Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Platinum Bryan

Yes the USA is the only country in the world where one can get ahead in life. WOW

Not the only - but certainly the most popular...... wouldn't ya agree?

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

Actually that's a complete and outright lie. Those periods were the periods of slowest growth in terms of tax revenues.

Lowering the oppressive tax rates of those times was a good thing, but making up bullshit facts to try and support your case is wrong.

Opps... Sorry - MY BAD!!!!

fsudirectory · 06-13-2008, 01:18 PM

Well how about this.

Those people that make over 2.8 million a year, something like .1% of the entire country, they may create more jobs, but thats through their COMPANIES. They don't personally create them unless you mean a bunch of underpaid staff to clean their houses and cook for them.

The money they save from taxes doesnt affect ANYTHING to do with job creation or innovation.

Further more, if you wanted to make a legit case for not taxing the SUPER wealthy to that extent, then maybe there should be a law that they must spend that 700K+ tax increase on AMERICAN goods and in AMERICAN stores, instead of buying FOREIGN Cars, Boats, and Vacations.

It would be nice if the super wealthy actually did those things, but the argument is null when athletes and businessmen alike are driving a Bentley or a Maybach.

AND if your Making 250k-600k, please tell me you cannot afford the estimated $12 increase in your taxes. LMAO.

Brad · 06-13-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Not the only - but certainly the most popular...... wouldn't ya agree?

No I think your population is inflated because you guys are afraid of condoms and birth control. Mexicans flock to your country because it is better than Mexico and they can make more skrilla, that's about it.

Drake · 06-13-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

WHAT RECESSION??????????????? We are not in a recession!!!!!!!! geeeez!

You can say it all you want - but ECONOMISTS and ECONOMIC MEASURES have rules to follow - and the definition of a recession is TWO CONSECUTIVE QUARTERS OF NEGATIVE ECONOMIC GROWTH!!!!

Here's a hint for ya... we haven't even had one much less two - so No recession! Just because CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and the like say it every night - still don't make it true!!!!

I stand corrected. Sadly, I'm a victim of the media sometimes. I try to stay informed but wind up misinformed by media alarmists trying to trump up news for ratings.

Anyway, if the economy isn't in as rough shape as being made out, that's good.

The issue I suppose is one of growing national debt that isn't being accounted for that is going to have an affect sooner or later and hit when baby boomers begin retiring.

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:21 PM

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...table_3_lg.gif

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:23 PM

People should read the book What ever happened to Kansas? Doug is the perfect example how the right has gotten people like Doug to vote against their own best interests. Doug is screaming against this and I highly doubt Playboy pays him 250k a year. We go to war with Iran someone is going to have to pay, no matter how is going to become president taxes are going up. We can use the Chinese credit card forever. Also they love to scream like Baddog about democratic s welfare state.Well the largest tax increases ever during peacetime were during Reagan. Also during Clinton taxes were higher and we had a surplus and people made lots and lots of money imagine that and gas was 69 cents a gallon. lol

Pleasurepays · 06-13-2008, 01:24 PM

how many times does this fucking nation of idiots have to relearn the lesson that you can't punish success as a means to fix social problems?

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:25 PM

Brad · 06-13-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Opps... Sorry - MY BAD!!!!

Let's see the spending though

Drake · 06-13-2008, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fsudirectory

AND if your Making 250k-600k, please tell me you cannot afford the estimated $12 increase in your taxes. LMAO.

That kind of money doesn't go far if you live in NY or other major cities. A 12% increase for this group could very well cause them to close up their business operations, or stop them from expanding their business.

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

how many times does this fucking nation of idiots have to relearn the lesson that you can't punish success as a means to fix social problems?

EXACTLY!!!!

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

how many times does this fucking nation of idiots have to relearn the lesson that you can't punish success as a means to fix social problems?

You're not punishing success. Like I will say again higher taxes during clinton lots of fortunes were made.

commonsense · 06-13-2008, 01:30 PM

Spending LESS is the only real answer.

Peaches · 06-13-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

You're not punishing success. Like I will say again higher taxes during clinton lots of fortunes were made.

I would bet most of the people on this board who were of working age when Clinton was in office are better off financially (not just making more since inflation kicks in - but better overall) now than they were then. I know I am.

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adult Lounge - Brad

Let's see the spending though

OH YEAH!!! SPENDING is the real problem! Not taxes!!

This discussion CANT go the direction of spending though.. cause we dont have enough space left on the web to talk about that... plus, i dont wanna have to off myself at the end of the conversation. Dem or Rep - they BOTH spend the SHIT out of the money!

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

That kind of money doesn't go far if you live in NY or other major cities. A 12% increase for this group could very well cause them to close up their business operations, or stop them from expanding their business.

Let me tell you alittle story, my dad worked for one of the largest health care companies in the country. They gathered all the employees and said this quarter was our best in history of the company kudos to you all. Then in the next breath they said how they were doing away with the free coffee service because it costs too much.That was the same year the ceo got a 500 million dollar bonus. Less taxes doesn't create jobs here, it might create some in india but not in this country.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

The logic only works when you're talking about 'successful' people who make $250k. If you penalize these people, you can put them in dire straits. You create a huge underclass by penalizing the middle class and upper middle class. If you increases taxes on the super rich, they're still super rich. How is that penalizing them? You think the super rich are going to jump ship because they make $2 billion instead of $3 billion?

Huh, well, if you're going to tax the uber successful in your country a billion dollars each you better be prepared for the economic fallout that comes with it,

is all I'm saying.

Corona · 06-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

That kind of money doesn't go far if you live in NY or other major cities. A 12% increase for this group could very well cause them to close up their business operations, or stop them from expanding their business.

He said 12 dollars not 12 percent.

Brad · 06-13-2008, 01:34 PM

Ok. I think I see where Doug has gone wrong. He assume economic growth pays public debts. It doesn't, end of story.

Look at gas prices, the cost of the war, cost of everything has skyrocketed. Has your republican president every addressed this? Does he care? No because his father is rich and Jr. acts like an entitled little bitch. The exact type of person you would hate if you knew in the real world.

Pleasurepays · 06-13-2008, 01:36 PM

people are dumb and getting dumber everyday. I have totally given up on humanity. For the 10,000,000,000th time, some jackass will come to power on the platform that life is unfair and he can fix it for the lowest common denominator. and for the 10,000,000,000th time, all those idiots who have no concept the basic fundamentals of macro economics, much less how a government actually functions and bills are passed, are going to be sorely dissapointed.

but who gives a fuck right? blindly line up behind a a guy who's 1/2 dead already, a vile cunt, or a racist idiot who says nothing but "change" and "hope" - its much easier than critical thinking.

we are once again directing our attention away from the worship of success to promoting the "everyones a victim" mentality full time.... and we suffer for it as a nation. those two ideas can't exist together. either you believe in people and their potential to overcome and achieve or you don't. we have no direction as a nation. no sense of self identity as a nation. we have no collective values other than the same old stupid rhetoric of 300 years ago that people chant like retarded monkeys without even stopping to think about what they are saying, what it means or how this nation was even formed and grew to what is today.

its totally unreal that the USA is becoming a nation of losers with their hands out waiting for someone to fix their lives for them.

fuck you people. i'm leaving.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

Brad · 06-13-2008, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

OH YEAH!!! SPENDING is the real problem! Not taxes!!

This discussion CANT go the direction of spending though.. cause we dont have enough space left on the web to talk about that... plus, i dont wanna have to off myself at the end of the conversation. Dem or Rep - they BOTH spend the SHIT out of the money!

So if you know that they are spending more than they are making and that this is the real problem then why are we talking about taxes?

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Huh, well, if you're going to tax the uber successful in your country a billion dollars each you better be prepared for the economic fallout that comes with it,

is all I'm saying.

What fallout? With all the money the rich get to keep now, the economy is in the toilet. I was listening to a story about a guy in IT , cant get a job went on 75 interviews in one year and is now going to work as a driving instructor. He is a degreed professional.The country is in the shitter for the middle class and we have most billionaires. Trickle down doesnt work.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

How Taxes Work

Since it is tax season....It's good to understand how taxes are paid.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something
like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since
you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily beer by $20."Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But
what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each
man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work
out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued
to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to
compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed
to the tenth man," but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get
anything
at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down
and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier. Remember they are the ones who pay your wages, create jobs, and innovate.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia[/COLOR]

I wonder, out of the ones who chose to quote me and challenge me about what I said on page 1, how many of them read the above post.

Probably not one.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

What fallout? With all the money the rich get to keep now, the economy is in the toilet. I was listening to a story about a guy in IT , cant get a job went on 75 interviews in one year and is now going to work as a driving instructor. He is a degreed professional.The country is in the shitter for the middle class and we have most billionaires. Trickle down doesnt work.

Then you'll be voting for Obama I take it.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

people are dumb and getting dumber everyday. I have totally given up on humanity. For the 10,000,000,000th time, some jackass will come to power on the platform that life is unfair and he can fix it for the lowest common denominator. and for the 10,000,000,000th time, all those idiots who have no concept the basic fundamentals of macro economics, much less how a government actually functions and bills are passed, are going to be sorely dissapointed.

but who gives a fuck right? blindly line up behind a a guy who's 1/2 dead already, a vile cunt, or a racist idiot who says nothing but "change" and "hope" - its much easier than critical thinking.

we are once again directing our attention away from the worship of success to promoting the "everyones a victim" mentality full time.... and we suffer for it as a nation. those two ideas can't exist together. either you believe in people and their potential to overcome and achieve or you don't. we have no direction as a nation. no sense of self identity as a nation. we have no collective values other than the same old stupid rhetoric of 300 years ago that people chant like retarded monkeys without even stopping to think about what they are saying, what it means or how this nation was even formed and grew to what is today.

its totally unreal that the USA is becoming a nation of losers with their hands out waiting for someone to fix their lives for them.

fuck you people. i'm leaving.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

Corona · 06-13-2008, 01:42 PM

Fucking Republicans kill me.

They want to give billions to corportations but not a crumb to the poor.

They want a strong military to kill every brown person in the world if they forget their place.

They want nice roads, airports and hospitals.

They want bridges that don't fall down.

They can't build prisons fast enough.

And yet they don't want to pay one cent in taxes.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

Then you'll be voting for Obama I take it.

Yep I am, Im not rich not like all the GFY millionaires. Also I like working in the adult industry, we get more conservative supreme court justices kiss that good bye. Also People forget after Bush 1 the country was in a mess and a democratic came in and the country boomed. We need another Democratic to clean up the mess.

Peaches · 06-13-2008, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

What fallout? With all the money the rich get to keep now, the economy is in the toilet. I was listening to a story about a guy in IT , cant get a job went on 75 interviews in one year and is now going to work as a driving instructor. He is a degreed professional.The country is in the shitter for the middle class and we have most billionaires. Trickle down doesnt work.

Dude, look around at this business alone and see how many people who make 7 figures a year have left this country. And that just THIS INDUSTRY. And no, they didn't do it because of the porn laws, they did it because of the tax situation. Look at how many of the major adult companies aren't registered in the US.

Are times tough for IT guys? Yep - one of the biggest reasons is because they were making great money so more and more got degrees. More people for the same number of jobs and guess what? Oh, now I bet you're going to pull the "outsourcing card". See my first paragraph - companies are leaving the US.

fsudirectory · 06-13-2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

That kind of money doesn't go far if you live in NY or other major cities. A 12% increase for this group could very well cause them to close up their business operations, or stop them from expanding their business.

Um... i said $12 just like the independent accounting of Obamas proposed tax plan posted above on the first page I believe that showed the average actual dollar amount, not percentages. Because if i had a 1000% decrease in my taxes from work this year making around 50-60k id be ECSTATIC!

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Dude, look around at this business alone and see how many people who make 7 figures a year have left this country. And that just THIS INDUSTRY. And no, they didn't do it because of the porn laws, they did it because of the tax situation. Look at how many of the major adult companies aren't registered in the US.

Are times tough for IT guys? Yep - one of the biggest reasons is because they were making great money so more and more got degrees. More people for the same number of jobs and guess what? Oh, now I bet you're going to pull the "outsourcing card". See my first paragraph - companies are leaving the US.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

want to try again?

Socks · 06-13-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

That kind of money doesn't go far if you live in NY or other major cities. A 12% increase for this group could very well cause them to close up their business operations, or stop them from expanding their business.

$12, not 12%.

Pleasurepays · 06-13-2008, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Dude, look around at this business alone and see how many people who make 7 figures a year have left this country. And that just THIS INDUSTRY. And no, they didn't do it because of the porn laws, they did it because of the tax situation. Look at how many of the major adult companies aren't registered in the US.

Are times tough for IT guys? Yep - one of the biggest reasons is because they were making great money so more and more got degrees. More people for the same number of jobs and guess what? Oh, now I bet you're going to pull the "outsourcing card". See my first paragraph - companies are leaving the US.

whats the point? the only response people are left with is "see, they're just greedy" and the only plan of action can be to tell everyone you are going to somehow create legislation to fuck with a free market, rather than let it correct and thrive.

"you're a victim" is the only product we sell in this country these days.

if i hear about one more kids sports game where no one keeps scores so feelings don't get hurt... i'm joining the fucking taliban... at least they know what they want and what tey stand for.

Drake · 06-13-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_b...0310290853.asp

The only problem with this analysis is that it is historically inaccurate. Reagan may have resisted calls for tax increases, but he ultimately supported them. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

This is why I don't have a fix on economics yet. There is too much conflicting information I have yet to weed through. Some will say there was tremendous growth under Reagan because he cut taxes. Another person will say he increased taxes basically every year he was in office. If he increased taxes and their was tremendous growth, what does that say about the affect of taxes on economic growth.

Anybody care to address Tony's post?

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Yep I am, Im not rich not like all the GFY millionaires. Also I like working in the adult industry, we get more conservative supreme court justices kiss that good bye. Also People forget after Bush 1 the country was in a mess and a democratic came in and the country boomed. We need another Democratic to clean up the mess.

I think my buddy mojo said it best on a similar thread over on JBM today, so I'll let his words educate a few here on just what that negative "economic fallout" I mentioned earlier might entail...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo

The major thng you're missing, with far greater implications, is he's going to remove the cap on social security contributions.

Right now we pay about 7% of your income up to about $100k. And if you're self employed you pay the employers share as well, so you actually are paying about 13.5%.

Obama's plan is to remove all pretence of social security being "contributions" for your own retirement and simply make it a massive tax where the people who earn bigger incomes pay for the retirements of everyone else.

So, if he gets elected and you want to calculate your future tax rate, take 14% off the top, then take 38% of whats left (thats what the top rate will be reverting to, and the Dem congress has already enacted it for 2011), then take a few % for medicaid, then take your state income tax rate.

In NJ I'll be paying 64% of my income in taxes. Think that will make all the haters happy? I bet not.

Meanwhile half of all Americans pay 0%. The half that vote for Obama.

If you work for yourself, or you have a good job, you'd better get a pen and paper and see what the cold hard fact of his tax increases will cost you over a year.

People, get a clue. Gouging the rich in order to "fix" everything and make all your woes magically go away is not the answer.

And Peaches, good post, good points.

baddog · 06-13-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

You are clearly are very pro-republican and probably wouldn't ever vote democrat.

And you clearly don't have a clue.

GatorB · 06-13-2008, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Who Pays the Most Income Tax?
Higher income earners pay the most, Treasury says

WOW I didn't know that income tax was the ONLY tax paid by people.

Why are some of you fuckers feeling so sorry for the rich? They sure as fuck don't give a shit about you?

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

whats the point? the only response people are left with is "see, they're just greedy" and the only plan of action can be to tell everyone you are going to somehow create legislation to fuck with a free market, rather than let it correct and thrive.

"you're a victim" is the only product we sell in this country these days.

if i hear about one more kids sports game where no one keeps scores so feelings don't get hurt... i'm joining the fucking taliban... at least they know what they want and what tey stand for.

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

one more time,you guys just hate facts. Reagan taxed the shit out of this country and that's ignored. The pundits have taught people well.

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

This is why I don't have a fix on economics yet. There is too much conflicting information I have yet to weed through. Some will say there was tremendous growth under Reagan because he cut taxes. Another person will say he increased taxes basically every year he was in office. If he increased taxes and their was tremendous growth, what does that say about the affect of taxes on economic growth.

Anybody care to address Tony's post?

That's from the national review not some liberal publication

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adult Lounge - Brad

So if you know that they are spending more than they are making and that this is the real problem then why are we talking about taxes?

Taxes were the purpose of this thread. ie: Obama wants payroll tax on incomes above $250,000

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

I think my buddy mojo said it best on a similar thread over on JBM today, so I'll let his words educate a few here on just what that negative "economic fallout" I mentioned earlier might entail...

People, get a clue. Gouging the rich in order to "fix" everything and make all your woes magically go away is not the answer.

And Peaches, good post, good points.

If your buddy is going to be paying 64 percent he should fire his accountant.

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Why are some of you fuckers feeling so sorry for the rich? They sure as fuck don't give a shit about you?

Maybe because some posting here are rich. Ever think of that?

And dude, what's with your avatars lately, are you a child?

CDSmith · 06-13-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

If your buddy is going to be paying 64 percent he should fire his accountant.

Either that or one of you is in for a rude awakening in '09, possibly '10.

fsudirectory · 06-13-2008, 02:04 PM

When everyone has more money... theres more to spend. But the only way for everyone to have more money is to have it distributed decently.

If there arent programs in place to help the poor, which have a much tougher time advancing in this world, then they will resort to stealing from you, the guy with a 2.8 Mil /yr income (im sure a ton of you on this board fall into this category).

This country is based on being UNITED and sometimes that means helping the disenfranchised.

And for the non-recession people.... The government gave out almost $600/person last month. Of course spending was up! People in this country spend like the republicans, if you got $1, its going to be spent on something, worthwhile or not.

BTW How are everyones SALES this month. Im sure they are BOOMING in this AMAZING economy.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

Opps... Sorry - MY BAD!!!!

It took until almost 2006 for him to just reach the levels of tax revenue that we had when he took office. There was a tax cut in 2001 that you failed to mark on your chart as well. You also don't mention the Homeland Reinvestment Act which signifigantly played a role in the revenue growth in 2005. FICA has also gone up.

Now go through Reagan and Kennedy and show me the tax revenue increases. Most economists believe that not cutting the taxes would have meant much more tax revenues. The same goes for Bush. The Laffer Curve has almost completely been debunked, even by the people who promoted it. They just felt it was a way to sell the lowering of taxes on the rich.

Another thing you fail to mention is that we are spending a ton of government money within the economy. When the government spends billions on U.S. companies, it'll certainly increase growth and tax revenues, but it's coming from within. It would be akin to setting up two companies and selling each other a billion dollar in products. Both companies would have a billion dollars in revenue, but neither would have a profit. It's just cooking the books and doesn't account for any true progress. Look at the shape our economy is in right now, unemployment is skyrocketing, GDP has slowed, gas is insane, real incomes are down, and the market has anally raped me for the last month.

And this isn't to say I'm against tax cuts. I think they were needed. I think the tax system is still oppressive to those who are succesful. I think the rich pay way too much. But cutting taxes while increasing spending is retarded. We've put a burden on our country that will last for decades (think of the recent Medicare bills that will hurt us for a long time). Cut the spending first, then cut the taxes.

06-13-2008, 02:11 PM

Buffet was parsing his words like a politician.

Wealthy people do not earn their money through income like the rest of us, they make it through capital gains. Low capital gains taxes encourage wealthy people to invest in companies like google, or into medical companies, etc...

We all benefit from this investment - wealthy people take risks with their money and are rewarded, and the rest of us get to surf for free porn, and pop viagra!

What a country!!!

WhiplashDug · 06-13-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

http://www.cbpp.org/10-16-03tax.htm

want to try again?

There is NOTHING like UNBIASED information:

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP and the other two Democracy Alliance-sponsored think tanks attended the May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance at the Barton Creek Resort near Austin, Texas. Their role was to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."

slapass · 06-13-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike33

I applaud Buffet. This makes no sense.

It is BS, he is comparing apples to oranges. The vast majority of his income is dividend or long term capital gains. BOTH of which he has used his vast resources to reduce the taxes on. I love the guy but this argument of his is just to be self serving.

Also he is including payroll tax and I am not sure but I can be pretty sure he is excluding or ignoring the deductions that a person in her income bracket would normally have. Does she own a home etc? So it is a higher %. He does not qualify for these deductions at all.

pocketkangaroo · 06-13-2008, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaches

Dude, look around at this business alone and see how many people who make 7 figures a year have left this country. And that just THIS INDUSTRY. And no, they didn't do it because of the porn laws, they did it because of the tax situation. Look at how many of the major adult companies aren't registered in the US.

Are times tough for IT guys? Yep - one of the biggest reasons is because they were making great money so more and more got degrees. More people for the same number of jobs and guess what? Oh, now I bet you're going to pull the "outsourcing card". See my first paragraph - companies are leaving the US.

You really don't think they are leaving because it's cheaper to hire labor overseas? I understand your tax argument and agree that some have left for that reason.

But lets not kid ourselves, this is becoming a global economy and the world has flattened. The IT guy is having trouble because there are a shitload of new programmers being trained daily in Pakistan, India, Philippines, and other countries. Guys who have the same IT knowledge as a guy in the U.S. will charge 1/5th the price. I have two developers full time from Pakistan. They both make $20,000 a year. They are phenomenal. I couldn't get one for what I'm paying for two of them.

And as for tax rates, we are high in some areas, but other countries like Canada are just as high (if not higher).

tony286 · 06-13-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiplashDug

There is NOTHING like UNBIASED information:

According to New York Times reporter Matt Bai, CBPP is one of three left wing think tanks funded by the Democracy Alliance. The other two are the Center for American Progress and the Economic Policy Institute. According to Bai's account, representatives of CBPP and the other two Democracy Alliance-sponsored think tanks attended the May 2006 meeting of the Democracy Alliance at the Barton Creek Resort near Austin, Texas. Their role was to "talk about the agendas they were busy crafting that would catapult Democratic politics into the economic future."

So the Treasury Department lied? Are you that closed minded?

06-13-2008, 01:21 PM	#56
WhiplashDug ICS Graphics Dude Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SACTO Posts: 3,438	http://www.heritage.org/Research/Tax...table_3_lg.gif __________________ Was a graphics master for Lensman @ Adult.com but now... I can't tell ya cause it aint top secret. ........... *DOUGRIDLEYDESIGNS* [email protected] ICQ: 303-498-056 skype: whiplashdug

06-13-2008, 01:25 PM	#59
WhiplashDug ICS Graphics Dude Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SACTO Posts: 3,438	__________________ Was a graphics master for Lensman @ Adult.com but now... I can't tell ya cause it aint top secret. ........... *DOUGRIDLEYDESIGNS* [email protected] ICQ: 303-498-056 skype: whiplashdug

06-13-2008, 01:34 PM	#70
Brad Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 2,510	Ok. I think I see where Doug has gone wrong. He assume economic growth pays public debts. It doesn't, end of story. Look at gas prices, the cost of the war, cost of everything has skyrocketed. Has your republican president every addressed this? Does he care? No because his father is rich and Jr. acts like an entitled little bitch. The exact type of person you would hate if you knew in the real world. __________________ Affiliate Manager/Media Buyer ICQ 376 978 529 Skype: bradleyjwscott [email protected] Last edited by Brad; 06-13-2008 at 01:37 PM..

06-13-2008, 01:42 PM	#77
Corona Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Third mall from the sun Posts: 2,185	Fucking Republicans kill me. They want to give billions to corportations but not a crumb to the poor. They want a strong military to kill every brown person in the world if they forget their place. They want nice roads, airports and hospitals. They want bridges that don't fall down. They can't build prisons fast enough. And yet they don't want to pay one cent in taxes. __________________ I was looking for a job, and then I found a job And heaven knows I'm miserable now

06-13-2008, 01:18 PM	#53
fsudirectory Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 216	Well how about this. Those people that make over 2.8 million a year, something like .1% of the entire country, they may create more jobs, but thats through their COMPANIES. They don't personally create them unless you mean a bunch of underpaid staff to clean their houses and cook for them. The money they save from taxes doesnt affect ANYTHING to do with job creation or innovation. Further more, if you wanted to make a legit case for not taxing the SUPER wealthy to that extent, then maybe there should be a law that they must spend that 700K+ tax increase on AMERICAN goods and in AMERICAN stores, instead of buying FOREIGN Cars, Boats, and Vacations. It would be nice if the super wealthy actually did those things, but the argument is null when athletes and businessmen alike are driving a Bentley or a Maybach. AND if your Making 250k-600k, please tell me you cannot afford the estimated $12 increase in your taxes. LMAO.

06-13-2008, 01:23 PM	#57
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	People should read the book What ever happened to Kansas? Doug is the perfect example how the right has gotten people like Doug to vote against their own best interests. Doug is screaming against this and I highly doubt Playboy pays him 250k a year. We go to war with Iran someone is going to have to pay, no matter how is going to become president taxes are going up. We can use the Chinese credit card forever. Also they love to scream like Baddog about democratic s welfare state.Well the largest tax increases ever during peacetime were during Reagan. Also during Clinton taxes were higher and we had a surplus and people made lots and lots of money imagine that and gas was 69 cents a gallon. lol

06-13-2008, 01:24 PM	#58
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	how many times does this fucking nation of idiots have to relearn the lesson that you can't punish success as a means to fix social problems?

06-13-2008, 01:30 PM	#64
commonsense So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,790	Spending LESS is the only real answer.

06-13-2008, 01:36 PM	#71
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	people are dumb and getting dumber everyday. I have totally given up on humanity. For the 10,000,000,000th time, some jackass will come to power on the platform that life is unfair and he can fix it for the lowest common denominator. and for the 10,000,000,000th time, all those idiots who have no concept the basic fundamentals of macro economics, much less how a government actually functions and bills are passed, are going to be sorely dissapointed. but who gives a fuck right? blindly line up behind a a guy who's 1/2 dead already, a vile cunt, or a racist idiot who says nothing but "change" and "hope" - its much easier than critical thinking. we are once again directing our attention away from the worship of success to promoting the "everyones a victim" mentality full time.... and we suffer for it as a nation. those two ideas can't exist together. either you believe in people and their potential to overcome and achieve or you don't. we have no direction as a nation. no sense of self identity as a nation. we have no collective values other than the same old stupid rhetoric of 300 years ago that people chant like retarded monkeys without even stopping to think about what they are saying, what it means or how this nation was even formed and grew to what is today. its totally unreal that the USA is becoming a nation of losers with their hands out waiting for someone to fix their lives for them. fuck you people. i'm leaving. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-g...t/reag***t.htm "The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is di sproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago."

06-13-2008, 02:04 PM	#94
fsudirectory Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 216	When everyone has more money... theres more to spend. But the only way for everyone to have more money is to have it distributed decently. If there arent programs in place to help the poor, which have a much tougher time advancing in this world, then they will resort to stealing from you, the guy with a 2.8 Mil /yr income (im sure a ton of you on this board fall into this category). This country is based on being UNITED and sometimes that means helping the disenfranchised. And for the non-recession people.... The government gave out almost $600/person last month. Of course spending was up! People in this country spend like the republicans, if you got $1, its going to be spent on something, worthwhile or not. BTW How are everyones SALES this month. Im sure they are BOOMING in this AMAZING economy.

06-13-2008, 02:11 PM	#96
Vexes Guest Posts: n/a	Buffet was parsing his words like a politician. Wealthy people do not earn their money through income like the rest of us, they make it through capital gains. Low capital gains taxes encourage wealthy people to invest in companies like google, or into medical companies, etc... We all benefit from this investment - wealthy people take risks with their money and are rewarded, and the rest of us get to surf for free porn, and pop viagra! What a country!!!