13.9% and 15% more recently 19% versus 1/10 of one percent

[musclehead]

I'm so glad Romney released his taxes it illustrates a broad schism between the ideologies.

the left, libs, progressives believe charity should come from government, I and other conservatives believe charity should come from my wallet and my heart. (perhaps organizations to like those evil corporations) in 2010 the Romney's contributed 15% of his income to charity, the CPA's haven't knocked out the final numbers for 2011 but it looks like they contributed 19%.

now here is where it gets embarrassing, our VEEP the V.P. foot-in-mouth Gaffmaster Biden (he's so full of them he should be related to GW Bush) contributed a whopping 36,900 pennies  in I believe 2010. yep 369$. now biden didn't make nearly as much as Romney, but still he's very near to the top 1% of wage earners.  I contributed more then he did, now that's sad


there was a study done by a Syracuse professor trying to determine who gives more to charity libs or cons. to his surprise he found out that conservatives give more and more often. the professor is Aurthur C. Brooks and he wrote a book about it "who really cares; the surprising truth about compassionate conservatism who gives who doesn't and why it matters"
the real rub in the book is people of faith are the most giving of all of us.

[Bob E.]

You apparently have no idea what the left, libs, progressives believe. I can respect the fact that you have a conservative point of view.  And I will respect your opinion when you try and illustrate why you think I'm wrong, but you shouldn't try and tell me what I believe.  

Here is what I believe...I believe that someone who is fortunate enough to make the kind of money that Romney does and pays a lower tax rate than most people who actually work for a living to support the country that provided the opportunity for such fortune...that person is the charity case.  And keep in mind, this isn't an attack on Romney.  He just illustrates what is wrong with our tax code and why it needs changed.

Furthermore, did it ever strike you that perhaps Biden just doesn't claim all of his charitable contributions?  I can't say it is true but it is certainly possible.  I have made tons of donations to charity...direct cash to the United Way, bags and bags of kids clothes to Goodwill as my kids grow out of them, etc.  But you wouldn't know any of it by looking at my tax returns.

[Jabba]

Generally... Liberals are one of three types...

Guilty rich.  They didn't earn it, so they don't believe anyone else could have.  This includes old money, entertainers etc.

Union guys who need the Democrats so they can manipulate them into keeping unions strong and with influence.

Poor who receive the redistributed wealth, in exchange for their votes.

Conservatives are the people who earned their wealth or plan to.  And don't resent the guy that BUILT the company that pays for their existence and their families welfare.  Of course my boss makes 2x what I make.  Of course he works less and takes a lot of vacations.  Of course I work harder than he does.  I still LOVE him.  He built a company and gave me the opportunity to be successful.  He took the risks of his own $$ and built a company that provides for me and my family.  When I make him money, he keeps me around.  That's HOW it works.

Now... the boards of directors of huge corporations getting together and making each other CEO's of the companies with $100's of millions in salary and bonuses I deplore... but that's not the topic here.  I don't think it should be regulated by LAW how much someone can earn.  Instead... we should pull our dollars from companies that do that. 

Jabba

[Bob E.]

Well, Jabba...you are just as wrong as musclehead on this one.  I don't fit into any one of the three categories you listed.  I just love (hate) how pretty much the only way conservatives defend their point of view is by defining liberals with some crazy view of what they think liberals believe.

Nobody is talking about controlling how much someone should be allowed to make.  Well, it sounds like you might be there with your last paragraph.  I don't care that Romney makes over $20M a year or that he is worth $250M. Good for him.  I just think his income should be taxed at a rate that is fair when considering his rate versus what many other less fortunate people are paying.

[Jabba]

Note I said GENERALLY.  That means JUST that.  The majority.  I hear Liberals ALL the time want to limit how much money a CEO can earn... say 7X the lowest paid employee... I have heard that before.  I am not a fan of that.  I wasn't directing that at YOU.

I also find it strange that most Liberals unwilling to own the label.  Liberal.  They try to say moderate, or progressive.  Bull.  I am a fiscal conservative.   I own it.  the republicans let me down.  They are no longer conservative.  You'll know, if you know me at all that I am also very socially liberal.  I don't want a theocrat in office.  Not really.  But if I have to accept that to get someone fiscally conservative... I'll make exceptions.

My choices in the Reps now are disgusting to me.  But I'd still take Romney over Obama.  I liked Herman Cain.  I'd vote for Condi Rice in a heartbeat.  I am disappointed Mitch Daniels didn't run.

Jabba

[98valk]

Well, Jabba...you are just as wrong as musclehead on this one.  I don't fit into any one of the three categories you listed.  I just love (hate) how pretty much the only way conservatives defend their point of view is by defining liberals with some crazy view of what they think liberals believe.

Nobody is talking about controlling how much someone should be allowed to make.  Well, it sounds like you might be there with your last paragraph.  I don't care that Romney makes over $20M a year or that he is worth $250M. Good for him.  I just think his income should be taxed at a rate that is fair when considering his rate versus what many other less fortunate people are paying.

http://www.wnd.com/2008/11/56494/

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, “The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness.” “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

[Jess from VA]

VEEP the V.P. foot-in-mouth Gaffmaster Biden (he's so full of them he should be related to GW Bush) contributed a whopping 36,900 pennies in I believe 2010

You know why ($369)?    Because once you declare $400 or over, you have to actually name the Charity... and that could be checked.

[..]

From Bob E.

make the kind of money that Romney does and pays a lower tax rate than most people who actually work for a living

If Romney DOESN'T have to work where the heck does the $$$$ come from.

A money tree???

Did you know one can earn money by using a brain rather than by physical effort?

[G-Man]

This, Romney, or the 1% paying less than their secretaries is the biggest load of horseshit going right now, and the Libs/Dems continue to spew out this utter garbage.  And the ones repeating this garbage are demonstrating their ignorance, YES I SAID IT, IGNORANCE.

The top 1%, when they sit down to have their taxes done, start out at 38%  of Federal taxes on their income (not what's already in their bank account).  Then, they are entitled to the same deductions that you and I are allowed.....mortgage interest (the rich have much more expensive houses), childcare, etc.  Should there be different rules and deductions based on how much one earns?

Now, the 15% tax rate that the libs are crying about is on returns on investments.  Investments made by using ALREADY taxed money.  Any profits on investments are taxed at the 15% rate.  And it's NOT ONLY the rich who pay 15% on investment returns.  Retirees who are now in their spending phase of life are paying 15% on their investment returns and not at the income taxe rate at which they fall under, which is hogher than 15%.  If Romney is taxed higher on his investments, we'll have to tax grandma and grandpa higher as well. 

[Bob E.]

Note I said GENERALLY.  That means JUST that.  The majority.  I hear Liberals ALL the time want to limit how much money a CEO can earn... say 7X the lowest paid employee... I have heard that before.  I am not a fan of that.  I wasn't directing that at YOU.

I also find it strange that most Liberals unwilling to own the label.  Liberal.  They try to say moderate, or progressive.  Bull.  I am a fiscal conservative.   I own it.  the republicans let me down.  They are no longer conservative.  You'll know, if you know me at all that I am also very socially liberal.  I don't want a theocrat in office.  Not really.  But if I have to accept that to get someone fiscally conservative... I'll make exceptions.

My choices in the Reps now are disgusting to me.  But I'd still take Romney over Obama.  I liked Herman Cain.  I'd vote for Condi Rice in a heartbeat.  I am disappointed Mitch Daniels didn't run.

Jabba

The reason people don't like the term liberal any more is because conservatives have redefined what it means to be a liberal, then they demonize it.  Based on what you and musclehead said liberals believe just in this thread, I wouldn't consider myself a liberal...in the way you define it.  But you would probably call me a liberal, then demonize me for believing these things you think a liberal believes.

[Bob E.]

From Bob E.

make the kind of money that Romney does and pays a lower tax rate than most people who actually work for a living

If Romney DOESN'T have to work where the heck does the $$$$ come from.

A money tree???

Did you know one can earn money by using a brain rather than by physical effort?

He doesn't have a job.  He admitted he hasn't had a job in close to 10 years.  And I really don't care about that.  Good for him.  But he still derives income and that income should be taxed as income.  If he stopped gaining income and just lived on the $250M that he already has, I'd be fine if he didn't pay any taxes.

[Bob E.]

Now, the 15% tax rate that the libs are crying about is on returns on investments.  Investments made by using ALREADY taxed money.  Any profits on investments are taxed at the 15% rate.  And it's NOT ONLY the rich who pay 15% on investment returns.  Retirees who are now in their spending phase of life are paying 15% on their investment returns and not at the income taxe rate at which they fall under, which is hogher than 15%.  If Romney is taxed higher on his investments, we'll have to tax grandma and grandpa higher as well. 

For my job, I am using a calculator that I bought with already taxed money.  That money I've invested in my calculator now provides a return on my investment by way of my salary.  By your arguement, I should only have to pay 15% taxes on any money I earn using my calculator.  Pretty weak arguement, G-man.  Income is income whether it is from wages or investments and should be taxed equally...even for grandma and grandpa.

By the way, it isn't just "libs" who think this is unfair, but according to a poll I saw yesterday, about 70-75% of all Americans including a majority (around 58% if I remember correctly) of republicans.

[G-Man]

For my job, I am using a calculator that I bought with already taxed money.  That money I've invested in my calculator now provides a return on my investment by way of my salary.  By your arguement, I should only have to pay 15% taxes on any money I earn using my calculator.  Pretty weak arguement, G-man.  Income is income whether it is from wages or investments and should be taxed equally...even for grandma and grandpa.

You are mixing apples and oranges.  The calculator, that helps you earn your income.....is tax deductable!  My wife is a nurse and can write off a watch because she uses it to take a patient's pulse, which helps her earn her income.  Investments in the ability to earn income are tax deductable.  Childcare allows my family to earn income (a huge return), therefore it is tax deductible.

Income is NOT income.  Not according to our tax laws.  Income and capitol gains are two different things.  I know you would like them to be the same, but that just not how things work.  If you're not happy with the definitions within the laws, you have the right to do everything in your power to change them.  But until the laws are changed, they have to be applied equally.

[Sergeant D]

IMHO the problem is with deductions, not what is income or capital gains.  The government should stop trying to influence our buying decisions (green energy, cash for clunkers, home mortgage interest, ect).  with tax deductions.   The list seems to be endless.   Just tax earned wages, at a flat rate.  Tax capital gains at the same rate.  In the end, I firmly believe our decifit problem would quickly go away.  No more write offs, no more incentives, hence, no more lobbying Congress for pet programs.  Talk about streamlining the government.  Why should a business owner get to write things off as the cost of doing business?  In the end, you either made money, get to stay in business to make more, and pay more taxes, or go out of business and still paid some tax along the way down.

[Bob E.]

Income is NOT income.  Not according to our tax laws.  Income and capitol gains are two different things.  I know you would like them to be the same, but that just not how things work.  If you're not happy with the definitions within the laws, you have the right to do everything in your power to change them.  But until the laws are changed, they have to be applied equally.

Exactly...I thought that was the point of the debate??  Whether or not capital gains should be taxed the same as income  and whether the laws should be changed??  Like I said earlier, I agree with Reagan who believed they should be treated the same.

[G-Man]

IMHO the problem is with deductions, not what is income or capital gains.  The government should stop trying to influence our buying decisions (green energy, cash for clunkers, home mortgage interest, ect).  with tax deductions.   The list seems to be endless.   Just tax earned wages, at a flat rate.  Tax capital gains at the same rate.  In the end, I firmly believe our decifit problem would quickly go away.  No more write offs, no more incentives, hence, no more lobbying Congress for pet programs.  Talk about streamlining the government.  Why should a business owner get to write things off as the cost of doing business?  In the end, you either made money, get to stay in business to make more, and pay more taxes, or go out of business and still paid some tax along the way down.

The cost of doing business is crucial to many businesses, especially small businesses.  For example, I own a small rental property.  Yes, I get rent that covers the mortgage and expenses, but what happens when the boiler goes or the tenant stops paying rent I have to take on legal fees now to get paid.  I should just have to pay for that out of my pocket have no cost of busness writeoffs, can't pay the mortgage due to the $5,000 unforeseen cost, and lose my propert and investment?  Really?  How many businesses could manage to stay alfoat in our wonderful system of red tape, fees, and restrictions?  And heaven forbid the business gets sued.

[Sergeant D]

IMHO the problem is with deductions, not what is income or capital gains.  The government should stop trying to influence our buying decisions (green energy, cash for clunkers, home mortgage interest, ect).  with tax deductions.   The list seems to be endless.   Just tax earned wages, at a flat rate.  Tax capital gains at the same rate.  In the end, I firmly believe our decifit problem would quickly go away.  No more write offs, no more incentives, hence, no more lobbying Congress for pet programs.  Talk about streamlining the government.  Why should a business owner get to write things off as the cost of doing business?  In the end, you either made money, get to stay in business to make more, and pay more taxes, or go out of business and still paid some tax along the way down.

The cost of doing business is crucial to many businesses, especially small businesses.  For example, I own a small rental property.  Yes, I get rent that covers the mortgage and expenses, but what happens when the boiler goes or the tenant stops paying rent I have to take on legal fees now to get paid.  I should just have to pay for that out of my pocket have no cost of busness writeoffs, can't pay the mortgage due to the $5,000 unforeseen cost, and lose my propert and investment?  Really?  How many businesses could manage to stay alfoat in our wonderful system of red tape, fees, and restrictions?  And heaven forbid the business gets sued.

I can fully appreciate the fact that being a small business owner, or even a large one has very special challenges, but doesn't the business just pass that cost on to rthe consumer....honestly.  I am a landlord myself, and if taxes go up, or the house needs a new roof, I pass the cost on to the next renter to recoupe my expenditures. over time.  Why is gas still over $3 a gallon, it isn't costing them more money to get it out of the ground, they are stocking up cash to build new pipelines, refineries, ect.  Why should amarried couples pay less taxes than two single people?  Last time I checked, I spent more money on rent, food, ect, than safter I was married.  I'm gonna try to get an amendment to the constitution by using 3/4th of the states vs going thru congress.  It hasn't been done yet, but is allowed by our constitution.

[musclehead]

You apparently have no idea what the left, libs, progressives believe. I can respect the fact that you have a conservative point of view.  And I will respect your opinion when you try and illustrate why you think I'm wrong, but you shouldn't try and tell me what I believe.  

Here is what I believe...I believe that someone who is fortunate enough to make the kind of money that Romney does and pays a lower tax rate than most people who actually work for a living to support the country that provided the opportunity for such fortune...that person is the charity case.  And keep in mind, this isn't an attack on Romney.  He just illustrates what is wrong with our tax code and why it needs changed.

Furthermore, did it ever strike you that perhaps Biden just doesn't claim all of his charitable contributions?  I can't say it is true but it is certainly possible.  I have made tons of donations to charity...direct cash to the United Way, bags and bags of kids clothes to Goodwill as my kids grow out of them, etc.  But you wouldn't know any of it by looking at my tax returns.

he does pay a lower tax rate, on his capital gains. what does he pay on the intial income? top corporate rate 35% + 15% =50 %. your right half isn't enough by far! he should just give it all up and run the government for 7 minutes 
just going by the numbers, thats all thats been provided.

I made quite a few donations to folks in truck stops that were obviously hurting, broke down, or out of gas. that's not on my tax forms either.

[musclehead]

VEEP the V.P. foot-in-mouth Gaffmaster Biden (he's so full of them he should be related to GW Bush) contributed a whopping 36,900 pennies in I believe 2010

You know why ($369)?    Because once you declare $400 or over, you have to actually name the Charity... and that could be checked.

why no I did not know that. thanks!

[musclehead]

Now, the 15% tax rate that the libs are crying about is on returns on investments.  Investments made by using ALREADY taxed money.  Any profits on investments are taxed at the 15% rate.  And it's NOT ONLY the rich who pay 15% on investment returns.  Retirees who are now in their spending phase of life are paying 15% on their investment returns and not at the income taxe rate at which they fall under, which is hogher than 15%.  If Romney is taxed higher on his investments, we'll have to tax grandma and grandpa higher as well. 

For my job, I am using a calculator that I bought with already taxed money.  That money I've invested in my calculator now provides a return on my investment by way of my salary.  By your arguement, I should only have to pay 15% taxes on any money I earn using my calculator.  Pretty weak arguement, G-man.  Income is income whether it is from wages or investments and should be taxed equally...even for grandma and grandpa.

By the way, it isn't just "libs" who think this is unfair, but according to a poll I saw yesterday, about 70-75% of all Americans including a majority (around 58% if I remember correctly) of republicans.

talk about a weak argument, whew! your poor calculator is being deprived of the fruits of it's labor.
you sir are making a mint on the back of your calculator!

polls are used to form public opinion not reflect it. depending on WHO you ask the question and HOW you ask the question you can get ANY result you want.
now if you show me 6 or 7 polls that reflect nearly the same percentage results, you got something there.

[Bob E.]

he does pay a lower tax rate, on his capital gains. what does he pay on the intial income? top corporate rate 35% + 15% =50 %. your right half isn't enough by far! he should just give it all up and run the government for 7 minutes 
just going by the numbers, thats all thats been provided.

I made quite a few donations to folks in truck stops that were obviously hurting, broke down, or out of gas. that's not on my tax forms either.

That math just don't add up.  He may have paid 35% on the original income...although depending on how he earned that money, that's probably debatable as well. But for the sake of arugement, lets assume he did.  Using easy numbers, lets assume that original income is $1M  Now, he takes the after-tax amount of $650,000 and re-invests all of it and doubles it.  Now he has $1.3M.  He pays the 15% only on the gains...not on the original investment.  So 15% of $650,000 is about $97,000.  So now his total pre-tax income was $1M + $650K = $1.65M.  He has paid a total of $350K + $97K = $447,000...or about 27%.  That's a far cry from 50%.  And as long as he keeps investing the money and earning gains, his effective tax rate goes down...not up.  Don't buy the spin.

[Bob E.]

Now, the 15% tax rate that the libs are crying about is on returns on investments.  Investments made by using ALREADY taxed money.  Any profits on investments are taxed at the 15% rate.  And it's NOT ONLY the rich who pay 15% on investment returns.  Retirees who are now in their spending phase of life are paying 15% on their investment returns and not at the income taxe rate at which they fall under, which is hogher than 15%.  If Romney is taxed higher on his investments, we'll have to tax grandma and grandpa higher as well. 

For my job, I am using a calculator that I bought with already taxed money.  That money I've invested in my calculator now provides a return on my investment by way of my salary.  By your arguement, I should only have to pay 15% taxes on any money I earn using my calculator.  Pretty weak arguement, G-man.  Income is income whether it is from wages or investments and should be taxed equally...even for grandma and grandpa.

By the way, it isn't just "libs" who think this is unfair, but according to a poll I saw yesterday, about 70-75% of all Americans including a majority (around 58% if I remember correctly) of republicans.

talk about a weak argument, whew! your poor calculator is being deprived of the fruits of it's labor.
you sir are making a mint on the back of your calculator!

polls are used to form public opinion not reflect it. depending on WHO you ask the question and HOW you ask the question you can get ANY result you want.
now if you show me 6 or 7 polls that reflect nearly the same percentage results, you got something there.

Hey...it is a nice calculator...and no need to be so condescending.

[Jabba]

I am socially LIBERAL.  that didn't hurt. 

I am (intellectually) in favor of:

ending the war on drugs
allowing gay marriage
allowing early term abortions

I don't like abortion, and don't really think it's the right option, but there are exceptions... and I figure God will sort it out. (I am also pretty agnostic, and simply don't know what I believe in this realm).

I have NEVER smoked, but abhor smoking bans. 

I am fiscally VERY conservative, and believe that capitalism, unhindered will make America prosperous.  Will there be poor people?  Yes.  Will there be uber rich people?  Yes.  Will some people get taken advantage of in the process?  Yes.  Will the vast majority of us be better off?  You bet.

It's OK to be Liberal.  I won't demonize you for it.  I'll disagree.  I'll wonder how two people looking at the same situation can see something so differently.  But I won't demonize you.  Hell, I'll ride with you and break break, and have a beer. (If I drank beer)

This is just mid-winter BS internet entertainment to me.   

Jabba

 

[Bob E.]

It's OK to be Liberal.  I won't demonize you for it.  I'll disagree.  I'll wonder how two people looking at the same situation can see something so differently.  But I won't demonize you.  Hell, I'll ride with you and break break, and have a beer. (If I drank beer)

This is just mid-winter BS internet entertainment to me.   

Jabba

Same here, buddy.  We're all friends here...more or less. 

[LandElephant]

Although some valid points being made on both sides, because of all the spin.  Before you become critical of the rich and what they pay in taxes and that the rates should go up, keep in mind that if the rates change for them they will change for you also.

Maybe you should put pencil to paper and look at your investiments and retirement.  If cap gains goes up for the rich, the fat hogs in Washington will modify the cap gain rate for you.  They've already done that in there so call tax cut and extension.

Close loopholes.  Again be careful what you ask for also.  In the Boles -Simpson report one of the loopholes for reducing the deficit is the elimination of home interest.

Do you own a home? Do you take that credit to reduce your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).  Is that hurting the millionaire and billionaires?

I'll give you a personal example:  I sold my home in 2009 for $345K.  Without the the loophole for me (middle class) of over 55 and $650K one time exemption to cap gains I would have paid at say the rate 15%,  I would have paided $41,550 in cap gains.  Can your retirement handle losing that kind of money if your home is one of your major investments. Am I one of those evil investors?  I have re-invested the money and will pay cap gains on it when I use it for my retirement.

We might all begrudge that the rich are getting some kind of advantage, but the hogs in Washington are going after everyones money.

Your head is in the sand if you think that by demonizing the rich that you aren't already getting screwed by the federal government.

 And before anyone accusses me of being a Republician or an evil conservative, I am a register democrat but I am also an angry American citizen.

If you don't think you not already paying more taxes, try analyizing the so called "tax cut" that we received in 2010 and the first 2 months of this year.  If you are honest and stay away from the political brown smelly stuff, you will find that you are being taxes on more income and placing a huge deficeit load on social security and medicare.  Congress will do the same with cap gains.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[Bob E.]

Although some valid points being made on both sides, because of all the spin.  Before you become critical of the rich and what they pay in taxes and that the rates should go up, keep in mind that if the rates change for them they will change for you also.

Maybe you should put pencil to paper and look at your investiments and retirement.  If cap gains goes up for the rich, the fat hogs in Washington will modify the cap gain rate for you.  They've already done that in there so call tax cut and extension.

Close loopholes.  Again be careful what you ask for also.  In the Boles -Simpson report one of the loopholes for reducing the deficit is the elimination of home interest.

Do you own a home? Do you take that credit to reduce your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).  Is that hurting the millionaire and billionaires?

I'll give you a personal example:  I sold my home in 2009 for $345K.  Without the the loophole for me (middle class) of over 55 and $650K one time exemption to cap gains I would have paid at say the rate 15%,  I would have paided $41,550 in cap gains.  Can your retirement handle losing that kind of money if your home is one of your major investments. Am I one of those evil investors?  I have re-invested the money and will pay cap gains on it when I use it for my retirement.

We might all begrudge that the rich are getting some kind of advantage, but the hogs in Washington are going after everyones money.

Your head is in the sand if you think that by demonizing the rich that you aren't already getting screwed by the federal government.

 And before anyone accusses me of being a Republician or an evil conservative, I am a register democrat but I am also an angry American citizen.

If you don't think you not already paying more taxes, try analyizing the so called "tax cut" that we received in 2010 and the first 2 months of this year.  If you are honest and stay away from the political brown smelly stuff, you will find that you are being taxes on more income and placing a huge deficeit load on social security and medicare.  Congress will do the same with cap gains.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

You are exactly right...no doubt.  We have a pretty major debt/deficit problem in this country.  If we are serious when we say we want to start to take care of it, then we will all have to pay more...perhaps alot more.  There is a healthy debate going on across the country about the size and roll of government that we as a citizenry expect.  In order to even think about the debt, we need to address the deficit first.  Currently we borrow close to 40 cents of every dollar spent.  So, we either need to cut 40% of our government (which I have argued is pretty unrealistic), increase taxes/revenue by 40% (which I also recognize is probably unrealistic), or some combination of both.  And think about it...that just gets us to "even".  We haven't even touched the existing debt yet.  So it is either that, or we admit to ourselves that we really aren't that serious about the debt problem after all.

[G-Man]

Now, he takes the after-tax amount of $650,000 and re-invests all of it and doubles it.  Now he has $1.3M.  He pays the 15% only on the gains...not on the original investment.  So 15% of $650,000 is about $97,000.  So now his total pre-tax income was $1M + $650K = $1.65M.  He has paid a total of $350K + $97K = $447,000...or about 27%.  That's a far cry from 50%.  And as long as he keeps investing the money and earning gains, his effective tax rate goes down...not up.  Don't buy the spin.

How about this for spin......what if he invested all of the $650,000 and lost it?  Would the gov't be a partner in his losses???  NOPE!  So why should they be a partner in his gains???  (actually, they are, a 15% partner for doing nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

I just don't get it!  What happens to someone in there life to make them think that the government should be a partner in peoples success?  And what makes them think that 35% of someone's income, plus local taxes, plus property taxes, plus sales tax on everything they buy, plus school taxes, "sin" taxes, gas tax, etc. just isn't enough to take from those who earn?

The top 1% pay 40% of all the federal income tax and the top 10% account for 60%.  Why is this not enough?  Because they still have money left over??? 

I truly believe that those who think this way are convinced that they will never attain wealth, so it has to be taken from those who do because it's just not fair!   

[LandElephant]

I think the point thatmany of us are making is stop the political theater and start establishing the framework to fix the problem.  Fairtax, taxing the rich, more government is not going to fix the problem.

This administration and the next to develop an atmosphere of econimical growth as well as get control of the bloated spending by the hogs in Washington.  The problem there is that the ones who put this country on the path to economical destruction are now the ones we as citizens are asking to fix the problem.

There is an old definition of a politician.  A politician is one who makes a law that causes a problem.  Then complains about the it's results.  Then they make another law to fix that problem and take credit for the fix while creating another problem.

I don't know the fixes.  But, if the politicians think that I'm stupid and can't understand the smoke and mirrors, then they are mistaken.

Charlie Morse
Land Elephant

[G-Man]

then we will all have to pay more...perhaps alot more. 

Oh, we will.  Obamacare added 16,000 additional IRS agents.  Audits are now like cancer....if you live long enough, you'll get one!

[texaninsouthfl]

I am socially LIBERAL.  that didn't hurt. 

I am (intellectually) in favor of:

ending the war on drugs
allowing gay marriage
allowing early term abortions

I don't like abortion, and don't really think it's the right option, but there are exceptions... and I figure God will sort it out. (I am also pretty agnostic, and simply don't know what I believe in this realm).

I have NEVER smoked, but abhor smoking bans. 

I am fiscally VERY conservative, and believe that capitalism, unhindered will make America prosperous.  Will there be poor people?  Yes.  Will there be uber rich people?  Yes.  Will some people get taken advantage of in the process?  Yes.  Will the vast majority of us be better off?  You bet.

It's OK to be Liberal.  I won't demonize you for it.  I'll disagree.  I'll wonder how two people looking at the same situation can see something so differently.  But I won't demonize you.  Hell, I'll ride with you and break break, and have a beer. (If I drank beer)

This is just mid-winter BS internet entertainment to me.   

Jabba

 

Jabba, we be singin' out of the the same book. +100

[musclehead]

Now, the 15% tax rate that the libs are crying about is on returns on investments.  Investments made by using ALREADY taxed money.  Any profits on investments are taxed at the 15% rate.  And it's NOT ONLY the rich who pay 15% on investment returns.  Retirees who are now in their spending phase of life are paying 15% on their investment returns and not at the income taxe rate at which they fall under, which is hogher than 15%.  If Romney is taxed higher on his investments, we'll have to tax grandma and grandpa higher as well. 

For my job, I am using a calculator that I bought with already taxed money.  That money I've invested in my calculator now provides a return on my investment by way of my salary.  By your arguement, I should only have to pay 15% taxes on any money I earn using my calculator.  Pretty weak arguement, G-man.  Income is income whether it is from wages or investments and should be taxed equally...even for grandma and grandpa.

By the way, it isn't just "libs" who think this is unfair, but according to a poll I saw yesterday, about 70-75% of all Americans including a majority (around 58% if I remember correctly) of republicans.

talk about a weak argument, whew! your poor calculator is being deprived of the fruits of it's labor.
you sir are making a mint on the back of your calculator!

polls are used to form public opinion not reflect it. depending on WHO you ask the question and HOW you ask the question you can get ANY result you want.
now if you show me 6 or 7 polls that reflect nearly the same percentage results, you got something there.

Hey...it is a nice calculator...and no need to be so condescending.

 

[Bob E.]

How about this for spin......what if he invested all of the $650,000 and lost it?  Would the gov't be a partner in his losses??? 

Well, then he's a dumbass and probably shouldn't be trusted with that kinda cash...LOL!  Just kidding...kidding!

Actually...assuming he had other income or investments that earned gains, wouldn't he get to subtract the losses from his other income/gains thereby reducing his tax burden?  And if he didn't have other income, then Jabba might suggest that he should have made better choices.  

Look, I get your point.  But if we continue to view taxes or tax "fairness" (which I concede, "fair" is clearly a subjective threshold) as punishing the rich or punishing success, we cannot move forward with solving the debt/deficit problem.  Because if we can't "punish the rich", then we must get more from the poor/middle either by way of increased taxes or reduced services.  Why can't taxes be viewed as paying back into the system that enabled them to become rich in the first place?  Pay it forward so to speak.  Nobody got rich entirely on their own.  Why are those that are most vocal about how much they love this great country the ones who are the least likely to want to support it?

[Jabba]

I think we need to decide how much is reasonable?  Personally, I like the idea of th FairTax.  Flat is OK too.  I'd like to do away with all the Layers and layers  and layers of taxation.  Put it ALL in one pile.  28%, 30% whatever.  But not a little here... a little there... hide some more here... a user fee there.  Increased licensing fees for this and that ALL designed so we can't keep track of it. 

That's WHY and that pisses me off WAY more than the actual HOW much.  ANd the people that FALL for it too.

50% is too much.

take 30% and do it in ONE place.  Then eliminate all the other insipid taxes.

That's what I want.

Jabba

[G-Man]

I think we need to decide how much is reasonable?  Personally, I like the idea of th FairTax.  Flat is OK too.  I'd like to do away with all the Layers and layers  and layers of taxation.  Put it ALL in one pile.  28%, 30% whatever.  But not a little here... a little there... hide some more here... a user fee there.  Increased licensing fees for this and that ALL designed so we can't keep track of it. 

That's WHY and that pisses me off WAY more than the actual HOW much.  ANd the people that FALL for it too.

50% is too much.

take 30% and do it in ONE place.  Then eliminate all the other insipid taxes.

That's what I want.

Jabba

Exactly,....how much is fair to take from someone, to give to a system overspends, wastes, an that rewards those who don't contribute. 

Bob is right, everybody doesn't make it on their own,.....but we give EVERYONE the same opportunities to start with.  We provide the poorest of the our poor with housing, food, and education.  Using these tools, if you are not able to, or refuse to, acquire the means to live, then why is it other's responsibility to carry you?  There is aid, every step of the way, for a poor person to get all the way through a graduate degree, yet how many take advantage of this?  Instead they choose to leave highschool to take care of babies they had while on public assistance (Maury Povich is able to run his show twice a day, everyday, for 15 years telling people that the dude is NOT the father), and the like.  Yes, I know there are people who really need help, and that's fine, but we created an entire system of providing, rather than earning.  And the left wants those who have earned to pay more and more to perpetuate this system...  Well, now we're hearing, loud and clear, that Peter has had enough.  My school taxes have reached $6,000.  They have doubles in the last 10 years.  We are now feeding the kids two meals a day for free and there is discussion about including Saturday and Sunday as well, and even a dinner service!  People have kids they can't even feed and it's now everyone else's responsibility.  Sorry, not everyone's, just the tax payers responsibility.  When does it end?  I was discussing this with a neighbor and we guessed that in our neighborhood, maybe there is a school age kid in 1 of every 6 houses (and we were being very conservative)..At $6,000 per houshold, that's $36,000 per kid, per year, for public school.  The top Private School in our area get2 $32,000 per year and they have a 100% graduation rate with with over 95% going on to college.  My school system graduates a little more than half with less going on to college.  Something is very wrong and this is just one example of gov't miss-spending, overpaying, bloating, and bullshit.  How about a governmental agency to regulate the hiring practices on wallstreet (as part of wall street reform) to make sure that wall street is an equal opportunity employer.  A whole beurocracy that has to be staffed, officed, computerized, telephoned, electrified, stocked with office supplies, airconditioned, ...and since it's a gov't agency, pensions, healthcare, etc, etc.  Let's start eliminating that crap before we TAX SOME MORE.

[valkmc]

Wow, spin like that about education is crazy, here are numbers more like it. In our school district they spend less than 6,000 per year per kid. Less than they did 5 years ago in actual dollors not even considering inflation. We graduate over 85% at my school and no staff member has received a raise in 3 years. The private school in our area has close to a 100% graduation rate however they do not take poor kids or troubled kids. They take the cream of the crop and that is all.

Financial aid for college degrees is virtually non exsistent to middle class students. I know I have two in college and am I school teacher and neither gets financial aid. They both have some private scholarships they earned and I paid for each to get a 2 year degree so they did not have to borrow money. My older son is finishing a engineering degree and is now taking loans. Public education is a mess in some places but is not about the $, it is about societies rules and what people do with their kids.

As far as everyone getting the same opportunity in this country I say that sounds like a politician talking. I think it is more realistic to say who cares what start people get, what matters is my opportunity and what I can get.......

[Bob E.]

Bob is right, everybody doesn't make it on their own,.....but we give EVERYONE the same opportunities to start with. 

Statements like this might make us feel good as Americans.  But the problem with this statement is that it either isn't entirely true, or that the opportunities that we as a country are providing are not as equal as we'd like to think.  A recent study came out that shows that the US ranks quite low in terms of socio-economic mobility when compared to other nations.  Generally, and by huge margins, those born into the top 1/5th tend to stay at the top, while those in the bottom 1/5th tend to stay at the bottom.  If everyone has the same opportunities, why would that be?  Furthermore, to say that a kid raised in a home with an income of $10K - $15K has the same opportunity as a kid raised in a home with an income of $100,000 - $150,000 is pretty ignorant.  The kid in the low-income home is more likely to have a single parent who works, leaving the child with less supervision or perhaps even doing alot more around the house raising younger siblings, etc.  This low-income student is more likely to have much less support and encouragement from their parent(s)...who are also less likely to have a high-school diploma let alone college degrees.  Then, they are also less likely to even be aware of the help that is out there let alone the ambition to take advantage of it.  They are morelikely to be hungry and cold, and live in higher-crime rate neighborhoods.  And because of this environment, the low-income student is likely to have a much more jaded attitude towards hard work and opportunity in general.  They develop an attitude that is not so much laziness as it is just  "why bother?" The probably see their parent(s) struggling just to get by let alone get ahead.  And with studies like the one I mentioned above showing it to be true, how can you blame them?  I would suggest that this is a very prominent reason behind the success of the private school.  Private schools, especially the high-tuition exclusive are the cream of the crop already.  Those kids were already going to college no matter what school they went to.  So comparing private school success with public school success is apples and oranges.

I think valkmc addressed the rest of your statement regarding education funding quite well...except I would add that not everyone eats breakfast and lunch for free.  School breakfast and lunch programs are actually very beneficial and I would think that even the most conservative among us would support these programs because they provide support directly to the kids who need them rather than through the "deadbeat" parents who are likely skimming from the top for themselves.  In my opoinion, of all "welfare" programs to help the poor, these should be the last to be touched.

[Jabba]

So now someone's "poor attitude" defines less opportunity?

Chirst! 

Yet, when I have a bad attitude toward Liberals, I'm not seen as lacking opportunity. 

It takes a villiage to raise a child?  BS.  It takes parents.  I have seen many great people climp out of the ghetto.  It's possible and only takes determination.  Going to college is easier for some than others... there is NO guarantee that life is equally easy or hard for people... but ANY kid that WANTS to go to college can find a way.  Your middle class kids... found a way.  Dad paid for 1/2 and they borrowed the rest. 

I used to live in a house with no electricity.  I lived in a tent.  I almost lived in a storage unit for a while.  I worked my way out of it.  I got a job.  I got a better job, and I got yet another better job.

I know foreign nationals that come here, work hard, gain citizenship and succeed.  The fact that "poor" people here fail is cultural, and and can be fixed by old fashioned American grit, if they so CHOOSE.  But coddling failure, and feeding, clothing, and wiping their butts guarantees continued failure.

That's the legacy of Liberals.  Their intent id good.  They WANT to help.  But all they are doing is help guarantee failure.

It's time for some tough love.  Our poor are largely capable of success.  they CHOOSE not to be successful.

YMMV.

Jabba

[Bob E.]

So now someone's "poor attitude" defines less opportunity?

Chirst! 

Yet, when I have a bad attitude toward Liberals, I'm not seen as lacking opportunity. 

It takes a villiage to raise a child?  BS.  It takes parents.  I have seen many great people climp out of the ghetto.  It's possible and only takes determination.  Going to college is easier for some than others... there is NO guarantee that life is equally easy or hard for people... but ANY kid that WANTS to go to college can find a way.  Your middle class kids... found a way.  Dad paid for 1/2 and they borrowed the rest. 

I used to live in a house with no electricity.  I lived in a tent.  I almost lived in a storage unit for a while.  I worked my way out of it.  I got a job.  I got a better job, and I got yet another better job.

I know foreign nationals that come here, work hard, gain citizenship and succeed.  The fact that "poor" people here fail is cultural, and and can be fixed by old fashioned American grit, if they so CHOOSE.  But coddling failure, and feeding, clothing, and wiping their butts guarantees continued failure.

That's the legacy of Liberals.  Their intent id good.  They WANT to help.  But all they are doing is help guarantee failure.

It's time for some tough love.  Our poor are largely capable of success.  they CHOOSE not to be successful.

YMMV.

Jabba

I agree 100%...it takes parents. Parents who teach their kids a work ethic.  Kids don't learn that on their own.  My point is that when they grow up in a home like I described, instead of work ethic, they learn and develop a defeatist ("why bother?") attitude, often supported by their own parents, rather than encouraged to succeed by those parents.  Kids who grow up in this type of environment are far less likely to succeed.  But to claim that these kids growing up in these types of homes have the same opportunities as kids who grow up in upper-middle class homes is ludicrous.  They are handicapped from day one.

I'm not saying every kid should have the same or equal opportunity either.  That's just not realistic.  But let's not pat ourselves on the back and tell ourselves what a great job we're doing providing all of this equal opportunity when it just isn't so.  We need to recognize that the real reasons why these kids aren't succeeding isn't just laziness, but a much more complicated set of circumstances often beyond their control that usually leads them to failure.  Some people, perhaps like yourself, just think, "tough crap..not my problem."  While others like myself thing that having so many failures in our society brings us all down.  And I would argue that if they don't fail, then they don't become burdens on society.  So it is in all of our best interest to help them succeed.

And I never said they couldn't succeed.  We all love stories of those folks who grow up poor and beat the odds.  The reason we hold them up as examples is because we all know just how unlikely an outcome that story represents.

[G-Man]

Wow, spin like that about education is crazy, here are numbers more like it. In our school district they spend less than 6,000 per year per kid. Less than they did 5 years ago in actual dollors not even considering inflation. We graduate over 85% at my school and no staff member has received a raise in 3 years. The private school in our area has close to a 100% graduation rate however they do not take poor kids or troubled kids. They take the cream of the crop and that is all.

Financial aid for college degrees is virtually non exsistent to middle class students. I know I have two in college and am I school teacher and neither gets financial aid. They both have some private scholarships they earned and I paid for each to get a 2 year degree so they did not have to borrow money. My older son is finishing a engineering degree and is now taking loans. Public education is a mess in some places but is not about the $, it is about societies rules and what people do with their kids.

As far as everyone getting the same opportunity in this country I say that sounds like a politician talking. I think it is more realistic to say who cares what start people get, what matters is my opportunity and what I can get.......

No spin,...it's simple math.  $6,000 X # of housholds / # students = Cost per child.  Now if we can only get 50% to graduate, are you saying there isn't a problem?  Just because your school district graduates more and has better numbers doesn't mean they all do.  You can look mine up for Greenburgh, NY.   Why else would I pay for private school, ON TOP OF having to pay such high school taxes??  

Well, seems to me you were able to do what you could for your kids, being in the middle class, and that's how it should be.  If you were able to afford it, why should you have received financial aide?  My previous post stated that a poor person could on through to post grad degree, and I stand by it.  

My daughter, bless her little soul, is receiving acceptance letters as I type.  The last one was to Setan Hall with a $90,000 scholastic scholarship for 4 years.  I know I will have to pay the rest, probably matching the scholarship.  With my job and my wife's job, we should be able to cover it.  I shouldn't get public assistance and I certainly shouldn't be expecting it.  When I went back to school, I wasn't able to get financial aide as I made a whole $30,000 the year before as a car salesman.  I borrowed every penny for the tuition and books, then borrowed every penny for my doctorate.  Up until last year I was paying over $1,000 a month for my education, but I did it, I sacrificed, I worked hard, and it paid off.  Why can't everyone do this?   Why does it have to be provided?  And why at someone else's expense?  I did it for myself and now I can do it for my kids.  That's the way it should be.  Not, the gov't will do for me.  

[valkmc]

Well first of all I did not think or say I should have recieved financial aid, I paid for my own degree, every penny w/o aid and I feel like my kids got a fair deal because I paid for half of theirs. My only problem with discussions like this is the playing field being even talk and the public education mess is not true for alot of folks and never has been.

As far as I am concerned I think public ed would be better off if parents of kids in the school had to kick in some money based on their income instead of getting everything free. I work in the field so I see students everyday and not all of them are lazy with bad attitudes. Many of them work hard but due to things outside of their control they will not reach the level many of us have. I could go into all of them but most would just say to bad for them.

With all that said, I think if we can afford to spend as much on military to protect our country as we do, we should spend as much on education. Take a look at the number of engineers China and India produce every year. It is around 10 to 1 with us. Many of them from our top colleges paid for by their gov. Our system of a free education for everyone through 12th grade does not work. It has been broken for years. So lets drop the playing field is even for all talk, educate the kids who can make us a strong political and economic world power and find away to deal with the rest. I have no idea what to do with the last group but I will bet there are people out there with suggestions.