You've presented another false argument, as I have never asked ANYONE to take care of me.

I don't take ANY government money at all, so I'm not certain who you are debating with.

Ridiculous, right? It's like we're living in the Twilight Zone...

That statement is beneath you.

winner winner

If anything, they should just raise the taxes by 3% or whatever for everyone, and that should settle it... after all, it's a national problem, so everyone should chip in? no?

I think the premise is that , the middle class is already paying the higher percentage. It's time that the wealthy and better off also step up to the plate and pay the same percentage.

any proof of that? I doubt that an average person making 250+k per year, pays lower percentage than someone making <250k... sure there are some unusual exceptions, but on average I really doubt that's the case...

so does anyone have any proof from a reliable source that what crockett claimed is actually the case?

So apparently... all we have to do is raise taxes and jobs will be created?

Not sure how that works. But I'm willing to give it a try. Just so long as we tax EVERYBODY.

It's too easy for people to spend and tax other people's money. I'd be curious to see how many of you will scream for higher taxes when it comes out of your own pocket. :)

This is a pretty good article on who pays what.. with some nice pretty graphs..

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505

He's talking about the capital gain tax of course. And what is always left out of that discussion is this:
If they raise the tax on capital gains, then yes...Mitt Romney will pay more in taxes.

BUT...everyone of you who have investments in the stock market will also pay more. AND all the elderly retired people with 401k investment portfolios will also pay more.

This whole "tax" argument is just stupid. Taxes don't do anything but feed the beast (the federal govt)
I personally think it is way too big. We need to starve the beast (less taxes) not feed it more.

And the first place I'd start would be the military. We don't need to have troops and bases in damn near every country in the fucking world. It's bankrupting us.

In the past it was always "Guns or Butter" (military or social spending).
With no real wars...it should be "butter" only.
And that would cut the deficit out of the picture and start repaying the damn debt...WITHOUT taxing people even MORE.

By the time I pay federal, social security, local, and sales taxes...I'm paying way over 50% of everything I make to the govt.

This just in...

Nobody gives a shit about the plight of the rich!

They've been hiding their money, paying the lowest rates in 50+ years, and the fucking country is crumbling beneath them.

98% of the people do not give a flying fuck if the rich have to cough up a few more pennies. The people are not with them on this.

REGULAR people can't make ends meet. REGULAR people can't make their mortgage payments on REGULAR homes. REGULAR kids can't pay for school, and on and on...

The "job creators" are not creating jobs in the US, and they are not paying fair wages.

Meanwhile the bankers haven't been hurt at all. Meanwhile the millionaires and billionaires want MORE government handouts! More tax breaks, more tax loopholes, more defense contracts, blah blah blah - fuck em!

No one plays the lottery and refuses a payout because the taxes on the free money is too high. Rich people crying about their plight is a fucking joke!

Nobody cares about your bullshit - they're too busy trying to keep food on the table and heat in their homes.

This argument is great for the Republicans, provided they never wish to win another election, ever!

I guess everyone I know is in the 2% and irregular.

we are discussing federal income taxes, so lets stick to that, that page is a bit too detailed and would take a whole day to analyze and comment on...


I found this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tax-rates.html

A liberal publication The New York Times shows that fourth quitile and lower income brackets pay on average 16% or less effective tax rate. Higher income brackets pay on average 21% or so.


So, what you claimed is indeed incorrect.


And that doesn't even take into the account the fact the the study is flawed, if you look carefully:
"Note: Payroll tax rates include taxes paid by employees and EMPLOYERS."


so each income bracket less than $108k should probably have 7.5% subtracted since they don't even pay half of the payroll tax, the employer covers that part... Not to mention that what they call "payroll tax" is social security contribution, which is debatable if it's a "tax" or more like forced saving for retirement... you might get good chunk of it back when you retire, so it's not 100% clear if calling it a "tax" is appropriate...

if you assume that it's not a tax, then fourth quintile and lower would pay nearly zero federal income tax...

The Republican Party..

http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...68868064_n.jpg

Looking good!

You seem to not understand how things worked in business prior to Bush era tax cuts.

I'll try to make it simple because I grew up around a pretty successful small business that employed well over 100 people during the Clinton era when higher taxes were paid.

The simple fact is we likely didn't pay any more taxes under Clinton than with Bush. The reason for this is the same reason people get federal parole tax returns at the end of the year. It's called tax credits.

The basic idea is if you have no deductions, you pay the full tax percentage. Of course that means smart and successful business will do their best to have as much tax credit as possible.

What do you do to get those tax credits? Well quite simply it usually means you re-invest part of your profits back into your business. This means buying new equipment, hiring more labor or simply donating to non profit origination if you wish.

This is why you get job growth & a economy boost by paying higher taxes. To use a GFY meme "the money is in motion". This is what creates jobs because companies add labor, they buy machinery & equipment which creates jobs for the people whom built it.. ect..ect..

Of course it's a balance act and there isn't a indefinite return as to making higher & higher taxes to create jobs & economic growth but it was probably pretty close to being just right under Clinton.

Meanwhile enter the Bush tax cut era and less tax credits are needed which means less money was reinvested back into businesses because instead they could pull that money out as profits. This means less jobs are created because the money is no longer in motion and it gets carted away to some off shore tax haven or where ever money goes these days.


Simply put, just because the tax rate is higher doesn't mean you actually pay higher taxes. It just means the money instead of being taken out as profits is reinvested causing growth.

Sure, all those ultra-rich people making $250,000 yearly have been tucking away their fortunes in swiss banks.

I don't disagree. However,anyone who says they want to pay more in any kind of tax on anything clearly isn't the sharpest tack on the box.

Check out this message from the dullest tacks in the box...



https://youtube.com/watch?v=sqIgb48iq6w

crockett... I did better than most during the Clinton years.

We made millions of dollars selling paysite memberships to programs with our TGP's.

And my feeling about the Clinton years is that
1. He was an excellent and smart president.
and
2. That economic boom was NOT caused by the tax rate of the times. It was caused by the same thing that made me a millionaire: The Internet Bubble and Tech Bubble

People who don't understand how much of a boost to the economy that was in the 1990's are just ignorant. Tax rates don't do anything but feed or not feed the crooked lifetime politicians in Washington.

The mid to late 90's were all about internet and tech companies busting out by the tens of thousands.

EDIT: And one other thing...the govt. made sure to NOT tax the internet. The exact thing the Clinton administration said at the time was to not "tax the golden goose" and ruin it.

No different than Warren Buffet. They are welcome to give as much money as they want to the IRS.. But you never actually see them do that.

they should just stfu, and go here:
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/for...ormId=23779454

feel free to go there and donate yourself too, why wait for taxes to be raised? be proactive! :winkwink:

Exactly. I've been saying this for years and nobody ever seems to mention it. During Clinton my business was bringing in over $900,000 a year and most of it was profit. After a couple of quarters of sending $100,000 checks to the IRS you look for as many deductions as possible, which meant hiring more, advertising more, more equipment, etc etc. Of course I would have rather not paid any taxes, but I've always believed it certainly helped the economy under Clinton.

Then you remember why it was so easy to make money then. If not read Robbie's post, it explains exactly why.

It was also easy for miners to make fortunes when gold was first discovered. The difference then was even after the goldrush was over,people still realized that they need to actually work to provide the basics that they needed for themselves and their family.

Let's see... your company only made $900,000 year. And you were paying over $100,000 a quarter in taxes? LOL. Okay.

So first off you were paying corporate tax of almost 50%. Yeah... And then to offset that, you decided to hire more employees and be forced by the govt. to pay matching funds on their payroll tax?

Dude, your story sounds very, very unlikely. You apparently paid WAY more in taxes than you were supposed to, and then made very foolish business decisions to offset that overpayment.
Either you aren't good at business, or this story isn't 100% accurate.

EDIT: And with you paying an apparent 50% corporate tax AND hiring people you didn't really need and paying matching funds on their payroll tax...I have to wonder how much money you had left after paying state, local, and property taxes after that. You must have lived in a shack or something and been starving to death. Cause I don't see how you had ANY money left over for profit for you and your own family.

No comment on all those filthy rich people making $250k a year?

You think the internet was the only place anyone made any money during the 90's?

You think I am going to dignify such a silly question with an answer?

The President's current proposal guarantees NO TAX RATE INCREASE on all income UP TO $250K.

$250K and below make up 98% of the working class in the US.

The Republicans can agree to this tax freeze right now, the President will sign the bill on Monday, and the fiscal cliff is not nearly as scary as it appears today.

If the Republicans in power gave a shit about anyone other than their 2% overlords this would be a done deal.

People who make over $250K p/year would still receive the tax break through the first $250K but would then have to pay an additional 4% on income above and beyond.

If this deal falls through taxes will increase for 100% of Americans, and it won't be blamed on the President.

Ha! Do you seriously think I really give a fuck what you think? Yes, the last quarter in the first couple of years I sent in over 100k because of underpaying throughout the year. As far as employees, everyone I hired was contractors. I'll pull out my old returns and show ya if you agree to let minte drop his balls in your mouth.

I still don't understand why only $250k+ income earners should pay higher taxes? raising taxes is a good idea I thought? so shouldn't everyone chip in and help?

and why is it $250k anyway? why not $200k? or $500k? seems completely arbitrary... across the board 2-3% increase would solve this problem...

(the truth is, NO ONE would support it if the tax increases effected them too...)

Joe pays 15%
Jack pays 10%

If we are to make things equal across the board.. Should Jack pay 15% & Joe pay 20% by giving them both a 5% increase still causing Joe to pay more and Jack lesser percentage? Is that fair or should they both instead pay 15%?

Paying higher taxes then when?

The Bush tax breaks weren't permanent - they were supposed to expire in 10 years, and now they've been in place for 12!

Obama and the D's are proposing that they DO NOT expire for 98% of Americans, as the majority of American citizens are having a tough time right now. The top 2% are doing just fine, so their rates bounce back to where they were.

I don't see the controversy, and most people can not relate to the outdated idea of continuing to favor the top 2%.

Obama won the first time around because Bush was an idiot.

Obama won the second time around because the fringe on the right hijacked the GOP and scared away the electorate.

Defending the top 2% and calling the poor names will not fix the Republican Party one bit, but that's what they seem to want to do.

Good luck with that!

I miss Ronald Reagan :(

yea? you are not trying to claim still that the rich pay lower percentage, are you? If you are, go back a couple of posts and read my comments on The New York Times study...

Nice thoughtful reply.

If you paid more than $200,000 for the full year you would have been overpaying your taxes.

If you actually owned a company and paid corporate taxes and had employees, you would understand why your story doesn't look to be true.

And if all you hired were contractors...then you didn't really hire any "new employees".

And you still have your returns from the 1990's???? Dude, your shit just gets deeper and deeper. You should be shredding those old returns (if they exist)

But carry on with your story. It really doesn't make one lick of sense in any way.

You can raise Jack's INCOME TAX to 100% and it won't change what he pays in Capital Gains taxes one tiny bit.

But yes...if you are going to raise INCOME TAX rates then it should be for everyone. Jack already pays a higher percentage of INCOME TAX.

People keep twisting this to include Capital Gains.

And as I pointed out earlier, if you raise capital gains taxes..you raise taxes on the elderly and their retirement plans and also on every American who is invested in the stock market.

How about we cut spending instead? Chop the military in half. We don't need it.

$200k on $900k income sounds about right, not everyone uses every borderline legal deduction or loophole they can... :2 cents:

You can keep the Capital Gains rate at 15% for the first Million and scale it up from there. Maybe if you're a hedge fund manager making $100 Million you will need to pay 25% or 30% - so what?

This math would not effect 99.9999% of American grannies and retirees.

And I agree totally on military budget reductions. We can find the money to kill people, but we can't fund medicare and social security?! Give me a break!

Since 2000

Cost of wars: 4 trillion
Cost of tax cuts: 2.8 trillion
Cost of bank bail out: 14 trillion

Just looking at those basic numbers I would say three things are needed to fix your economy:

1. Cut military spending by 600 billion a year, this will keep you about 10 billion above china and still the highest spending nation

2. Everyone should lose thier tax cuts, not just the rich. That way every single citizen will realize that there are consequences for starting illegal wars and rewarding failed banks

3. Stop bankster welfare, I laugh at the food stamp comments. The real welfare in your country are businesses who failed miserabley but received more money than any social program

Did you read what that NY Time study said? This is what the text says from the graph you linked.

"While the top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 35 percent, the average rates the wealthy pay are much lower. Much of their earnings come from capital gains, interest and dividends, which are taxed at 15 percent. And because only income up to $106,800 is subject to the payroll tax, they pay lower effective rates than those who earn less."

They even confirmed that the the wealthy pay a lower tax rate. They are showing the tax rate on the income but what you are missing is that's just on the first $100k.

That page I linked goes into great detail because it explains the entire equation of what is paid across the board and doesn't cherry pick one small segment to try and make it appear that one group or the other pays more or less. The conclusion of that being the middle class pays the most tax burden.

Exactly. But it doesn't work that way. And with more and more jobs going overseas and more human jobs being replaced by machines, the actual creation of solid American based jobs at best is going to be temporary. It doesn't matter if taxes are raised or lowered, all of that is cannon fodder and this argument about who can create jobs (government doesn't create jobs) is nothing more than a distraction and false hope, because everyone needs hope.

Maybe the Fed will create another bubble, some experts say they are on the way to create a new housing bubble, and that would create temporary jobs. But like every bubble before it, it too will pop and here we are.

Like the porn industry changed, as did the world, the US job market, and the US government. It is a different game than it was 4, 8, or 10 years ago. What past Presidents did with taxes doesn't necessarily apply anymore. There isn't a "recovery." There is just now and before. One cycle or bubble followed by the next.

But I hope I'm proven wrong and it all magically goes back to glory days like when Clinton was the boss. However, we all know that's not going to happen.

Look closer at the chart, top income brackets pay 21%, fourth quintile and lower pay 16% or less... how can you keep a straight face and say that top income brackets pay lower %, when that's clearly not the case?

the whole thing was published in a liberal newspaper, if they can't backup your claim, no one can...

I'm assuming he had a company with expenses. And at least one or two "real" employees (not contractors).

He only grossed 900K for the whole year.

You do the math and there is no way he paid that much in federal income tax with his corporation.
As I said earlier, he then had to pay State income tax, local tax, property tax, and of course sales tax for everything in life.

If you figure a gross of $900,000 a year (which is what he said). Just ONE employee at $40,000 a year. An office space costing $12,000 a year,. Electric bill of $6,000 a year. Expenditures and supplies of maybe $50,000 a year (I don't know what his business was, I spend a lot more than that a year).
Then he said he hired more people (contractors so he didn't have to pay matching funds)

So let's say he only hired 2 more "contractors" at $40,000 a year. (I'm being conservative)

That leaves him with a theoretical $720,000 overall. That would mean that if he just straight up paid "only" $200,000 he would have been paying corporate federal income tax of 36%. Any accountant in the world could get that down in a hurry.

BUT...he said that he paid over a hundred grand for two of the quarters of that year (whatever year it was...he didn't specify). So that means he also paid 2 other quarters with a little less.

So now he's maybe at 300 grand or more he claims to have paid in Federal Corporate tax.
Now he has to pay State income tax. And local tax. And property tax.

Doesn't sound right to me at all. Anybody else on here that makes real money think that story rings true?

Wishful thinking. Obama was just in Asia discussing opening MORE US military bases in SE Asia. He wants to re-open a few bases that they used to have during Vietnam to show China that the USA has a strong presence in SE Asia. It's all complete madness. If that is not provoking the Chinese, I don't know what is.

That is kind of what Mitt Romney said in the debate with Obama. lol
He said his plan was to reduce capital gains taxes on Americans making less than a million. And keep them where they are now for over a million.

Obama's plan is to raise them across the board.

Good post! :thumbsup

You can't see the forest for the trees.. I realize it's nicer to look at charts but how can you not "READ" the text that goes along with the chart that you try to use as "proof". Specially after I copied and pasted it to this very topic so you couldn't miss it.

Seriously read the text and quit looking at the pretty little graphs.. :disgust

I'm not fully convinced by the story myself, but the numbers are in the right ballpark...

It's not clear what kind of business he ran, but likely it was some affiliate gig, so by "employees" and "contractors" he probably really meant hiring a designer for a grand or 2 here and there, not actual full time $50k/year employees.... and by "equipment" he really meant that he bought a new computer and monitor that year...

but if he had a real business with full time employees, office, etc, then yea you are right, the numbers don't add up very well...

This is what he said...which he specifically states he was tired of paying high taxes (so he apparently was looking for loopholes), and the way he says "equipment" and "advertising" leads me to believe he wasn't an affiliate. Affiliates (like me) ARE advertisers for products. We get paid to do the advertising. Not pay to advertise.

Anyway it sounded like more of a brick and mortar business. I'm just not sure it's real. Easy to type stuff on a keyboard anonymously:

And that will be unfortunate for all those poor bastards making $249,000.
They might even have to dump off their estates in the south of France.