but but but, obama said the Bush tax cuts where for the evil rich!

[Sunny Day]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

One person has 100 dollars and gives you 50 dollars
Another person has 1 million dollars and gives you 50 dollars

Which person is in more financial crisis by the giving of 50 dollars? (who gave "more"?)

50% of your assets or .0005% of your assets or income. Who is of worse??

Oh Yeah! The rich guy. Had to skip one cigar.

I'm still waiting for the child 12clicks to call you "son" as he does anyone with more sense than him.

[Sunny Day]

Walmart the company that pays it's employees so little they have to collect food stamps, products made in China instead of the USA and gets tax breaks and cash to build new stores to destroy local businesses is owned by several of the richest people in the world.
All because of tax breaks for the rich.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. "Anatole France"

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by Sly

I disagree.

I have $10 million. You have $1 million.

I pay 10%. You pay 20%.

I pay $1 million. You pay $200,000.

I have never learned of any math in existence where $200,000 is "more" than $1 million. The pool of money that paid money came from has no bearing on whether or not $1 million is more than $200,000.

$1 million is more than $200,000, fact.

You're equating voluime of dollars with the word more of course. I'm purposefully playing with that word to make a point that "more" is disputable in how it's applied to the entire debate. I'm not disputing which is a bigger resulting number.

Nobody disputes that a richer person pays a higher volume of dollars(often called more) in taxes. They also pay a lesser percentage rate (shall we say they pay less?).

They pay more while paying less. It's accurate.

I also made a point that the word more could be used to describe who sacrifices more when giving the exact same amount of money.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

fact is: that multi millionaires use their tax cuts to create jobs is a myth.

not that they dont create jobs at all, they just dont create more cause they just saved 1 or 2 million USD in taxes. Cause a reasonable company owner only creates jobs that he needs, not just for fun cause he has an extra million to spend

Which could only be said by a guy who has never hired anyone. I'd love to hire another person or two right now. We need a marketer and another tech. Just last night I wrote a check that would cover six months salary for either, but guess who I wrote the check too?

In the real world, in the world of actual business, real businesses DO lay people off if they're going to be a million short of making payroll and the DO hire people when they have the cash to do so. The funny thing is you're posting this in a forum where half of us actually employ people, where we've RECENTLY had to lay people off partly to pay that extra million or two in taxes you're talking about. It's kind of like you went to the NFL owner's meeting and tried to tell them football is all about intimidation. Your readers, who actually hire people, know what they're doing so it highlights the ridiculousness of how clueless you are. Go say that stuff in a stoner forum and half the people might believe you. In a business forum we're all just laughing at you.

[Sunny Day]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/0...ow-About-Taxes

Reagan cut taxes for the rich & the deficit tripled.

[Houdini]

Originally Posted by Sunny Day

Walmart the company that pays it's employees so little they have to collect food stamps, products made in China instead of the USA and gets tax breaks and cash to build new stores to destroy local businesses is owned by several of the richest people in the world.
All because of tax breaks for the rich.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. "Anatole France"

So you're for raising corporate taxes too? You know that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world? I think you're confused. In fact, I know you are.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

One person has 100 dollars and gives you 50 dollars
Another person has 1 million dollars and gives you 50 dollars

Which person is in more financial crisis by the giving of 50 dollars? (who gave "more"?)

So the rich guy should pay $1 mil for the same thing you pay $1 thousand for simply because you can't succeed in life?

That only makes sense to the unsuccessful.

Do the successful pay more for a loaf of bread than you do?

I bet in your deluded world they should.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by raymor

Which could only be said by a guy who has never hired anyone. I'd love to hire another person or two right now. We need a marketer and another tech. Just last night I wrote a check that would cover six months salary for either, but guess who I wrote the check too?

In the real world, in the world of actual business, real businesses DO lay people off if they're going to be a million short of making payroll and the DO hire people when they have the cash to do so. The funny thing is you're posting this in a forum where half of us actually employ people, where we've RECENTLY had to lay people off partly to pay that extra million or two in taxes you're talking about. It's kind of like you went to the NFL owner's meeting and tried to tell them football is all about intimidation. Your readers, who actually hire people, know what they're doing so it highlights the ridiculousness of how clueless you are. Go say that stuff in a stoner forum and half the people might believe you. In a business forum we're all just laughing at you.

laugh at your clients as much as you want...

but over the last 10 years i have hired and layed off about 20-25 people - in my own companies (!) and as employee being responsible for my own department.

and i never hired someone just cause i could afford it but didnt need him.

what you obviously missed in my post is that i didnt speak about small businesses, i said "multi millionaires"

if someone makes 20 million profit, he will not create a single job more or less if he pays 25% or 30% tax. period. and he surely can afford to pay 30%.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

That only makes sense to the unsuccessful.

Do the successful pay more for a loaf of bread than you do?

I bet in your deluded world they should.

The lazy don't pay for bread, you buy their bread. It's called EBT. Yes, in his world not only does that make sense, but you're evil for working to buy the lazy guy's bread.

[Sunny Day]

Originally Posted by Houdini

So you're for raising corporate taxes too? You know that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world? I think you're confused. In fact, I know you are.

Rates have nothing to do with what you pay.

You mean there's a better place for Bank America than the One Billion Dollar tax refund they got? Or GE paying zero taxes?

I got a refund this year. Interesting as I had $0 withholding. Had to do with I made sure my S-Corp had a big loss. So my income tax was zero. But I qualified for a 50% rebate of my property tax, so I ended up getting a nice check.

RATES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU PAY!!!

[Tom_PM]

The dead horse is well beaten in here.

[epitome]

So 60% of the tax cuts benefitted 99% of taxpayers and a whopping 40% went to benefit 1%?

Was my comprehension of that one guys statement wrong?

[Sunny Day]

Originally Posted by raymor

The lazy don't pay for bread, you buy their bread. It's called EBT. Yes, in his world not only does that make sense, but you're evil for working to buy the lazy guy's bread.

It was written in a time of no welfare. The price of bread should be the same for all. But if there are no jobs, how do you work to buy bread? When millions of good jobs went to China. Jobs that supported our economy. Not Min wage jobs, that don't support the America Dream of a family, a house a car?

[Sunny Day]

Originally Posted by epitome

So 60% of the tax cuts benefitted 99% of taxpayers and a whopping 40% went to benefit 1%?

Was my comprehension of that one guys statement wrong?

The 99% made a few billion total so they saved a few million
The 1% made almost a trillion so they save a few billion

Now work that out per person

[baddog]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I'll await any of your links where planned parenthood funds have been cut in an effort to reduce the deficit.

Sorry Ron, but it is pretty well documented that the GOP has been trying to discontinue funding for Planned Parenthood, using the excuse that it costs $300 million of taxpayer money.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

laugh at your clients as much as you want...

I promise not to laugh at mine any more than you laugh at yours.

but over the last 10 years i have hired and layed off about 20-25 people - in my own companies (!) and as employee being responsible for my own department.

and i never hired someone just cause i could afford it but didnt need him.

what you obviously missed in my post is that i didnt speak about small businesses, i said "multi millionaires"

if someone makes 20 million profit, he will not create a single job more or less if he pays 25% or 30% tax. period. and he surely can afford to pay 30%.

Have you ever hired people you can't pay? And kept them? Have you ever WANTED to hire someone, but the budget didn't allow for it? I sure have. We need more people to handle clients better, which you probably know if you are one. If you had an extra couple million in the budget each year, you would have hired more, right?

There's this thing called the velocity of money. Let's say you get Clonebox on a thousand servers, so we get $20,000 per month. If you tax that $20,000 at 40%, the government gets $8,000. On the other hand, if you tax it at 25%, the government gets $5,00 and we hire a guy who pays $1000 in taxes, so the government gets $6,000 and someone gets a job. He spends his paycheck someone, which pays someone else's paycheck, that's taxed and the government ends up with the same amount of money.

The difference is that eith a lower ra yt e sunstone gets a job PLUS you get better service, you tell people how great Clonebox is, and more money moves around being taxrd a little bit at each step. It's all about keeping money moving. With people buying, selling and hiring people are happy and the government gets to keep taxing that money every time it changes hands. If the government takes half the money to start with, it's not in the economy, being used to buy, sell, hire, and TAX.

In the 1990s money was moving around quickly, people were buying, selling, investing, hiring, building, etc. There wasn't a bunch of brand new money printed - the money was out in the economy moving from person to person. Removing money from.the flow is what kills an economy, as does scaring people into holding on to their money by passing tax laws a few months at a time and such rather than passing an annual budget.

[Barry-xlovecam]

A flat tax and a VAT tax seem inevitable in the USA ...
Look toward real estate and financial transactions being taxable too.
The most substantive spending cuts could be made in military funding and federal funding to state and local projects.

Picking on welfare cheats is just saying "hey look at the monkey!"

Without social spending we would have to do like China -- that would be an improvement?

Wait 'till there is a 18% VAT tax on everything you buy like there is in Europe -- then you will really have something to bitch about.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by raymor

I promise not to laugh at mine any more than you laugh at yours.



Have you ever hired people you can't pay? And kept them? Have you ever WANTED to hire someone, but the budget didn't allow for it? I sure have. We need more people to handle clients better, which you probably know if you are one. If you had an extra couple million in the budget each year, you would have hired more, right?

There's this thing called the velocity of money. Let's say you get Clonebox on a thousand servers, so we get $20,000 per month. If you tax that $20,000 at 40%, the government gets $8,000. On the other hand, if you tax it at 25%, the government gets $5,00 and we hire a guy who pays $1000 in taxes, so the government gets $6,000 and someone gets a job. He spends his paycheck someone, which pays someone else's paycheck, that's taxed and the government ends up with the same amount of money.

The difference is that eith a lower ra yt e sunstone gets a job PLUS you get better service, you tell people how great Clonebox is, and more money moves around being taxrd a little bit at each step. It's all about keeping money moving. With people buying, selling and hiring people are happy and the government gets to keep taxing that money every time it changes hands. If the government takes half the money to start with, it's not in the economy, being used to buy, sell, hire, and TAX.

In the 1990s money was moving around quickly, people were buying, selling, investing, hiring, building, etc. There wasn't a bunch of brand new money printed - the money was out in the economy moving from person to person. Removing money from.the flow is what kills an economy, as does scaring people into holding on to their money by passing tax laws a few months at a time and such rather than passing an annual budget.

oh, i am in the position right now that i would need to hire someone and i am not sure if i can afford it in the long run or not - but thats also a reason why i only employ freelancers nowadays.

but once again, you are not a good example. i totally agree with you. i also think that tax rates for small businesses could (should) be lower, it's not that i get aroused by paying taxes. and yes, i have also not invested in new equipment or employees in the past because i had to pay taxes. it sucks.

i am ONLY talking about people and companies who make profits (or income) of millions a year.

or can we at least agree that a Goldman Sachs CEO doesnt create one additional job whether he pays 25% or 30% income tax on HIS personal income of 20 million usd per year?

thats what i am talking about.

wasn't it Buffett that suggested a minimum of 30% for people like him? whats wrong with that?

[epitome]

After previous wars we had highest tax rates of 80-90% (I believe it was suggested by Mellon, same as suggested now by Buffet, but lower).

We are out of one war and still in another with historically low tax rates.

History is just repeating itself. Taxes must be raised.

[Tom_PM]

Whats wrong with the Buffet rule? Allow me..

The rich already pay more in taxes than everyone else combined!

Thats the argument. That "more" word as it applies to volume of dollars. Thats the argument about what's wrong with it.. essentially symantics.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by seeandsee

I was thinking Obama will change america, i see now president is nothing, a clown, he cant do shit

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by epitome

So 60% of the tax cuts benefitted 99% of taxpayers and a whopping 40% went to benefit 1%?

Was my comprehension of that one guys statement wrong?

Yes, your comprehension was wrong. Read it again

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Whats wrong with the Buffet rule? Allow me..

The rich already pay more in taxes than everyone else combined!

Thats the argument. That "more" word as it applies to volume of dollars. Thats the argument about what's wrong with it.. essentially symantics.

No, your silly semantics equating your $2000.00 token payment to successful peoples' $1,000,000+ payment is what's wrong.
Your entire way of life is ALREADY paid for by the successful but sehow that's not good enough for you. You want us to pay for more.
It's gutless and pathetic. How about expecting as much from yourself as you do from your betters?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by epitome

After previous wars we had highest tax rates of 80-90% (I believe it was suggested by Mellon, same as suggested now by Buffet, but lower).

We are out of one war and still in another with historically low tax rates.

History is just repeating itself. Taxes must be raised.

Yes, they must be raised on the leeches who currently pay ZERO income tax.

[raymor]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

oh, i am in the position right now that i would need to hire someone and i am not sure if i can afford it in the long run or not

Okay, so you are currently experiencing the fact that high tax rates and complex yax schemes keep small businesses from hiring. I'm sure you're also aware that nearly everyone making over a million dollars a year is a small business owner. There arr only a few thousand mega-corps with CEOs making millions.



i

or can we at least agree that a Goldman Sachs CEO doesnt create one additional job whether he pays 25% or 30% income tax on HIS personal income of 20 million usd per year?

thats what i am talking about.

Do basically you're taking about the Fortune 500 CEOs, right? 500 CEOs increasef half a million each is $250 MILLION in revenue. Balance that against probably $500 TRILLION in small business casualties that get hit by the "tax the millionaires" bill. I don't know, I don't think gaining millions by smashing trillions is a answer move.

[$5 submissions]

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

laugh at your clients as much as you want...

but over the last 10 years i have hired and layed off about 20-25 people - in my own companies (!) and as employee being responsible for my own department.

and i never hired someone just cause i could afford it but didnt need him.

what you obviously missed in my post is that i didnt speak about small businesses, i said "multi millionaires"

if someone makes 20 million profit, he will not create a single job more or less if he pays 25% or 30% tax. period. and he surely can afford to pay 30%.

If someone MADE 20 million, it's his. Stop trying to rationalize taking what you DIDN'T earn and start trying to EARN it yourself.

[Tom_PM]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

No, your silly semantics equating your $2000.00 token payment to successful peoples' $1,000,000+ payment is what's wrong.
Your entire way of life is ALREADY paid for by the successful but sehow that's not good enough for you. You want us to pay for more.
It's gutless and pathetic. How about expecting as much from yourself as you do from your betters?

Raw $ is a useless way to discuss tax rates, but I know you know that and are just having fun.

[directfiesta]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

No, your silly semantics equating your $2000.00 token payment to successful peoples' $1,000,000+ payment is what's wrong.
Your entire way of life is ALREADY paid for by the successful but sehow that's not good enough for you. You want us to pay for more.
It's gutless and pathetic. How about expecting as much from yourself as you do from your betters?

us ... like including you ....

you live in fantasy land ....

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by directfiesta

us ... like including you ....

you live in fantasy land ....

Why do life's losers always imagine everyone else failed to?

Here's a clue son, we didn't.

[smutnut]

I never once heard Obama use the word "evil" about anything LOL

Bush did though. A FUCKING LOT!

[raymor]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Raw $ is a useless way to discuss tax rates, but I know you know that and are just having fun.

That's very, very telling. It gives insight into your core beliefs about what taxes and government are for. If the purpose of taxes is to fund the government, dollars is EXACTLY what matters. It's dollars that the government spends to operate.

On the other hand, if the purpose of taxes is to punish success and subsidize indifference, then dollars don't matter, percentages do.

Stop for a second and think about your motives for a second. Are you thinking in terms of financing the government (dollars) or are you unknowingly influenced by that universal human trait "envy", thinking about what percentage would hurt the person who is more successful than yourself?

I have to check my motives from time to time. Sometimes I make up noble motives that hide my true, underlying motive.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Raw $ is a useless way to discuss tax rates, but I know you know that and are just having fun.

Funny how the unsuccessful talk about raw dollars except when trying to explain how they deserve someone else's

[Traffic Guru]

Someone forgot to take his meds and now seeking attention on da internets.
Why do people still fall for this schizophrenic ego maniac? He didn't start topic for sake of argument. Can't you see, washed out wannabe wants some attention and compliments but none given. So he goes on praising himself in third person. "We did" - no you didn't washed out rag. How is your mega affiliate program doing these days? Still getting 12 clicks like it was 5 years ago?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by Traffic Guru

Someone forgot to take his meds and now seeking attention on da internets.
Why do people still fall for this schizophrenic ego maniac? He didn't start topic for sake of argument. Can't you see, washed out wannabe wants some attention and compliments but none given. So he goes on praising himself in third person. "We did" - no you didn't washed out rag. How is your mega affiliate program doing these days? Still getting 12 clicks like it was 5 years ago?

Look who's home from the lunch shift!
Any fry-0-lator burns today, sparky?

[Traffic Guru]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Look who's home from the lunch shift!
Any fry-0-lator burns today, sparky?

No incidents today, rooftop supervisor. Didn't roll out bed till noon.
How was your day successful businessmen? I see the sig is gone and so as you program I assume. What happened there hot shot?
Back to you prior successful career supervising shingles and nail guns?

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by Traffic Guru

Someone forgot to take his meds and now seeking attention on da internets.
Why do people still fall for this schizophrenic ego maniac? He didn't start topic for sake of argument. Can't you see, washed out wannabe wants some attention and compliments but none given. So he goes on praising himself in third person. "We did" - no you didn't washed out rag. How is your mega affiliate program doing these days? Still getting 12 clicks like it was 5 years ago?

Way to go douchebag.

Every so often I agree with 12Clicks. This thread I agree.

[Bryan G]

I was waiting for the fry-o-later dig!! Lmao!!

[epitome]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Yes, they must be raised on the leeches who currently pay ZERO income tax.

Everybody needs them raised. Spending needs to be cut, too. It sucks, but it what needs to be done. It's useless though if they don't cut spending as well.

What will probably end up happening is taxes will be raised and spending will, too.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by KillerK

Way to go douchebag.

Every so often I agree with 12Clicks. This thread I agree.

Yeah, some fake nick I had banned returning with his pretend guru status.

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by epitome

Everybody needs them raised. Spending needs to be cut, too. It sucks, but it what needs to be done. It's useless though if they don't cut spending as well.

What will probably end up happening is taxes will be raised and spending will, too.

Exactly.

But with today's politicians you gotta cut spending first or it will never happen

[epitome]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

Yes, your comprehension was wrong. Read it again

Explain it to me then. I want to understand.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by epitome

Everybody needs them raised. Spending needs to be cut, too. It sucks, but it what needs to be done. It's useless though if they don't cut spending as well.

What will probably end up happening is taxes will be raised and spending will, too.

My concern is they waste so much already, why should I be giving them more money to waste?

Once Pandora is out-of-the-box, you cannot put it back. Taxes can go up and down, but spending very very rarely goes down. Organizations, groups, cities start getting money from tax increases and they never want to let that money go. Not only do they not want to let that money go, but it becomes a political nightmare because as mentioned above, Pandora is out-of-the-box.

What's this? We have 5 million extra dollars to create a medical center. Great!

Five years later, that money needs to be taken away.

The travesty! They are taking away our medical center! Write your politician! (Forgetting that the medical center was a one-time bonus from the get go.)

The recent healthcare bill debacle with doctors and Medicaid/Medicare was a good example of how this happens. Rates are supposed to go down but they never do because it becomes a political nightmare.

I agree that you can't pay debts without money. More money needs to come from somewhere. But until the spending and wasting is fully addressed, I don't want to give away any more money for them to waste. I have my own problems to deal with.

[Robbie]

The fact is that the tax cuts were for everybody.

And you bunch of dumbfucks are too busy arguing about Fox News to even address the fact that Obama's team of political strategists always try to paint the picture that Bush tax cuts were just for the wealthy.

NewsFlash: Most of the people in the U.S. don't pay any Federal Income tax. So of course they didn't get a "tax cut". lol

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by epitome

Explain it to me then. I want to understand.

Lower and middle class does not equal everyone except the 1%

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Sly

My concern is they waste so much already, why should I be giving them more money to waste?

That's what I think too. They bring in more money than I can even wrap my head around...and still manage to spend many times more.

It's the spending that's the problem in my opinion.

[Bryan G]

Originally Posted by Robbie

The fact is that the tax cuts were for everybody.

And you bunch of dumbfucks are too busy arguing about Fox News to even address the fact that Obama's team of political strategists always try to paint the picture that Bush tax cuts were just for the wealthy.

NewsFlash: Most of the people in the U.S. don't pay any Federal Income tax. So of course they didn't get a "tax cut". lol

How do they get away with not paying federal tax? I dunno I'm from Canada, here if you make more than 6k a year you're paying income tax.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

How do they get away with not paying federal tax? I dunno I'm from Canada, here if you make more than 6k a year you're paying income tax.

Wow. That's not how it works here in the U.S.

How much does a Canadian making only 6 thousand dollars a year pay in federal income tax? Here in the U.S. that would be way under poverty level.

Don't get me wrong...everybody has to file (legally). But at the end of the year....most don't pay taxes. They get refunded from the money taken out of their paycheck all year.

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Bryan G

How do they get away with not paying federal tax? I dunno I'm from Canada, here if you make more than 6k a year you're paying income tax.

Do you have a federal and "state" income tax or just federal?

[Sly]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Wow. That's not how it works here in the U.S.

How much does a Canadian making only 6 thousand dollars a year pay in federal income tax? Here in the U.S. that would be way under poverty level.

Don't get me wrong...everybody has to file (legally). But at the end of the year....most don't pay taxes. They get refunded from the money taken out of their paycheck all year.

They get refunded but how much do they get back?

I know how much I pay in. There is no possible way I would ever get all of that back, LOL. Sure would be nice!