Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

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.

So you think it is completely fair that you are likely paying a higher rate on any increased income than Romney and others making millions each year pay... ???... ok ... but I am on your side . --

..

Romney ahead in all 6 of the latest polls released in Florida. Newt's lost momentum, so we'll see if there's enough time between now and Tuesday to surge back.

So you think it is completely fair that you are likely paying a higher rate on any increased income than Romney and others making millions each year pay... ???... ok ... but I am on your side . --

..

I hate the idea of applying "fairness" using the tax code (or any law) because "fairness" is such a subjective thing. What is "fair" to one person isn't "fair" to another person. I don't think it's "fair" that about half of the people in this country earning income don't pay any income taxes.

Edited January 26, 2012 by UNTFan23

I hate the idea of applying "fairness" using the tax code (or any law) because "fairness" is such a subjective thing. What is "fair" to one person isn't "fair" to another person. I don't think it's "fair" that about half of the people in this country earning income don't pay any taxes.

They pay taxes. They pay social security tax at a higher rate of total income than those making greater than $106,800, they pay medicare tax, unemployment insurance, sales tax (at a higher percentage of total income), excise tax (at a higher percentage of total income), indirectly the property taxes of their landlords (with no homestead exemption), and as has been asserted here, the indirect corporate income taxes of consumer goods they purchase. That they pay no federal income tax does not mean they pay no taxes. Talking points are almost always loaded with material omission of fact on both sides.

They pay taxes. They pay social security tax at a higher rate of total income than those making greater than $106,800, they pay medicare tax, unemployment insurance, sales tax (at a higher percentage of total income), excise tax (at a higher percentage of total income), indirectly the property taxes of their landlords (with no homestead exemption), and as has been asserted here, the indirect corporate income taxes of consumer goods they purchase. That they pay no federal income tax does not mean they pay no taxes. Talking points are almost always loaded with material omission of fact on both sides.

The debate about capital gains tax is part of your income taxes. I guess I could go back and edit the post to qualify which taxes about half of the people in this country don't pay.

The debate about capital gains tax is part of your income taxes. I guess I could go back and edit the post to qualify which taxes about half of the people in this country don't pay.

Naw...stick with "half don't pay any tax". Its definitely more rage inducing.

They pay taxes. They pay social security tax at a higher rate of total income than those making greater than $106,800, they pay medicare tax, unemployment insurance, sales tax (at a higher percentage of total income), excise tax (at a higher percentage of total income), indirectly the property taxes of their landlords (with no homestead exemption), and as has been asserted here, the indirect corporate income taxes of consumer goods they purchase. That they pay no federal income tax does not mean they pay no taxes. Talking points are almost always loaded with material omission of fact on both sides.

So you are saying a tax cut for big business is, in effect, a tax cut for the poor and middle class since it is ultimately passed on to the consumer, right?

See how that works? ;-)

I'd love to see the look on his face and hear his response, after some young, fool know-it-all was to tell Frenchy how anyone has a better opportunity in Europe than they would in the U.S.

I've watched this immigrant from Europe over the years since my time in Denton in the 80's, bust his ass simply mowing lawns and raising a family, including taking care of a quadriplegic wife and giving his time and extra money helping others. Now I guess you could say he's built a lawn care empire as a result of his sweat and sacrifice? I believe in the North Texan story they did on him a few years back, had stated he was earning around $1.5 Mil a year now?

Simply amazing.

He is truly a perfect example of what an individual can achieve here when they put forth the effort.

Rick

Edited January 26, 2012 by FirefightnRick

I hate the idea of applying "fairness" using the tax code (or any law) because "fairness" is such a subjective thing. What is "fair" to one person isn't "fair" to another person. I don't think it's "fair" that about half of the people in this country earning income don't pay any income taxes.

--I do agree with you but only somewhat but the threshold for no taxes is $16,760 (2010 numbers) after deductions ... this eliminates many seniors who have paid taxes for years sometimes decades [ my mother partly because with such low interest rates and being over 65 she stopped qualifying..barely ] and also a lot of the very young who are attending college etc. and the very poor which sometimes can't reach that number with the number of kids and amount of deductions they have. I do think child deductions should be capped at four? except for adopted kids... If you can't afford them... don't have them.

--The amount collected from those making little would not amount to much anyway and might not be worth the expense of tracking them.

--Yes they do pay taxes... social security (if they are still working), sales tax, gasoline tax, and unfortunately tobacco and alcohol, maybe property tax which is even deductable (especially retired ones..my parents.. they paid a lot, houses and ranchland), and a lot other hidden ones... it is not quite as it seems.

A lot of seniors have CDs and do money market accounts since they can't afford stock market meltdowns as happened in 2008 ... with CD rates at about 1% (or less) .. a half million only earns $5000 ( or less)......since the 2008 meltdown...

..

Edited January 27, 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.

Is it so hard to understand that they are paying initial payroll taxes aon the money they earn in a paycheck, investing that money, and then paying 15% tax AGAIN for being smart with their money?

I know, "what about the little rich kid who has family money and he is just making more money on top of what he has been given by mommy and daddy!!!!!111!!1" Well, it doesn't matter. If he is smart with money that has already been taxed once, he shouldn't pay the same penalty as those with no money living paycheck to paycheck.

If you believe otherwise, you may not even realize it, but you are a class welfare warrior.

But, hey, let's not stop at capital gains. There are plenty of people who earn a living in this country, probably most making well over 100k a year, that pay ZERO taxes on a portion of their income. OH MY GOD. HOW CAN THAT BE!!!

It's because they invest in a 401 or 457k plan that defers all taxes on INTEREST INCOME EARNED until they retire and start drawing on that fund. THOSE WALL STREET BASTARDS!! How dare they not pay THEIR FAIR SHARE!!!

These have got to be abolished immediately!!!

Oh, and for those of you approaching retirement age, keep on sccreaming for that increase in capital gains taxes, cause your just volunteering to give the federal government more of your very own hard-earned 401k distribution.

Ya, that's right, capital gains tax increases affect Joe the policeman, buck the Fireman, Bob the utility worker, Gina the Ford plant worker, and Henry the auto mechanic far greater than the rich that many of you are so mad (or maybe Jealous??) of/at.

But never, ever let common sense stand in the way of ingrained political positions.

Edited January 27, 2012 by UNT90

Romney ahead in all 6 of the latest polls released in Florida. Newt's lost momentum, so we'll see if there's enough time between now and Tuesday to surge back.

Uh... OK? Within the margin of error is not a lead

Interesting thing is 4 of 5 Gingrich voters are solidly commmitted, while less than 2/3s of Romney supporters say the same thing. I think conservative U is set up to steal a few weak verbal commits to Rhino College.

This could turn real ugly for Romney, especially if Newt has another strong debate tonight.

Dude, at least post a source when you make claims. Not saying you don't have one, but it's only common courtesy to post it.

So you are saying a tax cut for big business is, in effect, a tax cut for the poor and middle class since it is ultimately passed on to the consumer, right?

See how that works? ;-)

Was merely a reiteration of an earlier assertion. Honestly, if I can charge $X with consideration for income tax embedded in the price, and people (those conglomerated invisible hands of the free market) are willing to bear that price, then if corporate income tax were to go away, I doubt I'd lower the sales price from $X to $X-t just because I can. In fact, it would be a corporate sin to do so since my mandate is to maximize profits for my shareholders.

That said, I'm not one to opine on tax policy. That ain't my job. My job is merely to figure out what is and is not in adherence to the tax code and what people actually pay.

I will say this. I've got a zero income tax liability for 2011, bona fide straight up legal and in 100% compliance with 2011 tax code. My first paycheck of 2012 had a total of nearly 40% withheld*. I suppose I should rant and rave about that. But I'll tell you. Even with that much taken out, it sure was nice to buy a box of mac and cheese with a brand name on it and not have to spread it out over three meals.

*No way that much stays withheld come April 15th, 2013.

Uh... OK? Within the margin of error is not a lead

Interesting thing is 4 of 5 Gingrich voters are solidly commmitted, while less than 2/3s of Romney supporters say the same thing. I think conservative U is set up to steal a few weak verbal commits to Rhino College.

This could turn real ugly for Romney, especially if Newt has another strong debate tonight.

Dude, at least post a source when you make claims. Not saying you don't have one, but it's only common courtesy to post it.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/florida

Newt had his chance to eat into Romney's lead tonight and he didn't have a very good debate. Florida will go for Romney and it's winner-take-all in the delegates there. Dunno if Gingrich will have the money to keep up much longer.

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

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

I thought of this post above when I recieved my latest issue of Imprimis from Hillsdale College.

Dr. Charles Murray: Do We Need the Department of Education?

http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2012&month=01

Supporters of Title I confidently expected to see progress, and so formal evaluation of Title I was built into the legislation from the beginning. Over the years, the evaluations became progressively more ambitious and more methodologically sophisticated. But while the evaluations have improved, the story they tell has not changed. Despite being conducted by people who wished the program well, no evaluation of Title I from the 1970s onward has found credible evidence of a significant positive impact on student achievement.

I have chosen to focus on K-12 because everyone agrees that K-12 education leaves much to be desired in this country and that it is reasonable to hold the government’s feet to the fire when there is no evidence that K-12 education has improved. When we turn to post-secondary education, there is much less agreement on first principles.

The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper—genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work? The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper. When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution, he likes to answer, “Oh, maybe six or seven.” The situation at his college is not unusual. The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking. It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A. It has been its enabler. The size of these programs is immense. In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion. It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars. Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college. The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs. Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that its policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges. But I view that as part of the Department of Education’s indictment, not its defense.

Rick

Edited January 27, 2012 by FirefightnRick

--Although I am in education... I am no big fan of the Federal Department of Education.... Leave most of that to states and local. having said that I am no fan of Gov. Perry in Texas just for that reasson... continues to cut funding and has no clue.

--Although I am in education... I am no big fan of the Federal Department of Education.... Leave most of that to states and local. having said that I am no fan of Gov. Perry in Texas just for that reasson... continues to cut funding and has no clue.

Newsflash. The State of Texas has a budget problem. Unfortunately, unlike the federal government, they can't just ignore it and go into debt. They have to balance the budget each year. Yep, education, along with MANY other state funded projects, is getting cut.

That's life.

I do share your disdain for Perry, but not on this issue.

Newsflash. The State of Texas has a budget problem. Unfortunately, unlike the federal government, they can't just ignore it and go into debt. They have to balance the budget each year. Yep, education, along with MANY other state funded projects, is getting cut.

That's life.

I do share your disdain for Perry, but not on this issue.

..

News flash II ... Perry constantly brags how good the Texas economy is ... ( 3.9% unemployment in Midland and pumping oil money into the treasury as well) All of West Texas is similiar. There are help wanted signs all over town.

Texas has one of the three best state economies and one of the three worse budget problems.... and that makes sense to you??

..

News flash II ... Perry constantly brags how good the Texas economy is ... ( 3.9% unemployment in Midland and pumping oil money into the treasury as well) All of West Texas is similiar. There are help wanted signs all over town.

Texas has one of the three best state economies and one of the three worse budget problems.... and that makes sense to you??

Uh... perhaps you didn't read the second part of my above post??

No fan of Slick Rick. And the taking bailout money from the Feds just to delay addressing the budget issue is one of the main reasons (on a side note, all those jobs saved temporarily by bailout money, only to be cut the next year when the money wasn't there anymore is Pres. Obama's definition of "job creation," just FYI).

This is what happens when you dress a democrat in republican clothing.

But, it doesn't mean that the budget problem can just be ignored. Jobs losses and pay cuts have to come to state workers. Education accounted for 23% of the state budget in 2012, the second largest catagorie (health care was number one at 32%). I know it personally affects you if education is cut, but there is no getting around that is what has to happen. It doesn't matter what got us here (a prolonged poor national economy under a president that considers handouts to states job creation is one of the major problems), the problem has to be fixed and the budget balanced. Of course, with no control of illegal immigrants, who continue to stream into Texas and get free health care and education, there are going to be huge strains on the 2 biggest budget items in this budget.

And don't even talk to me about Slick Rick being anti-illegal immigration, because he is that in words alone with no action. For those who don't think we need to crack down on illegal immigrants, walk into a county hospital emergency room any day of the week. You will see illigal immigrants waiting for what , in effect, are their doctors appointments that you pay for.

The funny thing is, SE, you are going to vote to re-elect a guy that is directly negatively affecting your value in the work force market place (yes, I am making that assumption based on your posts).

Crazy.

http://elections.nyt...imaries/florida

Newt had his chance to eat into Romney's lead tonight and he didn't have a very good debate. Florida will go for Romney and it's winner-take-all in the delegates there. Dunno if Gingrich will have the money to keep up much longer.

Mitt picked a good time to have a good debate performance. Newt was not good, and it could cost him Florida and a chance at the nomination.

I don't know if I'm happy or sad about this. It appears that the republicans will settle on another bland, Rhino candidate (McCain, anyone??) who will not stand a chance against Pres. Obama.

Is this really the best this country has to offer?

Mitt picked a good time to have a good debate performance. Newt was not good, and it could cost him Florida and a chance at the nomination.

I don't know if I'm happy or sad about this. It appears that the republicans will settle on another bland, Rhino candidate (McCain, anyone??) who will not stand a chance against Pres. Obama.

Is this really the best this country has to offer?

This is what is screwed up with our system. We are choosing our leader based on a debate performance and not their beliefs and proposed policies? Why don't we have swimsuit and talent competitions? I may be alone, but it drives me insane each morning after one of these debates when the talking heads proclaim the "winner" of the debate which is decided by who got applause or laughs. While I never watch them, I do believe they are a good idea, just not happy with the way that the win/loss is decided. Sorry to derail and inject my opinion here, but had to let it out. And this was not a shot at you 90, but at the system.

This is what is screwed up with our system. We are choosing our leader based on a debate performance and not their beliefs and proposed policies? Why don't we have swimsuit and talent competitions? I may be alone, but it drives me insane each morning after one of these debates when the talking heads proclaim the "winner" of the debate which is decided by who got applause or laughs. While I never watch them, I do believe they are a good idea, just not happy with the way that the win/loss is decided. Sorry to derail and inject my opinion here, but had to let it out. And this was not a shot at you 90, but at the system.

No offense taken, and I completely agree with you.

Unfortunately, with today's media, it's all about film footage and the best 15 second quip they can find, or usually generate from their questions.

Just look at the idiotic questions asked about Mitt's personal finances and Newts advisor role with Fannie Mae. Just looking for 15 seconds of gotcha fiootAge to put on the evening news.

Sometimes i think Randy, Paula, and Steven could do a better job at moderating.

Uh... perhaps you didn't read the second part of my above post??

No fan of Slick Rick. And the taking bailout money from the Feds just to delay addressing the budget issue is one of the main reasons (on a side note, all those jobs saved temporarily by bailout money, only to be cut the next year when the money wasn't there anymore is Pres. Obama's definition of "job creation," just FYI).

This is what happens when you dress a democrat in republican clothing.

But, it doesn't mean that the budget problem can just be ignored. Jobs losses and pay cuts have to come to state workers. Education accounted for 23% of the state budget in 2012, the second largest catagorie (health care was number one at 32%). I know it personally affects you if education is cut, but there is no getting around that is what has to happen. It doesn't matter what got us here (a prolonged poor national economy under a president that considers handouts to states job creation is one of the major problems), the problem has to be fixed and the budget balanced. Of course, with no control of illegal immigrants, who continue to stream into Texas and get free health care and education, there are going to be huge strains on the 2 biggest budget items in this budget.

And don't even talk to me about Slick Rick being anti-illegal immigration, because he is that in words alone with no action. For those who don't think we need to crack down on illegal immigrants, walk into a county hospital emergency room any day of the week. You will see illigal immigrants waiting for what , in effect, are their doctors appointments that you pay for.

The funny thing is, SE, you are going to vote to re-elect a guy that is directly negatively affecting your value in the work force market place (yes, I am making that assumption based on your posts).

Crazy.

---hmmmm re-elect... Sounds as if you think the GOP person will stand no chance. Actually I have voted for more GOP Presidential candidates than Demos. When the 90's hit and they started claiming to be more Christian... morally superior ... and not saying an bad about a fellow Republican even when they were awful... they got to the point they were way too partisan and never voting for anything the other party sponsored even if it was a good idea... So many now seem to be all about their party and not representing what is good for America (my opinion). I then leaned the other way.

The last administration claiming to be conservative then doubling the debt, screwing up the economy, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 was the final straw.

..

Edited January 28, 2012 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

---hmmmm re-elect... Sounds as if you think the GOP person will stand no chance. Actually I have voted for more GOP Presidential candidates than Demos. When the 90's hit and they started claiming to be more Christian... morally superior ... and not saying an bad about a fellow Republican even when they were awful... they got to the point they were way too partisan and never voting for anything the other party sponsored even if it was a good idea... So many now seem to be all about their party and not representing what is good for America (my opinion). I then leaned the other way.

The last administration claiming to be conservative then doubling the debt, screwing up the economy, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 was the final straw.

..

My thoughts exactly

---hmmmm re-elect... Sounds as if you think the GOP person will stand no chance. Actually I have voted for more GOP Presidential candidates than Demos. When the 90's hit and they started claiming to be more Christian... morally superior ... and not saying an bad about a fellow Republican even when they were awful... they got to the point they were way too partisan and never voting for anything the other party sponsored even if it was a good idea... So many now seem to be all about their party and not representing what is good for America (my opinion). I then leaned the other way.

The last administration claiming to be conservative then doubling the debt, screwing up the economy, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 was the final straw.

..

I'm sorry dude, I've never voted Republican. I'm still pure.

---hmmmm re-elect... Sounds as if you think the GOP person will stand no chance. Actually I have voted for more GOP Presidential candidates than Demos. When the 90's hit and they started claiming to be more Christian... morally superior ... and not saying an bad about a fellow Republican even when they were awful... they got to the point they were way too partisan and never voting for anything the other party sponsored even if it was a good idea... So many now seem to be all about their party and not representing what is good for America (my opinion). I then leaned the other way.

The last administration claiming to be conservative then doubling the debt, screwing up the economy, and invading a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 was the final straw.

..

Wow. I guess you forgot about the bitter, bitter, bitter opposition Reagan got from the Dem controlled congress, to the point of Reagan being forced to take budgets he didn't want. I also guess you forgot about the Republican congress working with President Clinton to reduce spending (the last time spending was even close to under control). I guess you also forgot the Democrat Congress and Pres. Obama forcing their socialist health care plan down the throat of Americans that, by a wide margin, didn't want that plan (which will inevitably increase the cost of health care for the average American).

I really don't believe you were ever a conservative, and dount that you have ever voted for a republican. You pretty much spout the typical democrat party line. You want to blame Pres. Bush for "screwing up the economy", but don't hold Pres. Obama accountable for further screwing the economy up (It's been 4 years, and things are as bad or worse than when Pres. Obama took office).

As far as claiming to be more christian, I guess you forget how much flack Reagan took for his deep religious convictions. If anything, both parties have distanced themselves from Christian values. I consider that a very bad thing. I guess you don't?