State Of The Union Address

[Klavdy]

Chicks dig scars

[Klavdy]

Especially when they can see 'em

[Dan Filetti]

Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.

BS!! Terry you're now talking out of both sides of you mouth.  You say it has to be 'fair' -right?  You've used that word at least a dozen times in the past few days. It's you whole justification for why Mitt needs to be taxed more -he's not paying his 'fair share'.  It's either 'fair' or it's 'not fair' not Terry.  Which is it?  Do we allow some folks to succeed and others to not do well, or do we punish the rich for their success with an eye on making things 'fair'?  Do we redistribute wealth (and bloat the living shit out of government in the process) or don't we?  

Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010.  A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club.  That's just UNFAIR -Right?

Is a 99% tax rate "an extreme position" or the only 'fair' thing to do?

My 10 year old twins could tell you that life is not fair.  It's true, it's just not fair.  And legislating or writing tax code to try and make things 'fair', or even 'more fair', or is a fallacy designed to bloat the government.  

I'll say it again:

The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.

The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.

It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.  

Dan

[SlowOldGuy]

Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010.  A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club.  That's just UNFAIR -Right?

Geeze, Dan, I thought you knew this stuff.  :-)

It's those under taxed companies that sponsor the golf tournaments fault.  If they would pay more taxes then Tiger wouldn't make such an obscene amount of money for whacking a little white ball around.

DavidR.

[Bob]

Y'all take your politics quite seriously. Not a bad thing, but wow.
I'm a social liberal and fiscal conservative; don't agree with anyone 

So here's my $0.02 ... it is morally wrong to defer costs to future generations. They don't have a say.
Politics, as it is run in most developed countries, encourages the deferral of hard decisions. It is easy to let the kids pay.
If, as a country, you are borrowing to run the government, then you have to cut costs and, more than likely, raise taxes.
If the top 1% pay 36.73% of total revenue, then they should be making around 36% of national individual income. I suspect their income ratio is higher.
Every system of governance, taken to its extreme, is bad.
In a pure meritocracy the incompetent starve, and everyone's soul is stained.
In pure socialism the capable are discouraged, the economy suffers, and everyone loses.
Hidden unlimited money in politics is a cancer. Democracy needs transparency.
If you want good schools, safe streets... all that stuff, you'll have to pay the taxes for it. No one else. You. 

Oh, and one more thing: most people, including most politicians, are doing the best they can. Let's cut then all a bit of slack.

Now, back to some nice tunes and dreams of spring 

[Dan Filetti]

Looks like the US Federal government is not the only bloated thing around here. 

Jeeze Klavdy, lay off the doughnuts...



Heal well.

Dan 

[Dan Filetti]

Geeze, Dan, I thought you knew this stuff.  :-)

It's those under taxed companies that sponsor the golf tournaments fault.  If they would pay more taxes then Tiger wouldn't make such an obscene amount of money for whacking a little white ball around.

DavidR.

Ha!  If you take it back one step, you are right. it's the companies.  However, if you go back one more step, it's those pesky individuals -especially the rich ones, that buy stuff from the companies that are the real problem -get them, tax the living hell out of them, and the 'problem' is solved...

Easy peasy

Dan

[terryk]

Because 90-99% is an idiotic idea and clearly an extreme position to try to prove a point on extreme liberalism that is a false choice really. It is not 0% or 99%.

BS!! Terry you're now talking out of both sides of you mouth.  You say it has to be 'fair' -right?  You've used that word at least a dozen times in the past few days. It's you whole justification for why Mitt needs to be taxed more -he's not paying his 'fair share'.  It's either 'fair' or it's 'not fair' not Terry.  Which is it?  Do we allow some folks to succeed and others to not do well, or do we punish the rich for their success with an eye on making things 'fair'?  Do we redistribute wealth (and bloat the living shit out of government in the process) or don't we?  

Tiger woods earned 500 million in 2010.  A 99% tax rate is still 5 million dollars -that's a lot of money -waaaaay more than than the average income of 32,000, in fact why does Tiger Woods deserve to get to make 156 times more (after tax), than the average person makes (before tax) just for swinging a golf club.  That's just UNFAIR -Right?

Is a 99% tax rate "an extreme position" or the only 'fair' thing to do?

My 10 year old twins could tell you that life is not fair.  It's true, it's just not fair.  And legislating or writing tax code to try and make things 'fair', or even 'more fair', or is a fallacy designed to bloat the government.  

I'll say it again:

The top 1% pay 36.73% of ALL federal income tax.

The top 10% pay 70.47% of ALL federal income tax.

It sickens me that you think this is 'unfair' and that these folks should pay more.  

Dan

Sorry the logic upset you but there is such a thing as a fair marginal rate.

Presenting false choices is not very compelling as an argument Dan , " hey man,  then if you tax anyone rich then everyone who is rich needs to pay 99% man as like, this is the only logical thing man". Silly stuff wothy of the best moment from the Jeff Lebowski school of economics.

The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes.  People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.

[rktmanfj]

The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes.  People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.

Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?

I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.

[terryk]

The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes.  People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.

Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?

I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.

Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich. What, you think that rich people should pay less in tax just because they can manipulate their earnings profiles into a channel that they set up as lower marginal rates in the code. BS on steroids. they are the 

Mitts earning BTW are not, repeat not, from capital gains.The income is from carried interest, a fancy dancy tax loop hole that moved real  income to a capital gains rates. This was accomplished through lobbying efforts of the leveraged buy out companies with congeress.

Now, how about that. Do you get to pay $13.9% as a result of your lobbyists? Thye rich screwing the middle class one more time by bowing out of paying their fair share and shifting the burden to the working man. Now, go look at what is happening to real wages for the middle class versus income of the rich in the top 5%. Astounding.

[Dan Filetti]

Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.

These are capital gains, essentially earning from investing in America's economic infrastructure. 

President Terry:  You want to tax capital gains at 45%, then will you allow write-offs of losses when they do poorly and lose money?  It would be only 'fair'. Doing so would be Reduced upside and lots of downside... Yeah, that'll encourage investment...  Or do we punish the rich yet again and prevent it?

[Dan Filetti]

Presenting false choices is not very compelling as an argument Dan , " hey man,  then if you tax anyone rich then everyone who is rich needs to pay 99% man as like, this is the only logical thing man".

It's not a "false choice" Terry.  It is the ONLY logical conclusion to a progressive tax based on 'fairness'.  [Read: Redistribution of wealth.] 

Again, go back to Tiger Woods.

Dan

[rktmanfj]

The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes.  People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.

Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?

I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.

Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.

Doing so would bring their investment to an absolute standstill.  There is a tipping point (much lower than this) where they will just let their money sit, risk (and tax)-free.

[terryk]

The rich, like Mitt , do not pay their fair share of the burden. They pay too little at 13.9%. $35%-45% over $500K seems fair if we shut down the loop holes.  People are growing very unhappy with Mitt and the republicans who seem out of step. massive fall comes after their prode and their BS.

Why is it that you repeatedly ignore that Romney's earnings are from capital gains, and are therefore not being taxed at the wage rate, but at the lower capital gains rate everyone pays on such income?

I suppose you'd like to raise that rate, too.

Bingo, I have been crystal clear on this. Income over $500,000, all and any income, taxed at $35-45% and close the loop holes. Or, at least move capital gains rates much closer to the real income tax rates for the very rich.

Doing so would bring their investment to an absolute standstill.  There is a tipping point (much lower than this) where they will just let their money sit, risk (and tax)-free.

Yes, in the short term this effects investment rate in the stock market, which really does not drive true investment in GDP capacity only wealth for stock holders. Most of whom are rich in the first place and favor low capital gains taxes to further enrich themselves. Real investments that drives GDP and jobs such as investments in physical plant, hiring workers and creating infrastructure are not effected much by raising the capital gains rates.

[Zwartie]

How about a new candidate?

The Canada Party - "Meet The Canada Party"