAUSES DEBT!!!!! We can argue all day long about what is wise or wasteful spending, but it is spending, not tax cuts that create debt. You don't accumulate debt simply by getting paid less. You accumulate it by whipping out that credit card and using it when you don't have the funds.

Regarding pushing the Rich to pay more taxes, and those of you who support this, I have only one question - how much is enough? The rich aren't being soaked, according to you. How much SHOULD they pay to be considered their fair share? When answering this, consider the following -

The top 1% of the population earns 16.7% of the income in this country, and pays 39% of the tax burden.

The top 5% of the population earns 31.2% of the income in this country, and pays 55% of the tax burden.

The top 10% of the population earns 42.36% of the income in this country, and pays 66% of the tax burden.

The top 25% of the population earns 64.86% of the income in this country, and pays 86% of the tax burden.

The top 50% of the population earns 86.01% of the income in this country, and pays 97% of the tax burden.

The bottom 50% of the population pays 3% of the tax burden.

...so the "SUPER-RICH" which are being targeted. let's call 'em the top 10%... already pay 66% of the TOTAL tax burden. How much of the total burden should they be responsible for? How much of their income should be taxed?

What would the United States gain if in fact the government did confiscate the wealth of the so-called rich and taxed at 100% all the income above $200,000.00 per household per year?

Using the latest statistics from the IRS, in 2004 there were 2.7 million adults with a net worth above $1.5 million. If the government were to seize all the wealth above the $1.5 million threshold, Washington would realize a one-time windfall of $4.0 Trillion -- and no one would again attempt to accumulate that type of wealth again as it would simply be confiscated. Why do the extra work to earn more if you're never going to see it? Assuming it was applied to the national debt (unlikely with this Government, as it would be spent, but I digress) the national debt would only be reduced from$14.5 Trillion to $10.0 Trillion.

Assuming Barak Obama & Company decide that $200,000.00 per year is sufficient for any household, then in 2008 (the latest IRS statistics) the 6.9 million filers that had adjusted gross income above $200,000.00 would have forfeited all their income above that ceiling to the government. The one-time gain to Washington D.C.: $221.0 Billion; but in the future no one would work long enough to earn more than $200,000.00 per year for the same reason the millionaires stop working harder... Tax revenues in subsequent years would never increase unless tax rates are raised which are self-defeating and historically results in even lower tax receipts.

The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

Good post, but realize facts rarely mean anything when it comes to most's political views. Brick walls.

In other news, Newt up 8 points in latest Florida polling. Romney getting no traction in the south. Shocking.

In other news, Newt up 8 points in latest Florida polling. Romney getting no traction in the south. Shocking.

And another poll that has Romney up by 2 points.

I'm not discounting the possibility that Newt could win by 8 points, its very possible, but the polling isn't totally consistent at this point.

And Florida's not the South. Maybe directional South, but most of the state isn't demographically like the South.

And Florida's not the South. Maybe directional South, but most of the state isn't demographically like the South.

Totally agree. Florida is a different animal. ...though really, in some ways a Newt win here may help combat some of this "Newt Can't Win" conventional wisdom. Florida is way more representative of the entire nation with a LOT of different demographics represented. How Florida plays out will be transfere interesting and will tell us more about how this is going to go than any of the previous primaries in my opinion. Biggest problem Newt has in turning Florida to him despite what the polls say is the fact that Florida has early voting in their primary with heavy turn out and lots of people cast their ballots long before the current Newt surge.

Edited January 24, 2012 by yyz28

The top 1% of the population earns 16.7% of the income in this country, and pays 39% of the tax burden.

The top 5% of the population earns 31.2% of the income in this country, and pays 55% of the tax burden.

The top 10% of the population earns 42.36% of the income in this country, and pays 66% of the tax burden.

The top 25% of the population earns 64.86% of the income in this country, and pays 86% of the tax burden.

The top 50% of the population earns 86.01% of the income in this country, and pays 97% of the tax burden.

The bottom 50% of the population pays 3% of the tax burden.

The long-term impact on the economy and the country would mirror that of the failed socialist nations throughout history.

Paying their fair share (more than 15%) isn't socialism... when so many of us are paying a lot more (percentwise) and making a lot less [not millions in capitol gains).

You may find this page interesting.... http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/15/business/one-percent-map.html?hp

To be in the top 1% isn't as much as many think...... It isn't millions and definitely not millions in capital gains.

NY Times is not a political site so don't claim that.

INCOME REQUIRED TO BE IN THE (total family income):

TOP 1% --- $383,001

TOP 5% --- $188,001

TOP 10% --- $140,001

TOP 25% --- $89,125

TOP HALF --- $50,742

BOTTOM 25% --- $25,411

BOTTOM 10% --- $12,154

..

This pretty much shows the doctors, lawyers, some engineers, some business owners including tech and oil business, and some others earning a large salary by WORKING are paying 25%-35% while those making millions on Wall Street by just trading stock are just paying 15%.... I guess you think that is fair.... I don't. the Wall Street/Banking guys were the ones that got the huge 2001 tax cut. You can bet a lot of the top 1% in income are the guys I mentioned and are getting killed on income tax because they work.

Edited January 24, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

Paying their fair share (more than 15%) isn't socialism... when so many of us are paying a lot more (percentwise) and making a lot less [not millions in capitol gains).

This pretty much shows the doctors, lawyers, some engineers, some business owners including tech and oil business, and some others earning a large salary by WORKING are paying 25%-35% while those making millions on Wall Street by just trading stock are just paying 15%.... I guess you think that is fair.... I don't. the Wall Street/Banking guys were the ones that got the huge 2001 tax cut. You can bet a lot of the top 1% in income are the guys I mentioned and are getting killed on income tax because they work.

And earnings from stocks are already taxed at the corporate level. As a shareholder (owner), I pay income taxes (anywhere from 15% up to 38%) on corporate profits as long as I hold those positions. And then I am taxed again (15%) on my realized gains when I sell. So even though on paper I am paying a 15% tax rate, in reality I am paying anywhere from 30% to 53% on my profits. This doesn't even take into account corporations who pay state income taxes.

Talking points rarely align with reality.

And another poll that has Romney up by 2 points.

I'm not discounting the possibility that Newt could win by 8 points, its very possible, but the polling isn't totally consistent at this point.

And Florida's not the South. Maybe directional South, but most of the state isn't demographically like the South.

Yep, but if Romney can't win Florida, he can't win any of the south.

Totally agree. Florida is a different animal. ...though really, in some ways a Newt win here may help combat some of this "Newt Can't Win" conventional wisdom. Florida is way more representative of the entire nation with a LOT of different demographics represented. How Florida plays out will be transfere interesting and will tell us more about how this is going to go than any of the previous primaries in my opinion. Biggest problem Newt has in turning Florida to him despite what the polls say is the fact that Florida has early voting in their primary with heavy turn out and lots of people cast their ballots long before the current Newt surge.

This.

Romney is losing steam, and the release of his tax returns after originally refusing to do so will not help. He will lose Florida. Maybe by double digits. And no, I'm not really happy about this, because I don't really like Newt as a candidate.

In a side note, this State of the Union speech would make Robert Owen proud.

Edited January 25, 2012 by UNT90

The liberal side: We want grotesque government entitlement spending and we want the rich to pay for it!

The conservative side: We want grotesque government military spending and we want the poor to pay for it!

Both sides: What is this tax code? How does it work? What do you mean the "rate" is irrelevant? What are these excise, sales, ad valorem, payroll, franchise, estate, gift, use taxes and why do some people with "low rates" pay more than people with "high rates?" How is a flat tax regressive if everybody pays the same? You can't explain that!

Ah, tax season in an election year. Never a better time to sit back and watch.

And earnings from stocks are already taxed at the corporate level. As a shareholder (owner), I pay income taxes (anywhere from 15% up to 38%) on corporate profits as long as I hold those positions. And then I am taxed again (15%) on my realized gains when I sell. So even though on paper I am paying a 15% tax rate, in reality I am paying anywhere from 30% to 53% on my profits. This doesn't even take into account corporations who pay state income taxes.

Talking points rarely align with reality.

What if that company paid no taxes?

And earnings from stocks are already taxed at the corporate level. As a shareholder (owner), I pay income taxes (anywhere from 15% up to 38%) on corporate profits as long as I hold those positions. And then I am taxed again (15%) on my realized gains when I sell. So even though on paper I am paying a 15% tax rate, in reality I am paying anywhere from 30% to 53% on my profits. This doesn't even take into account corporations who pay state income taxes.

Talking points rarely align with reality.

You logic is a bit odd

---Unless you are making $250,000 per year or more and if capital gains were held to 15% for a reasonable amount ($50,000) you would owe no more if changes were made.... We are talking people making millions per year. It is the high wage earners that are now getting taken to the cleaners not those with millions.

I imagine most of us on this board do own stock either mutual funds or individual companies. (I do) At the same time what has happened to the national debt since 2001 is a big problem.... something has to done or we have severe problems.... No one like paying taxes or even their electric bill .... but they have to paid. What is your answer..... ? Don't say cut spending unless you say what in detail.... and remember likely most cuts will cause even more unemployment.... see Perry and the Texas legislature which cut loose 1000's in education and more 1000's in other services.. several 100 in my hometown at a prison. ... I guess most of those inmates are now on the street.

As another poster stated.... even retirement accounts including mine which invested in stocks get that 15% benefit. Neither does my social security when added on top of my other income costs me more than 15% also.. You are defending the ultra millionaires... not the middle class or even high earning professionals which often take a real beating. .

...

..

Edited January 25, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

What if that company paid no taxes?

-- GE paid zero last year.. which is in the DOW 20 .... not exactly going broke.

Newt's wives aside, I think it's possible he's learned a lot since his Speaker days, and right now, he's probably the best candidate. If he makes a smart choice for his running mate, I think he could also take the women's vote.

Ryan Seacrest?

Paying their fair share (more than 15%) isn't socialism... when so many of us are paying a lot more (percentwise) and making a lot less [not millions in capitol gains).

Then again, I ask the question that I've never had anyone who has your position ever be able (or willing) to answer:

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

If the top 1% is earning 16.7% of the income (and that figure INCLUDES Capital Gains) and is paying 40% of the tax burden, how can you argue they aren't paying their fair share? And if 40% isn't enough, how much should the top 1% be funding the government? 45%? 50%? When does it stop? How much wealth do we confiscate before we say "it's fair?"

This pretty much shows the doctors, lawyers, some engineers, some business owners including tech and oil business, and some others earning a large salary by WORKING are paying 25%-35% while those making millions on Wall Street by just trading stock are just paying 15%.... I guess you think that is fair.... I don't. the Wall Street/Banking guys were the ones that got the huge 2001 tax cut. You can bet a lot of the top 1% in income are the guys I mentioned and are getting killed on income tax because they work.

History is an interesting teacher. Simply stated, we can get mad and bluster about what is fair and what isn't, but if it doesn't work in the end, then what really is the point?

First, history shows us without exception, doubt or deviation that an increase in the Capital Gains tax means less movement in the market. Less movement in the market means less money circulating, means less growth, fewer transactions to apply the higher tax rate etc. The recent history on what the manipulation of Capital gains taxes means for REVENUE, which is really what we are being told this is about is rather clear.

In 1987, the maximum capital gains tax went form 20% to 27%, jumping by 7 points or 25%. The following year, income into the treasury from capital gains was down 37.5%. ...so a 25% increase in the tax rate created a 37.5% drop in revenue.

in 2002, as a result of the 2001 tax cuts, the Capital Gains rate was lowered from 19% to 15%. This was only a 4 point decrease, roughly 20%. In 2003, revenue from Capital Gains taxes INCREASED by 30% after a fairly modest decrease in the rate.

So, history teaches us if we're smart enough to pay attention that an increase in the rate will have the opposite impact on revenue that we're trying to achieve with the move. I know this. Economists know this. Obama's advisers know this. ...if that is the case, then why promote it? is it REALLY about increasing the revenue, or is the motivation of a different sort? I'll let you come to your own conclusion on that...

...if we're just talking about the top 1% of the top 1% (the "wall street guys") go back and review the math. Confiscating ALL their wealth will barely make a dent in the problem, and will cause the problem to get worse next year when they aren't there to hit up again.

...and where to cut spending? OH, my friend, I thought you'd NEVER ask.

First, de-unionize the federal workforce. The market will dictate what a job is worth, and the federal government will live by the same labor laws they impose on anyone else. Those who do well get promoted and moved up. Those that do the bare minimum tread water. Those who don't do their job are fired. No committee. No Union. A real workplace environment like the rest of us "regular people" have to deal with. (I find the fact that federal employees are making the kind of money they are compared to similar worker in the private sector FAR more unfair and unjust since we're footing the bill as tax payers than I do about Wall Street Playboys who are risking their OWN MONEY for those capital gains.)

Second, Elected official's of ALL PARTIES AND BRANCHES have their golden pension plans and medical plans struck down, they live with what we live with.

Third, eliminate the practice of baseline budgeting, and roll back all departments to 2008 spending levels except for defense who's expenditures should be considerably less than 2008 based on being out of Iraq and a smaller role in Afghanistan.

Department of Energy. Gone.

Department of Education (since its inception education outcome in this country has dropped or stayed stagnate at best). Gone.

EPA. Gutted, Reformed, Powers dramatically curtailed.

Foreign Aide. Gone.

ANY Government Service for someone not legally in this country... GONE!

Obamacare. Gone

Overhaul Medicare.

Overhaul Social Security (Yes, Including making provisions to keep young workers today to be a slave to a system that has been lied about and stolen from since its inception.

We then setup a new department - Department of Waste Mitigation (most successful companies have departments like this that are looking for places they are overlapping responsibility, can run more efficiently, where they haven't billed something, where they have been charged too much be a vendor, etc..): Their sole purpose in life is to find where congress has created overlapping bureaucracies and by extension regulation and clean it out piece by piece. Private sector regulatory compliance costs amounted to $1.752 TRILLION in 2008 absorbing 11.9% of the GDP simply for business to comply with the volumes and volumes of regulations placed on the private sector. Moreover, studies have found that the number of criminal offenses in the United States Code increased from 3000 in the early 1980's, to 4000 by 2000, to over 4500 by 2008. ...but the total number of criminal offenses is actually unknown even to the federal government which establishes them. Scores of federal departments and agencies have created so many criminal offenses that the Congressional Research Service (CRS, the Research Arm of Congress) admitted that it was unable to count all the offenses, but estimates them to be in the "tens of thousands". Congress's own experts do not have a clear understand gin of the size and scope of federal government or criminalization.

...if you don't think there are places to cut, I challenge you to walk around your house and find a single item that isn't in some way regulated by the federal government. Now think about the number of people who are on the taxpayer's payroll to enforce these regulations, and come back in here and tell me we can't cut.

Bottom line is even if gutting the government does create temporary unemployment to spike, it simply can't be sustained. Do it now, and experience pain. Don't do it and the system collapses. That's where we are now.

-- GE paid zero last year.. which is in the DOW 20 .... not exactly going broke.

GE was able to write off significant portions of its tax liabilities due to losses taken by GE Capital during the financial market meltdown of 2008. I don't think you'll find very many companies sponsoring changes to the tax code that takes away a company's ability write off losses on future tax liabilities. They also make lots of "green" products which allows them to write off even more of their tax liabilities.

Cutting out tax "loop holes" that companies take advantage of could result in some unintended consequences affecting more than just GE.

GE was able to write off significant portions of its tax liabilities due to losses taken by GE Capital during the financial market meltdown of 2008. I don't think you'll find very many companies sponsoring changes to the tax code that takes away a company's ability write off losses on future tax liabilities. They also make lots of "green" products which allows them to write off even more of their tax liabilities.

Cutting out tax "loop holes" that companies take advantage of could result in some unintended consequences affecting more than just GE.

There would be some unintended consequences, and while loss carry forward and write-offs should continue to exist, so long as we're going to have a corporate income tax (which is really just a hidden tax on consumers) the tax rate should be lowered, flat, loopholes and tax benefits eliminated, subsidies eliminated and allow companies to win and lose based on the free market, not based on getting some benefit in the tax code over a competing company or product. You make this change to the corporate tax code and then stand back and watch business come back to America and the economy start to move.

Newt................or Schrute?

Then again, I ask the question that I've never had anyone who has your position ever be able (or willing) to answer:

HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

If the top 1% is earning 16.7% of the income (and that figure INCLUDES Capital Gains) and is paying 40% of the tax burden, how can you argue they aren't paying their fair share? And if 40% isn't enough, how much should the top 1% be funding the government? 45%? 50%? When does it stop? How much wealth do we confiscate before we say "it's fair?"

---You are completely missing the point... it isn't about the amount.. A lot of the top 1% are getting taken to the cleaners. They have high incomes and pay 25-35%.... meanwhile the people who are making millions from capital gains only pay 15%. I am not about soaking the wealthy... just they make a LOT more and pay half the rate. They may be paying only half the RATE you do if you have a rather high income and are working everyday.

--You seem to have no problem with that. I actually think tax rate should be reduced some on those earning high working income ... but restore the capital gains taxes back to what they once were.

--PLEASE---Look at a tax table [i have the 2010 one]... for the amount of adjusted income that you are making over $68,000 .... you are paying 25% or more [not 25% of our total income.. but 25% of the over part]. So if you are making more than that... any increase in salary you get will taxed at a higher rate (25% maybe more) than the Wall Street guys (15%)... I am taking numbers from a publication of Ameriprise [ American Express ] showing and explaining tax brackets.

..Don't respond until you actually research it... you might be surprised. I am no genius but I do teach mathematics of finance in college. I am understanding what I am reading. If nothing else just add a fake 100 dollars to your income on a tax form [turbo tax or tax schedule] and see what happens.. Your tax bill will likely go up more than $15 which would be 15%. You likely are paying a higher rate than the Wall Street guys on any additional income..

---One reason they have gotten away with it is people just don't completely understand how it works and just look at overall tax rate [turbo tax prints it]... not the same at all. There are no taxes on an adjusted income of $16,750 or less and only 15% on the amt between 17,000 and $68,000. This somewhat explains why so many pay little or no tax... students rarely have enough income to pay anything, same with many seniors... as well as some others working part-time or big families with LOTS of deductions--kids or maybe big itemized items...Medical?

Edited January 26, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

---You are completely missing the point... it isn't about the amount.. A lot of the top 1% are getting taken to the cleaners. They have high incomes and pay 25-35%.... meanwhile the people who are making millions from capital gains only pay 15%. I am not about soaking the wealthy... just they make a LOT more and pay half the rate. They may be paying only half the RATE you do if you have a rather high income and are working everyday.

--You seem to have no problem with that. I actually think tax rate should be reduced some on those earning high working income ... but restore the capital gains taxes back to what they once wee.

--PLEASE---Look at a tax table [i have the 2010 one]... for the amount of adjusted income that you are making over $68,000 .... you are paying 25% or more [not 25% of our total income.. but 25% of the over part]. So if you are making more than that... any increase in salary you get will taxed at a higher rate (25% maybe more) than the Wall Street guys (15%)... I am taking numbers from a publication of Ameriprise [ American Express ] showing and explaining tax brackets.

..Don't respond until you actually research it... you might be surprised. I am no genius but I do teach mathematics of finance in college. I am understanding what I am reading. If nothing else just add a fake 100 dollars to your income on a tax form [turbo tax or tax schedule] and see what happens.. Your tax bill will likely go up more than $15 which would be 15%. You likely are paying a higher rate than the Wall Street guys on any additional income..

..

Did you see the part where he said:

First, history shows us without exception, doubt or deviation that an increase in the Capital Gains tax means less movement in the market. Less movement in the market means less money circulating, means less growth, fewer transactions to apply the higher tax rate etc. The recent history on what the manipulation of Capital gains taxes means for REVENUE, which is really what we are being told this is about is rather clear.

In 1987, the maximum capital gains tax went form 20% to 27%, jumping by 7 points or 25%. The following year, income into the treasury from capital gains was down 37.5%. ...so a 25% increase in the tax rate created a 37.5% drop in revenue.

in 2002, as a result of the 2001 tax cuts, the Capital Gains rate was lowered from 19% to 15%. This was only a 4 point decrease, roughly 20%. In 2003, revenue from Capital Gains taxes INCREASED by 30% after a fairly modest decrease in the rate.

So, history teaches us if we're smart enough to pay attention that an increase in the rate will have the opposite impact on revenue that we're trying to achieve with the move. I know this. Economists know this. Obama's advisers know this. ...if that is the case, then why promote it? is it REALLY about increasing the revenue, or is the motivation of a different sort? I'll let you come to your own conclusion on that...

It sounds to me like raising the capital gains tax would actually reduce income for the government (assuming my reading comprehension skills are any good). That actually makes sense when the cost of liquidating an asset is too high it is best to leave that asset in a non-liquid state until such time the costs comes down.

If you want to make for a more stable stock market, by all means raise capital gains taxes which would result in less churn.

Edited January 26, 2012 by UNTFan23

Did you see the part where he said:

It sounds to me like raising the capital gains tax would actually reduce income for the government (assuming my reading comprehension skills are any good). That actually makes sense when the cost of liquidating an asset is too high it is best to leave that asset in a non-liquid state until such time the costs comes down.

If you want to make for a more stable stock market, by all means raise capital gains taxes which would result in less churn.

Yes... SE66, I'm not missing your point. I understand your point entirely. ....but you're missing mine. "fairness" aside, raising capital gains taxes on the 1% of the 1% will have the opposite than desired effect. This isn't a question of fairness OR mathematics. It's a question of "will doing X produce the outcome we want?". History alone, the fairness argument set aside, that the answer is CLEARLY no.

...but again, despite the fact that part of the upper 1% is paying more in taxes, they are actively earning that income. When the guys paying 15% on their capital gains today EARNED the money they are now parlaying into capital gains, they paid the same tax rate on that income when it was earned from employment as the guys making it now. Since employment and capital gains ARE separate actions, and, moreover, one has to earn it before they can invest it, it stands to reason capital gains rate would be different than the typical income tax rate.

What i find MOST interesting, however, is that the President is arguing that we should raise taxes on the capital gains crowd, AND raise taxes on the rest of the 1% (more likely 10%), so under his scenario, everyone will have less to spend on stuff or to re-invest in business in the pursuit of more capital gains which is the REAL engine of the economy and the real engine of job creation. It's an anti-growth policy that not only really does nothing to solve the fiscal issue we have, but rather likely puts the breaks on an economy that is currently anemic at best.