Paul Ryan!!

[rlg94086]

They usually close them at 1,000 posts.

Yeah, I know…I couldn’t resist.

I’m not sure why. I was asked by another poster shortly after 1000 post, if there was a way to keep the conversation going. I recommended he start another thread with a related news item. Apparently, I was premature.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Fixed

I agree, replace bankers with oil companies, farmers, senior citizens, defense contractors, and what have you and it all ends up bad.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yeah, I know…I couldn’t resist.

I’m not sure why. I was asked by another poster shortly after 1000 post, if there was a way to keep the conversation going. I recommended he start another thread with a related news item. Apparently, I was premature.

I’m sure your mother loved you even more because of that.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

propaganda. if you work for a living you are paying twice as much in income tax as someone who makes the same amount of income from wealth. and the worker pays payroll tax on top of that. Under Romney’s plan he will pay even less. hmmm

You couldn’t be more incorrect

 

[estesbob]

You couldn’t be more incorrect

Again he is confusing marginal rates with effective ratesI also suspect he did not factor in (or is not aware of ) the AMT

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Again he is confusing marginal rates with effective ratesI also suspect he did not factor in (or is not aware of ) the AMT

Of course not.

 

[DeSanto]

Really? Because the United States Congress Joint Committee on Taxation says it will only raise $46.7 billion over the next 10 years. That’s the biggest estimate out there, many are must smaller.

Where are you finding the extra $1.6 Trillion??? Is there a couch cushion in the White House someone hasn’t looked under?

taxprof.typepad.com/files/joint-committee.pdf

businessweek.com/news/2012-03-20/buffett-rule-tax-bill-would-raise-31-billion-over-10-years

Which is beside the point. According to the CBO, spending INCREASES during that period is $7 TRILLION. That’s not including regular budgetary items, that’s an INCREASE from the current budget.

How can you support a class-envy tax hike which coves 0.7% of INCREASES to the defecit, and then claim “how can republicans, with a straight face, lecture about spending?” with a clear conscience??

This is like fishing with dynamite.

I get what you’re saying. and I’m sorry the 2 trillion figure is what it has already cost in the past 10 years.

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/?mobile=wp

That said, I admit I am not a tax lawyer and this stuff really is tough to wrap you’re head around. I am though just concerned about what’s fair and what’s right. There are going to be some big changes and have been some big changes and I don’t want to see the little guy get left in the cold like they did in 2009 and all the big wigs and wall street dudes walk away unscathed…AGAIN!!!

 

[estesbob]

I get what you’re saying. and I’m sorry the 2 trillion figure is what it has already cost in the past 10 years.

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/?mobile=wp

That said, I admit I am not a tax lawyer and this stuff really is tough to wrap you’re head around. I am though just concerned about what’s fair and what’s right. There are going to be some big changes and have been some big changes and I don’t want to see the little guy get left in the cold like they did in 2009 and all the big wigs and wall street dudes walk away unscathed…AGAIN!!!

I am sure that the Employees, stockholders and investors of Lehman Brothers would disagree with you.

 

[DeSanto]

Again he is confusing marginal rates with effective ratesI also suspect he did not factor in (or is not aware of ) the AMT

1. He is a she. 2. please refer to post 1708 as I have been down this road and know where it leads.

 

[LisaA]

Actually the bulk of the bush tax cuts went to the poor and middle class. it lowered the minimum tax rate from 15% to 10%, it gave an additional 1,000 child credit for low income couples and gave increased education credits to middle and lower income people.If you do away with all the Bush tax cuts it results in a huge tax increase on the poor and middle class. You are correct that eliminating them only on the so called Rich will not produce a significant amount of revenue

This is absolutely true despite the constant mantra “Tax breaks for the rich.” It is so clearly a pitch to class envy and class warfare. Not only are the upper income people paying a larger percentage of the total bill, they are paying a larger percentage vis a vis the percentage of income they earn.

You are also correct about the minimal result from the added tax on the upper income folks. But for the Left and for Obama specifically, it’s never been about raising money but redistributing money. When confronted by a reporter that historically lower taxes meant higher revenue he said that it was more important that it be “fair.” (By whose standards I’ve always wondered)

The hypocrisy of the Left knows no bounds however. Any of these rich folks are more than welcome to write a check to the Treasury. They dont. It’s always easier to spend OPM isn’t it?

Lisa

 

[DeSanto]

I am sure that the Employees, stockholders and investors of Lehman Brothers would disagree with you.

? big wigs=bankers CEOs and their record bonuses ect ect…u know the ones running the show.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

1. He is a she. 2. please refer to post 1708 as I have been down this road and know where it leads.

The top 1% pay over 35% of the tax revenue and the top 10% pay 71% of the revenue.

How much do you think they should pay?

 

[SamH]

I get what you’re saying. and I’m sorry the 2 trillion figure is what it has already cost in the past 10 years.

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/?mobile=wp

I don’t click on links posted here anymore so I can only assume the 2 trillion is the cost of the entire Bush tax cuts at all tax levels. I guess they want to justify raising the rate for some because of the benefits everyone (including nontaxpayers) received?

That said, I admit I am not a tax lawyer and this stuff really is tough to wrap you’re head around. I am though just concerned about what’s fair and what’s right. There are going to be some big changes and have been some big changes and I don’t want to see the little guy get left in the cold like they did in 2009 and all the big wigs and wall street dudes walk away unscathed…AGAIN!!!

Under Bush the Enron execs went to prison. Under Obama MF Global chief John Corzine is opening a new investment group.

 

[LisaA]

I get what you’re saying. and I’m sorry the 2 trillion figure is what it has already cost in the past 10 years.

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/07/237560/10-years-bush-tax-cuts/?mobile=wp

That said, I admit I am not a tax lawyer and this stuff really is tough to wrap you’re head around. I am though just concerned about what’s fair and what’s right. There are going to be some big changes and have been some big changes and I don’t want to see the little guy get left in the cold like they did in 2009 and all the big wigs and wall street dudes walk away unscathed…AGAIN!!!

Yes indeed…it’s amazing the OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT can’t seem to find a single person to charge in the financial crisis of 08. Just heard they aren’t planning to charge John Corzyn either although his firm MF Global clearly violated securities laws by taking customer funds for their own use. Amazing how the OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is more concerned about serious matters like Gibson Guitars use of a certain kind of wood. But the financial crisis, the fraud, the corruption in Fanny & Freddy, the Wall Street traders…nothing to see here, move along!

Lisa

 

[Ridgerunner]

propaganda. if you work for a living you are paying twice as much in income tax as someone who makes the same amount of income from wealth. and the worker pays payroll tax on top of that.

Neither thing is necessarily true and, in the main, it isn’t. It depends on what a person’s wealth is composed of. If a person’s wealth is in municipal bonds, he won’t pay taxes on that income unless he hits the AMT.

If his wealth is in stocks and his income is totally from that, he will pay less tax on dividends and capital gains than the median tax rate, again unless he hits the AMT. A lot of elderly peoples’ income is largely from this source, or bonds.

If his wealth is in farming or ranching, it’s mostly in the land, equipment and livestock. He pays ordinary income tax rates on his net income. The only capital gain he’s likely to get would be for breeding stock and then only if it isn’t his main business to sell breeding stock. He also has to pay the payroll tax at DOUBLE the rate an employee pays. He will pay more taxes than a person of no wealth but who has the same income.

Small business peoples’ income is mostly taxed at regular rates, and they, too, pay DOUBLE the payroll tax rate people pay who are not self-employed. He will pay more taxes than a person of no wealth but who has the same income.

Small business people and farmers “buy their wealth”, so to speak, with after-tax dollars.
Wage earners, on the other hand, “buy their wealth” with before-tax dollars. Government workers, of course “buy their wealth” with other peoples’ dollars.

I think a lot of folks don’t understand what “wealth” is, who the “wealthy” are or what “wealth” actually does for anyone.

 

[DeSanto]

The top 1% pay over 35% of the tax revenue and the top 10% pay 71% of the revenue.

How much do you think they should pay?

I agree the share of federal taxes paid by he top 1% seems higher than it should be. although, if you consider the share of income received by the top 1% you will kind of see why.

 

[DeSanto]

Neither thing is necessarily true and, in the main, it isn’t. It depends on what a person’s wealth is composed of. If a person’s wealth is in municipal bonds, he won’t pay taxes on that income unless he hits the AMT.

If his wealth is in stocks and his income is totally from that, he will pay less tax on dividends and capital gains than the median tax rate, again unless he hits the AMT. A lot of elderly peoples’ income is largely from this source, or bonds.

If his wealth is in farming or ranching, it’s mostly in the land, equipment and livestock. He pays ordinary income tax rates on his net income. The only capital gain he’s likely to get would be for breeding stock and then only if it isn’t his main business to sell breeding stock. He also has to pay the payroll tax at DOUBLE the rate an employee pays. He will pay more taxes than a person of no wealth but who has the same income.

Small business peoples’ income is mostly taxed at regular rates, and they, too, pay DOUBLE the payroll tax rate people pay who are not self-employed. He will pay more taxes than a person of no wealth but who has the same income.

Small business people and farmers “buy their wealth”, so to speak, with after-tax dollars.
Wage earners, on the other hand, “buy their wealth” with before-tax dollars. Government workers, of course “buy their wealth” with other peoples’ dollars.

I think a lot of folks don’t understand what “wealth” is, who the “wealthy” are or what “wealth” actually does for anyone.

that certainly was a “wealth” of useful information. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I’m learning so much on this thread.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Small business peoples’ income is mostly taxed at regular rates, and they, too, pay DOUBLE the payroll tax rate people pay who are not self-employed. He will pay more taxes than a person of no wealth but who has the same income.

Except of course, that in my business I charge the client a premium to cover the cost of the additional payroll tax. If I couldn’t get away with charging that premium I wouldn’t bother with the business and just work as an employee. So you are not really comparing apples to apples.

Small business people and farmers “buy their wealth”, so to speak, with after-tax dollars.
Wage earners, on the other hand, “buy their wealth” with before-tax dollars. Government workers, of course “buy their wealth” with other peoples’ dollars.

Wage earners also build their wealth with after tax dollars, with the exception of 401k type accounts, which small business people have access to as well. The one advantage that small businesses do have is that sometimes the small business owner has the opportunity to transform labor income into a capital gain and the capital gain is taxed at a lower rate. For example, I have a client who has taken a dilapidated property and doubled its value by sweat equity. When he sells it in a few years, his sweat equity will be taxed at capital gains rates, rather than ordinary income.

 

[rlg94086]

I agree the share of federal taxes paid by he top 1% seems higher than it should be. although, if you consider the share of income received by the top 1% you will kind of see why.

Okay…

money.cnn.com/2011/10/20/news/economy/occupy_wall_street_income/index.htm

Well, there were just under 1.4 million households that qualified for entry. They earned nearly 17% of the nation’s income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax.

That sounds unfair to you?

 

[DeSanto]

Yes indeed…it’s amazing the OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT can’t seem to find a single person to charge in the financial crisis of 08. Just heard they aren’t planning to charge John Corzyn either although his firm MF Global clearly violated securities laws by taking customer funds for their own use. Amazing how the OBAMA JUSTICE DEPARTMENT is more concerned about serious matters like Gibson Guitars use of a certain kind of wood. But the financial crisis, the fraud, the corruption in Fanny & Freddy, the Wall Street traders…nothing to see here, move along!

Lisa

I totally agree with you Lisa! Can you believe it. Unfortunately, I don’t think this will be the focus of a Romney administration either. I see Romney as one of them. I’ll just be glad when this is all over. I know Obama’s president so he gets to own every little tiny winy itsy bitsy thing that is wrong with this country. But I’m just so tired of looking for one republican that can honestly say it’s not all his fault. Now that’s someone I’d vote for. sadly, no one has fit that bill yet.