I'm not familiar, but found this link:
Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this who you are referring to?
Should The GOP Surrender To Obama On Tax Policy?
- Thread starter TeddyBallgame
- Start date
I'm not familiar, but found this link:
Blue Dog Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is this who you are referring to?
"Surrender" could totally collapse the US economy. If you want to see an actual depression take hold, sure, they should capitulate.
The good ol' greasy biased press is at it again:
"Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan ’80s."
... But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.
Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.
read on
Most Americans Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the 80s - NYTimes.com
"Complaints Aside, Most Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the Reagan ’80s."
... But in fact, most Americans in 2010 paid far less in total taxes -- federal, state and local -- than they would have paid 30 years ago. According to an analysis by The New York Times, the combination of all income taxes, sales taxes and property taxes took a smaller share of their income than it took from households with the same inflation-adjusted income in 1980.
Households earning more than $200,000 benefited from the largest percentage declines in total taxation as a share of income. Middle-income households benefited, too. More than 85 percent of households with earnings above $25,000 paid less in total taxes than comparable households in 1980.
read on
Most Americans Face Lower Tax Burden Than in the 80s - NYTimes.com
Precisely. They, too, have obstructed the Obama agenda.
LOL! And I suppose the fact that you pay taxes while the far right gets a free ride (at your expense) cracks you up as well.
First of all no one needs to surrender but they do need to compromise and find a way out of
their problems.
The other fact is taxes should have gone up all the way along to pay for infrastructure and other
programs that would have been a pay as you go over time. America has put off paying its bills
for years and now they are going to pay for 1990 problems in 2012 dollars and that always costs
more.
Yes the rich need to pay their share along with the Middle Class who have been paying for everyone
else for years. And yes medicare is a right not a privilege and it needs to be paid for by all.
Imagine a country in the first world that would bleed its citizens dry over health costs? Yes the poor
and the rich get preference and the people who pay most of the taxes get to pay and mortgage
their house to pay for sick children etc. This is not acceptable in today's modern society.
their problems.
The other fact is taxes should have gone up all the way along to pay for infrastructure and other
programs that would have been a pay as you go over time. America has put off paying its bills
for years and now they are going to pay for 1990 problems in 2012 dollars and that always costs
more.
Yes the rich need to pay their share along with the Middle Class who have been paying for everyone
else for years. And yes medicare is a right not a privilege and it needs to be paid for by all.
Imagine a country in the first world that would bleed its citizens dry over health costs? Yes the poor
and the rich get preference and the people who pay most of the taxes get to pay and mortgage
their house to pay for sick children etc. This is not acceptable in today's modern society.
LOL! And I suppose the fact that you pay taxes while the far right gets a free ride (at your expense) cracks you up as well.
Free ride?... How do you figure.
After all, they are paying the highest marginal rate, so unless they're getting welfare cheques that are greater than their tax contribution, I think it's fair to say they are keeping this boat afloat
Captain I have posted links to overseas tax shelters enjoyed by the wealthy INNUMERABLE times on this forum. All this contrary to the Fox network lies that the rich are the ones who finance the government.
spotted this while surfing the net:
Five Facts About America
Welfare for the rich is the problem, contrary to the Fox network propaganda.
spotted this while surfing the net:
Five Facts About America
Welfare for the rich is the problem, contrary to the Fox network propaganda.
- CM ... Why try to debate with a fanatic? As Churchill observed, a fanatic is someone who won't change his mind and won;t change the subject and gopher is your classic fanatic of the lunatic left wing fringe variety.
- Earlier in this thread, he made the insane statement that not a single word uttered by the far right is true. Most far left lunatics recognize that this is not possible given the law of averages and the fact that even a broken clock is right twice a day.
- Now he claims that the rich aren't paying their fair share even though the top 10% of earners pay 70% of the income tax and the bottom 47% of earners pay 0% (that's zero per cent or nil or jack **** or buttkiss in taxes).
- Presumably, gopher won't be satisified until the top 10% pay 100% of the income taxes.
- But gopher is ******* ***.
- Even Obama wouldn't try to peddle this crazy crapolla that is the epitomy of class warfare.
- Trying to dialogue with him only encourages him which is why I would argue that it is a waste of your time and why I don't bother with him 99% of the time.
No more personal attacks/name-calling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting article, but in all of your contributions that I recall, you omit the fact that any income that subject to capital gains (lets call it investment income for short) is the byproduct of after tax dollars. The article that you posted fails to recognize this component even as a by word.
The reason that this lower tax rate is even available is to encourage people to invest risk capital into ventures that have a net benefit to the national economy in the form of more employment, new tech, blah, blah. And lets be completely clear on this; the ability to take advantage of capital gains bennies isn't restricted to 'the rich' - anyone can do this, but you can't force someone to educate themselves or participate.
You talk about these 'loopholes' and welfare for the wealthy, but rarely - if ever - do you recognize that the marginal rates at the upper end exceed 50% of all earnings.... As teddyballgame points out, 70% of all of the tax revenues for the entire nation originate from the top 10% earners (I don't know if that stat is accurate, but sounds about right).
That said, assuming that the above stats are close to being accurate - don't tell me that there is a systemic inequality that favors the rich because the numbers speak for themselves. In the end, all you are proposing is to punish anyone that invests risk capital for the purpose of gaining a better than average return.
''fanatic"
"lunatic left"
"mentally ill"
Those are type of words that got Walter banned. Maybe Teddyballgame who makes personal attacks but fails to offer so much as an iota of evidence to back his claims is looking for that as well.
As for the evidence that I have presented, no one has dared to challenge it with evidence to the contrary. That's because what I have presented is the truth.
"lunatic left"
"mentally ill"
Those are type of words that got Walter banned. Maybe Teddyballgame who makes personal attacks but fails to offer so much as an iota of evidence to back his claims is looking for that as well.
As for the evidence that I have presented, no one has dared to challenge it with evidence to the contrary. That's because what I have presented is the truth.
The principle that I refer too is a fundamental element... That being, it is after-tax dollars that are funneled into investments that may qualify for capital gains treatment. That said, it isn't welfare or even really a loophole as the monies have already been taxed prior to re-entering the system.
I'm interested in learning your opinion/thoughts relative to how this preferential treatment actually qualifies as a loophole or welfare?
In an address at the National Press Club today, Sen. Bernie Sanders tore into John Boehner and his fellow House Republicans for suggested cutting disabled veterans’ benefits in order to reduce the deficit.
John Boehner’s deficit reduction proposal includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Boehner also called for a switch to the chained CPI, which would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients, and for disabled veterans.
Sanders called Boehner’s proposal morally and economically unacceptable, “It is morally and economically unacceptable that anyone in Congress would propose more tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and large corporations while at the same time proposing significant cuts for disabled veterans,. This is not what the American people want and it is not what must happen.”
Later, Sen. Sanders repeated his call for the wealthy and corporations to pay more in taxes, “What the election results were about and what poll after poll has found is that we must not cut benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The wealthy and large corporations have got to start paying their fair share of taxes.”
The chained CPI is a big change that some Democrats and most Republicans are trying sell as something minor. The reality is that disabled veterans would see their benefits cut by $1,300-$2,260 a year by the time they reach age 65. Republicans are trying to create more revenue by reducing the level of benefits for disabled veterans. If implemented, the chained CPI would push Americans who already in or teetering towards poverty deeper into economic distress.
Bernie Sanders Blasts John Boehner for Calling for Cuts to Disabled Veterans' Benefits
John Boehner’s deficit reduction proposal includes cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid with new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. Boehner also called for a switch to the chained CPI, which would reduce annual cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security recipients, and for disabled veterans.
Sanders called Boehner’s proposal morally and economically unacceptable, “It is morally and economically unacceptable that anyone in Congress would propose more tax breaks for millionaires, billionaires and large corporations while at the same time proposing significant cuts for disabled veterans,. This is not what the American people want and it is not what must happen.”
Later, Sen. Sanders repeated his call for the wealthy and corporations to pay more in taxes, “What the election results were about and what poll after poll has found is that we must not cut benefits for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The wealthy and large corporations have got to start paying their fair share of taxes.”
The chained CPI is a big change that some Democrats and most Republicans are trying sell as something minor. The reality is that disabled veterans would see their benefits cut by $1,300-$2,260 a year by the time they reach age 65. Republicans are trying to create more revenue by reducing the level of benefits for disabled veterans. If implemented, the chained CPI would push Americans who already in or teetering towards poverty deeper into economic distress.
Bernie Sanders Blasts John Boehner for Calling for Cuts to Disabled Veterans' Benefits
- Gopher ... I hereby unreservedly apologize for my intemperate remarks and in particular for calling you a left wing lunatic who regularly makes insane and/or stunningly stupid remarks.
- Of course it is not insane or even extraordinarily stupid to state that "not one word of truth has ever been uttered by the far right".
- Nor is it insane or stunningly stupid to accuse the 10% of Americans who pay 70% of the income taxes of not paying enough and of being on government welfare and the 47% of Americans who pay 0% of the income taxes of paying too much and of not being on government welfare.
- It isn't even insane or stunningly stupid to want the top 10% to pay much more than the 70% they already pay, perhaps 100%, of all income taxes and to further claim that this will actually help rather than hinder already weak economic and employment growth.
- Gopher, you are truly a credit to the left wing segment of the political spectrum and any suggestions to the contrary are insane and stunningly stupid.
- There, I trust this means that they will not come for me today the way they have already come for Walter and that this forum can be restored to its usual sombulent state as a message board on which the lefties and liberals can cut and paste anti-Conservative and anti-GOP and anti-rich and anti-American and anti-success and anti-exceptionism and anti-Israeli propoganda from "progressive" media outlets and everyone else can go back to sleep.
Glad you finally accept reality. You may yet have a shot at becoming an adult and engage in adult conversations.