I wanna thank Michelle Bachmann

cincybearcat

markin ball wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this is the fact. either you want to reduce deficits, or you don't. simple math and common sense says that you simply can not cut enough and get there. we have to have revenue in addition to cuts. if millionaires and billionaires are paying less as a percent of their income, then who is getting screwed? it is not fair to tax a millionaire at 17% and a guy maiking $30,000 at 30%. how fair is that? why protect the few at the expense of the majority?

if you want to cut the deficit, you must raise revenues. and the rich are the ones that can afford to pay a little more. the rich did just fine under the clinton rates, they will do just fine if they went back to the clinton rates...

Nice deflect. Tell me how $250,000 = $1,000,000,000 or even $1,000,000 again?

Obama is a liar.

A "millionaire" is someone who has $1,000,000 in assets, not necessarily someone who makes $1,000,000 a year. I'm not saying all people that make over 250k a year are millionaires by this definition, but I'm sure many of them are when you add up the worth/equity of their real estate, possessions, cash, stocks, etc. But I will conceed that Obama exploits those terms "millionaire" and "billionaire" to make you think and feel a certain way.

I would bet you some big $ that a lot of people making $250,000 as a family don't have $1,000,000 in assets. It's not like they are keeping all of that every year. In fact, those are the only people spending in this economy, we should be thanking them.

I'm fine with some tax raises, what I would prefer would be a simplified tax code taking out the loopholes. I'd be in favor of an increase tax on capital gains AFTER a certain level. I'm not going to throw out a number as I'm not sure what that should be. but I know it shouldn't be from dollar #1.

StillHere

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You know what, every gets on the GOP candidates for being crazy... but we have a president right now that talks of "millionaires" and "billionaires" paying their "fair share" and then wants to raise taxes on families making >$250,000 per year. For all of his smarts, me thinks he failed math class.

this is the fact. either you want to reduce deficits, or you don't. simple math and common sense says that you simply can not cut enough and get there. we have to have revenue in addition to cuts. if millionaires and billionaires are paying less as a percent of their income, then who is getting screwed? it is not fair to tax a millionaire at 17% and a guy maiking $30,000 at 30%. how fair is that? why protect the few at the expense of the majority?

if you want to cut the deficit, you must raise revenues. and the rich are the ones that can afford to pay a little more. the rich did just fine under the clinton rates, they will do just fine if they went back to the clinton rates...

this is not exactly adding a new tax on folks with higher incomes, nor raising taxes, as it would amount to a repeal of tax breaks for higher income families and businesses that were put into effect by prior administrations. Obama's plan would eliminate some of the loopholes as well as reinstate a tax rate similar to the rates that we regular folks pay, on those earning greater than $250K per year, which, IMHO is only fair. Why should those who can most afford it get a break simply because you earn more money than I do? (If anything, it should be the other way around.) It shouldn't be a question of how much you earn, but a question of fairness in the tax burden on families across all income levels. That is all.

cincybearcat

StillHere wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You know what, every gets on the GOP candidates for being crazy... but we have a president right now that talks of "millionaires" and "billionaires" paying their "fair share" and then wants to raise taxes on families making >$250,000 per year. For all of his smarts, me thinks he failed math class.

this is the fact. either you want to reduce deficits, or you don't. simple math and common sense says that you simply can not cut enough and get there. we have to have revenue in addition to cuts. if millionaires and billionaires are paying less as a percent of their income, then who is getting screwed? it is not fair to tax a millionaire at 17% and a guy maiking $30,000 at 30%. how fair is that? why protect the few at the expense of the majority?

if you want to cut the deficit, you must raise revenues. and the rich are the ones that can afford to pay a little more. the rich did just fine under the clinton rates, they will do just fine if they went back to the clinton rates...

this is not exactly adding a new tax on folks with higher incomes, nor raising taxes, as it would amount to a repeal of tax breaks for higher income families and businesses that were put into effect by prior administrations. Obama's plan would eliminate some of the loopholes as well as reinstate a tax rate similar to the rates that we regular folks pay, on those earning greater than $250K per year, which, IMHO is only fair. Why should those who can most afford it get a break simply because you earn more money than I do? (If anything, it should be the other way around.) It shouldn't be a question of how much you earn, but a question of fairness in the tax burden on families across all income levels. That is all.

What are you talking about? People making that much money already pay more than you do. What is fairness? That almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax?

Cosmo

cincybearcat wrote:

You know what, every gets on the GOP candidates for being crazy... but we have a president right now that talks of "millionaires" and "billionaires" paying their "fair share" and then wants to raise taxes on families making >$250,000 per year. For all of his smarts, me thinks he failed math class.

...
How close is your annual income to $250,000.00?
I make less than half of that a year and am doing pretty well... a hell of a lot better than most of my friends who are in the 35K range.
250K a year is a lot of fucking money... and if they are smart, 250,000 x 4 =1,000,000
...
Just sayin'.

StillHere

cincybearcat wrote:

What are you talking about? People making that much money already pay more than you do. What is fairness? That almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax?

in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?

gimmesometruth27

StillHere wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

What are you talking about? People making that much money already pay more than you do. What is fairness? That almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax?

in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?

no you are exactly right.

it is about percentage, not dollar per dollar.

a person making $30,000 or less is going to miss that 30% of gross income a hell of a lot more than someone making >$250 k..

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

StillHere wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

What are you talking about? People making that much money already pay more than you do. What is fairness? That almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax?

in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?

no you are exactly right.

it is about percentage, not dollar per dollar.

a person making $30,000 or less is going to miss that 30% of gross income a hell of a lot more than someone making >$250 k..

...
Also... guess who pays no taxes? Rich people who can afford tax shelters and use loopholes in the tax code to write off a Summer Home in the Hamptons as a business expense.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

StillHere wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

What are you talking about? People making that much money already pay more than you do. What is fairness? That almost 50% of Americans pay no income tax?

in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?

no you are exactly right.

it is about percentage, not dollar per dollar.

a person making $30,000 or less is going to miss that 30% of gross income a hell of a lot more than someone making >$250 k..

No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.

cincybearcat

http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.

yes, the more you make the percentage rises, but the link you posted is leaving out all of the tax breaks, loopholes, money in offshore accounts and businesses overseas, and other benefits that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy. if you are wealthy and paying 35% you should fire your accountant and tax guy..

mikepegg44

i didn't know that only rich people can make money from capital gains.
again everyone...if we DOUBLED tax revenue we would still be running a deficit...doesn't anyone see a problem with that?
Also, they (democrats) had a fucking super majority...guess they should have raised taxes then...you see Obama is the person who agreed to the extensions, the democrats agreed to it, now they want to say "we need to tax the rich" and blah blah blah...Well pussies you should have done it all ready when you had a clear majority and all three branches of government. Wouldn't do it then, shouldn't do it now...this rhetoric is all about votes and preying on those that think the democrats actually have the best interest of the masses in mind....it is laughable and quite irritating at the same time

back on the OP
I will never thank Michelle Bachmann for anything...Unless it is thanking her for going away.

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.

yes, the more you make the percentage rises, but the link you posted is leaving out all of the tax breaks, loopholes, money in offshore accounts and businesses overseas, and other benefits that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy. if you are wealthy and paying 35% you should fire your accountant and tax guy..

Let me tell you this... a family making $250,000 does not have the same loopholes that the "rich" do. No way.

Chip McFlennigan

I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.

Nor should people making under 20K.

The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.

cincybearcat

johnny america wrote:

I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.

Nor should people making under 20K.

The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.

Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

johnny america wrote:

I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.

Nor should people making under 20K.

The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.

Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.

so you are going on record and saying there is not a war on the middle class?

glad the rich created all them jobs with them tax cuts...oh wait... :oops:

where are the jobs cincy?

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

i didn't know that only rich people can make money from capital gains.
again everyone...if we DOUBLED tax revenue we would still be running a deficit...doesn't anyone see a problem with that?
Also, they (democrats) had a fucking super majority...guess they should have raised taxes then...you see Obama is the person who agreed to the extensions, the democrats agreed to it, now they want to say "we need to tax the rich" and blah blah blah...Well pussies you should have done it all ready when you had a clear majority and all three branches of government. Wouldn't do it then, shouldn't do it now...this rhetoric is all about votes and preying on those that think the democrats actually have the best interest of the masses in mind....it is laughable and quite irritating at the same time

back on the OP
I will never thank Michelle Bachmann for anything...Unless it is thanking her for going away.

why did obama extend the bush tax cuts? because the fucking republicans would not renew unemployment benefits unless and ONLY unless obama kept the bush tax cuts in place..remember that whole nightmare? it is just another example of republicans holding the less fortunate, the poor, the out of work, hostage to protect their base and their precious tax cuts...

http://www.usatoday.com/communities/the ... tax-cuts/1


these cuts cost us $4 trillion in revenue...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/de ... h-tax-cuts

StillHere

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

StillHere wrote:

in dollars amounts yes, in rates, no...or am i completely wrong?

no you are exactly right.

it is about percentage, not dollar per dollar.

a person making $30,000 or less is going to miss that 30% of gross income a hell of a lot more than someone making >$250 k..

No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.

that is understood....

StillHere

cincybearcat wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

No you are exactly wrong. The % of income tax one pays is more as your income level rises.

yes, the more you make the percentage rises, but the link you posted is leaving out all of the tax breaks, loopholes, money in offshore accounts and businesses overseas, and other benefits that the wealthy have over the non-wealthy. if you are wealthy and paying 35% you should fire your accountant and tax guy..

Let me tell you this... a family making $250,000 does not have the same loopholes that the "rich" do. No way.

most definitely not...for sure

cincybearcat

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

johnny america wrote:

I don't think people making over 250K should pay any taxes.

Nor should people making under 20K.

The burden for everything in this country should fall on the shoulders of the middle class. The more one works, the more they ought to be penalized.

Just so you know, your posts are the most annoying that I read. Congrats.

so you are going on record and saying there is not a war on the middle class?

glad the rich created all them jobs with them tax cuts...oh wait... :oops:

where are the jobs cincy?

A war on the middle class???? Hahahaha that is priceless.

Those tax cuts have ensured spending is still occurring by many. I'm all for a reform of the tax code to ensure the super rich are paying a decent %, but it is a straight out lie to talk up the plan as a "millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share" and then raising taxes on families >$250,000. It is a flat out lie. It will not solve the problem. And the real problem is over half of the people don't pay any taxes.

A tax increase on most families making $250,000 will simply result in less spending. So what happens then?

gimmesometruth27

hmmm...

Vast Majority Of Americans Favor Buffett Rule's Millionaire Tax: Poll

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/2 ... 85154.html

Nearly three-quarters of Americans say they support President Barack Obama’s proposal to tax households making $1 million or more at the same or higher rate as middle-class households, according to a recent poll from website Daily Kos.

The poll found two-thirds of Republicans also support the so-called "Buffett Rule" –- named after famed investor Warren Buffett, who proposed increasing taxes on wealthy in a recent op-ed in The New York Times. But the measure faces stiff opposition. After Obama unveiled the Buffett rule earlier this month as part of a proposal to cut the national deficit through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts, Republican leaders derided the plan as “class warfare.”

The report’s findings parallel the results of a Gallup poll released earlier this month, which found that two-thirds of Americans favor boosting taxes on households earning more than $200,000 per year.

One demographic is even more supportive of the Buffett rule than the national average. The under-30 set is overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, according to millennial advocacy group, Our Time. A Facebook survey of its members found that 80 percent support the measure.

But even if the Buffett rule makes it past hostile opposition, it would likely only make a dent in cutting the deficit, according to The Atlantic. If tax rates reverted to pre-Bush-tax-cut levels, they would bring in 4.5 percent of the 2009 national deficit, The Atlantic’s Daniel Indiviglio writes.

Approximately 60,000 people fall under the Buffet Rule, according to The New York Times, and raising their taxes would generate about $13 billion in revenue over the next decade.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire himself, told NBC’s Meet The Press on Sunday that the Buffet Rule and the anecdote that Buffett used to popularize the proposal is "theatrics," according to The Hill. Buffett wrote in an op-ed in The New York Times last month that he pays a lower tax rate than any of the other 20 people working in his office.

Bloomberg countered that if Buffett had made less of his money through investments he would be paying more in taxes, according to The Hill. The mayor proposed a 2 or 3 percent tax increase on all households instead.

But if passed, the Buffett Rule would likely have little impact on the rich, If lawmakers increased the tax rate for the wealthy, they wouldn’t likely hire or spend less, just as it wouldn’t likely stall growth, experts told The Huffington Post earlier this month.