Obama and Dems Want a 62% Top Tax Rate

[red states rule]

Now here is the perfect way to restore prosperity to the naton. Take the top tax rate to 62%

It is so simple. We have seen waht high taxes have done for the states of CA, NY, MI, and NY. So why not have the same results for the rest of the nation?

We have seen how well redistribution of wealth has worked in the past right :laugh2:




Media reports in recent weeks say that Senate Democrats are considering a 3% surtax on income over $1 million to raise federal revenues. This would come on top of the higher income tax rates that President Obama has already proposed through the cancellation of the Bush era tax-rate reductions.

If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Here's the math behind that depressing calculation. Today's top federal income tax rate is 35%. Almost all Democrats in Washington want to repeal the Bush tax cuts on those who make more than $250,000 and phase out certain deductions, so the effective income tax rate would rise to about 41.5%. The 3% millionaire surtax raises that rate to 44.5%.

But payroll taxes, which are income taxes on wages and salaries, must also be included in the equation. So we have to add about 2.5 percentage points for the payroll tax for Medicare (employee and employer share after business deductions), which was applied to all income without a ceiling in 1993 as part of the Clinton tax hike. I am including in this analysis the employer share of all payroll taxes because it is a direct tax on a worker's salary and most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee. That brings the tax rate to 47%.

Then last year, as part of the down payment for ObamaCare, Congress snuck in an extra 0.9% Medicare surtax on "high-income earners," meaning any individual earning more than $200,000 or couples earning more than $250,000. This brings the total tax rate to 47.9%.

But that's not all. Several weeks ago, Mr. Obama raised the possibility of eliminating the income ceiling on the Social Security tax, now capped at $106,800 of earnings a year. (Never mind that the program was designed to operate as an insurance system, with each individual's payment tied to the benefits paid out at retirement.) Subjecting all wage and salary income to Social Security taxes would add roughly 10.1 percentage points to the top tax rate. This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.

Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576343611464445594.html?m od=wsj_share_twitter

[maineman]

apples and oranges. The article mentions Reagan's top federal marginal rate of 28% The number 62%, however, is NOT the proposed top marginal federal tax rate. It is deceptive and inaccurate to compare them.

[fj1200]

apples and oranges. The article mentions Reagan's top federal marginal rate of 28% The number 62%, however, is NOT the proposed top marginal federal tax rate. It is deceptive and inaccurate to compare them.

You're right, more like apples and crabapples. They were comparing the top marginal rates which when you include all the Fed taxes that do not phase out it appears to be 62% according to Dem wish lists where after the Dem proposed ;) 28% rate under Reagan it was 28% (I think all payroll taxes did phase out back then). So when you add it all up it IS accurate to make the comparison. Sorry to break it to you.

[maineman]

You're right, more like apples and crabapples. They were comparing the top marginal rates which when you include all the Fed taxes that do not phase out it appears to be 62% according to Dem wish lists where after the Dem proposed ;) 28% rate under Reagan it was 28% (I think all payroll taxes did phase out back then). So when you add it all up it IS accurate to make the comparison. Sorry to break it to you.

44.5 is apples to apples

62 is apples to oranges

[fj1200]

44.5 is apples to apples

62 is apples to oranges

You might be correct if you ignore logic and reason. However the point is at what rate(s) is your last dollar earned being taxed?

[maineman]

You might be correct if you ignore logic and reason. However the point is at what rate(s) is your last dollar earned being taxed?
I am reasonable, logical AND correct.
Reagan's 28% did not include medicare payroll deductions and it certainly did not include state income tax.

apples to oranges.

[fj1200]

I am reasonable, logical AND correct.

Wrong on all counts, I'll throw in basic math as well based on the evidence.


Reagan's 28% did not include medicare payroll deductions and it certainly did not include state income tax.

apples to oranges.

The article didn't raise the issue of state taxes so your strawman fails too. They are making a top marginal rate comparison, all payroll taxes phased out back then which is why they aren't included. Why you're ignoring that I don't know... oh wait, I know why.

[maineman]

Wrong on all counts, I'll throw in basic math as well based on the evidence.



The article didn't raise the issue of state taxes so your strawman fails too.

oh really? learn to read. then get back to me. mmmmkay?

"Then we have to factor in state income taxes, which on average add after the deductions from the federal income tax roughly another four percentage points to the tax burden. So now on average we are at a tax rate of close to 62%."

[jimnyc]

apples and oranges. The article mentions Reagan's top federal marginal rate of 28% The number 62%, however, is NOT the proposed top marginal federal tax rate. It is deceptive and inaccurate to compare them.

So WHAT IS the tax rate and how does it compare to Reagan's 28%?

[maineman]

So WHAT IS the tax rate and how does it compare to Reagan's 28%?

well... first thing, the mere phrase "reagan's 28%" is a tad misleading. For the first year of ron's presidency, the top marginal tax rate was 69%, then for the next five years of his presidency, it was 50%, two years before he was done, the rate dropped to 38%, and in the very last year of his presidency, it dropped to 28%. Bush Sr. promptly raised it to 31% in his second year where it stayed for the remainder of his term. Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% where it stayed for all eight years of his presidency, and we all remember what a totally shitty time it was for our economy under THAT rate. Oh wait... the economy WAS fantastic under Clinton. My bad. Bush Jr. dropped it to 35% AND started the war in Iraq. The ONLY government in the history of modern man to wage a war and lower taxes simultaneously.

Today's democrats want to go back to Clinton's tax rates (39.6%) for those making over $250k and want to tack on an additional 3% for those making over a million. (42.6%).

[jimnyc]

So the highest tax rates in recent memory of crooks in government has been from democrats. SO not surprising. Fucking no good crooks think they are robin hood and the rest of us should pay for illegals and lazy fucks.

[maineman]

So the highest tax rates in recent memory of crooks in government has been from democrats. SO not surprising. Fucking no good crooks think they are robin hood and the rest of us should pay for illegals and lazy fucks.

the highest tax rates in my lifetime have been under Dwight David Eisenhower, a republican. 91%.

So... do you find THAT surprising?

and even if you say that Ike was not in recent memory, surely Ron Reagan was... and the highest tax rates in the past five presidents were under Ron... a republican.

[jimnyc]

and even if you say that Ike was not in recent memory, surely Ron Reagan was... and the highest tax rates in the past five presidents were under Ron... a republican.

Umm, I believe he lowered it as he went along and left more for the people to decide what to do with their own memory. Democraps want to take more and more of our money so that them dispshits can decide what to do with our money. No thanks, I'd rather decide myself what to do with the money I earn. Apparently the Chimpy government wants to decide for us.

[maineman]

Umm, I believe he lowered it as he went along and left more for the people to decide what to do with their own memory. Democraps want to take more and more of our money so that them dispshits can decide what to do with our money. No thanks, I'd rather decide myself what to do with the money I earn. Apparently the Chimpy government wants to decide for us.

I laid it all out for you in chronological order. The tax rate for the vast majority of his presidency was ten points higher than Clinton's. YOu seem to be OK with giving the government lots of your money as long as they are spending it on wars, and military hardware, I guess.

[jimnyc]

I laid it all out for you in chronological order. The tax rate for the vast majority of his presidency was ten points higher than Clinton's. YOu seem to be OK with giving the government lots of your money as long as they are spending it on wars, and military hardware, I guess.

I don't recall stating ANYWHERE that I was happy about giving money to the government at all. Can you show me where I wrote that? I'LL WAIT...

But I am talking about the here and now, and I'm not thrilled about chimpy wanting to take more than yesterday from me so that he can decide what to do with my money - which is likely all of the shitty democrat welfare programs. no thanks, chimpy

[maineman]

I don't recall stating ANYWHERE that I was happy about giving money to the government at all. Can you show me where I wrote that? I'LL WAIT...

But I am talking about the here and now, and I'm not thrilled about chimpy wanting to take more than yesterday from me so that he can decide what to do with my money - which is likely all of the shitty democrat welfare programs. no thanks, chimpy

I dunno... you seem to long for the good old days of Ron Reagan... I merely pointed out that he had the highest marginal tax rate of the last five presidents... and he is a demigod to most republicans.

and you don't like democrat welfare programs but apparently don't mind programs that benefit the military industrial complex. Personally, I'd rather feed people than build another nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I guess we're just different that way.

[jimnyc]

I dunno... you seem to long for the good old days of Ron Reagan... I merely pointed out that he had the highest marginal tax rate of the last five presidents... and he is a demigod to most republicans.

and you don't like democrat welfare programs but apparently don't mind programs that benefit the military industrial complex. Personally, I'd rather feed people than build another nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I guess we're just different that way.

Show me where i stated I longed for the Reagan days. I'LL FUCKING WAIT...

Maybe one of these days you'll stop being a shithead and stop putting words directly into my mouth.

If I wanted to help feed people I would do so with my money. I don't need a chimp to take it from me and do it for me.

[maineman]

Show me where i stated I longed for the Reagan days. I'LL FUCKING WAIT...

Maybe one of these days you'll stop being a shithead and stop putting words directly into my mouth.

If I wanted to help feed people I would do so with my money. I don't need a chimp to take it from me and do it for me.

I guess I assumed that you worshipped Ron like the originator of this thread.

If I assumed too much, please forgive me.

[fj1200]

oh really? learn to read. then get back to me. mmmmkay?

Good catch, I thought Red had thrown that in. That should be more of a footnote because some states (NY, CA, ?) go up to ~10% iirc.

Either way...

This takes the grand total tax rate on each additional dollar earned in America to about 58%.
we still have a score of fj: 4, MM 1. ;) as the new effective rate is more than double the final Reagan rate.

most economists agree that though employers are responsible for collecting this tax, it is ultimately borne by the employee.

[fj1200]

well... first thing, the mere phrase "reagan's 28%" is a tad misleading. For the first year of ron's presidency, the top marginal tax rate was 69%, then for the next five years of his presidency, it was 50%, two years before he was done, the rate dropped to 38%, and in the very last year of his presidency, it dropped to 28%. Bush Sr. promptly raised it to 31% in his second year where it stayed for the remainder of his term. Clinton raised the top rate to 39.6% where it stayed for all eight years of his presidency, and we all remember what a totally shitty time it was for our economy under THAT rate. Oh wait... the economy WAS fantastic under Clinton. My bad. Bush Jr. dropped it to 35% AND started the war in Iraq. The ONLY government in the history of modern man to wage a war and lower taxes simultaneously.

Now you're raising points not even valid for the comparison. Was Reagan elected supreme dictator with the power to determine tax rates on a whim? Please let me know if he did because last I knew he was only head of 1/3 of the Fed government. :rolleyes:

Clinton economy? I love it when the Republicans cut Cap Gain taxes and hold down spending. ;)


Today's democrats want to go back to Clinton's tax rates (39.6%) for those making over $250k and want to tack on an additional 3% for those making over a million. (42.6%).

Plus Medicare taxes... plus SS taxes... Don't be disingenuous now.


the highest tax rates in my lifetime have been under Dwight David Eisenhower, a republican. 91%.

So... do you find THAT surprising?

and even if you say that Ike was not in recent memory, surely Ron Reagan was... and the highest tax rates in the past five presidents were under Ron... a republican.

More disingenuousness there? Those Kennedy tax cuts were great weren't they? Too bad LBJ had to start hiking them back up. Wish we could have a Dem president like that. ;)

[maineman]

the new effective rate is more than double the final Reagan rate.

nice dodge. eight years of reagan marginal tax rates:

69, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 38, 28.

For eight years under Ronnie, the average marginal tax rate was 48% and republicans worship the ground he walked on. that's fuckin' funny.

[fj1200]

nice dodge. eight years of reagan marginal tax rates:

69, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 38, 28.

For eight years under Ronnie, the average marginal tax rate was 48% and republicans worship the ground he walked on. that's fuckin' funny.

No dodge, that's the comparison the article made. Why not use the rate he worked 8 years for rather than compromises he made along the way? Oh, I know why. :rolleyes:

I'll still take Ronny over Carter or BO. :laugh: Own that one. :laugh:

[maineman]

No dodge, that's the comparison the article made. Why not use the rate he worked 8 years for rather than compromises he made along the way? Oh, I know why. :rolleyes:

I'll still take Ronny over Carter or BO. :laugh: Own that one. :laugh:

yeah the article compared apples to oranges and you ate it up.

own that.

[fj1200]

yeah the article compared apples to oranges and you ate it up.

own that.

I will gladly, you refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.

[maineman]

I will gladly, you refuse to acknowledge the truth of it.


28% equates to 62%

where is the truth in that?

[fj1200]

28% equates to 62%

where is the truth in that?

Top marginal rate Sparky, review the thread and get back to me.

[SassyLady]

nice dodge. eight years of reagan marginal tax rates:

69, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 38, 28.

For eight years under Ronnie, the average marginal tax rate was 48% and republicans worship the ground he walked on. that's fuckin' funny.

Who took it up to 69%? And, to go from 69 to 28 is a pretty good record to me. At least it went down and not up.

[red states rule]

the highest tax rates in my lifetime have been under Dwight David Eisenhower, a republican. 91%.

So... do you find THAT surprising?

and even if you say that Ike was not in recent memory, surely Ron Reagan was... and the highest tax rates in the past five presidents were under Ron... a republican.

It is clear you are ducking the main point of the thread. Dems want the prodcuers who hire people and cause economic growth to hand over nearly 2/3 of their income to the government

Are you really such a liberal hack that you believe that will bring postive results to the US economy? That Dems will be able to tax America into prosperity?

[red states rule]

nice dodge. eight years of reagan marginal tax rates:

69, 50, 50, 50, 50, 50, 38, 28.

For eight years under Ronnie, the average marginal tax rate was 48% and republicans worship the ground he walked on. that's fuckin' funny.

Under Ronald Reagan revenue to to the US government DOUBLED in 8 years. The US economy enjoyed the greatest peacetime growth in its history

Not bad eh?

I am sure you voted for Carter despite the miserable economy he gave us, and Walter Mondale as well

[red states rule]

I dunno... you seem to long for the good old days of Ron Reagan... I merely pointed out that he had the highest marginal tax rate of the last five presidents... and he is a demigod to most republicans.

and you don't like democrat welfare programs but apparently don't mind programs that benefit the military industrial complex. Personally, I'd rather feed people than build another nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I guess we're just different that way.

and you seem to love the Obama economy

Record number of people on food stamps

Record number of foreclosures

9% unemployment

$4/gal gas

$1.6 trilllion dollar annual deficit

$4 trillion added to the national debt (and counting)

and the ONLY way to solve these problems is to take nearly 2/3 of the producers income and give to those more deserving

[maineman]

Top marginal rate Sparky, review the thread and get back to me.

so...you are saying that the 28% figure includes state income tax rates as well?

get back to me.

[maineman]

Under Ronald Reagan revenue to to the US government DOUBLED in 8 years. The US economy enjoyed the greatest peacetime growth in its history

Not bad eh?

nice deficit growth too, eh?

[fj1200]

so...you are saying that the 28% figure includes state income tax rates as well?

get back to me.

Nope, neither does the 58% figure, you cleared that up, thank you. We're talking about the Federal rate of taxation on the last dollar earned which according to your figures is higher than Reagan for 7 of his 8 years.

Your turn.

[fj1200]

nice deficit growth too, eh?

Reagan controlled spending from his 1/3 of government seat? :eek:

[maineman]

Reagan controlled spending from his 1/3 of government seat? :eek:

how many budget bills did he veto?

[maineman]

Nope, neither does the 58% figure, you cleared that up, thank you. We're talking about the Federal rate of taxation on the last dollar earned which according to your figures is higher than Reagan for 7 of his 8 years.

Your turn.

so... let me get this straight... you are agreeing with me that the opening post was deliberately misleading and that any attempt to compare 62% with 28% is disingenuous and the product of partisan hackery?

[fj1200]

how many budget bills did he veto?

Don't know, but last I checked he wasn't blessed with a Republican Congress and had to engage in the fine art of political compromise. Tip seemed to be quite the formidable Speaker.


so... let me get this straight... you are agreeing with me that the opening post was deliberately misleading and that any attempt to compare 62% with 28% is disingenuous and the product of partisan hackery?

So that's what you're hanging your hat on? Quibble over a number and not the reality of what the Dems want to do?

And no, I don't agree.

[red states rule]

so... let me get this straight... you are agreeing with me that the opening post was deliberately misleading and that any attempt to compare 62% with 28% is disingenuous and the product of partisan hackery?

So you have no problem with the people that hire workers, grow the economy, and who currently pay the huge majority of taxes will now pay (if Dems get their way) hand over nearly 2/3 of their income to the government?

Are you really such a liberal hack that you believe that will bring postive results to the US economy? That Dems will be able to tax America into prosperity?

and you seem to love the Obama economy

Record number of people on food stamps

Record number of foreclosures

9% unemployment

$4/gal gas

$1.6 trilllion dollar annual deficit

$4 trillion added to the national debt (and counting)

Housing prices tankjing despite BILLIONS to prop up the housing sector

and little job growth despite all the "stimulus" money spent

and the ONLY way to solve these problems is to take nearly 2/3 of the producers income and give to those more deserving

[red states rule]

More liberal logic

Click the link to watch this intrerview



Rangel on Spending: 'All We Have to Do' Is Tax More

Via RealClearPolitics: "All I know is, whenever you have any type of a problem and the problem is one that you spend more than you are actually bringing in then you have to bring in more and spend less. It just makes so much sense, Judge, it's all we have to do," Congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY) told FOX Business this evening.


http://nation.foxnews.com/charlie-rangel/2011/06/01/rangel-spending-all-we-have-do-tax-more

[maineman]

So you have no problem with the people that hire workers, grow the economy, and who currently pay the huge majority of taxes will now pay (if Dems get their way) hand over nearly 2/3 of their income to the government?



I think back to when I was a kid and my father was growing his law practice and putting four kids through school and Ike's administration was taking away 91% of the income he made over 250K. I think how the economy grew during those years. I think how my Dad continued to prosper as did all of his friends. odd, eh?

What I have a problem with is the premise of this thread which is a fucking lie... comparing 28% to 62% is a lie and you know it. If you compare top federal marginal tax rates, then compare them. Comparing 28% to 62% is bullshit, and I called you on it.

[red states rule]

I think back to when I was a kid and my father was growing his law practice and putting four kids through school and Ike's administration was taking away 91% of the income he made over 250K. I think how the economy grew during those years. I think how my Dad continued to prosper as did all of his friends. odd, eh?

What I have a problem with is the premise of this thread which is a fucking lie... comparing 28% to 62% is a lie and you know it. If you compare top federal marginal tax rates, then compare them. Comparing 28% to 62% is bullshit, and I called you on it.

The econmy grew eh?

Look at the growth in the economy when JFK cut the taxes

It is not a lie when the fact is the small minority that is paying the majority of taxes will be handing over nearly 2/3 of thier income to the government

As far the rest of my post you ingored I will try again

Are you really such a liberal hack that you believe that will bring postive results to the US economy? That Dems will be able to tax America into prosperity?

and you seem to love the Obama economy

Record number of people on food stamps

Record number of foreclosures

9% unemployment

$4/gal gas

$1.6 trilllion dollar annual deficit

$4 trillion added to the national debt (and counting)

Housing prices tankjing despite BILLIONS to prop up the housing sector

and little job growth despite all the "stimulus" money spent

and the ONLY way to solve these problems is to take nearly 2/3 of the producers income and give to those more deserving

[Kathianne]

I think back to when I was a kid and my father was growing his law practice and putting four kids through school and Ike's administration was taking away 91% of the income he made over 250K. I think how the economy grew during those years. I think how my Dad continued to prosper as did all of his friends. odd, eh?

What I have a problem with is the premise of this thread which is a fucking lie... comparing 28% to 62% is a lie and you know it. If you compare top federal marginal tax rates, then compare them. Comparing 28% to 62% is bullshit, and I called you on it.

I'll take this seriously when you show your dad made over $250k in law practice under Eisenhower. It's more than obvious on this site that you've been outed and not privy to a huge fortune, unless you lost it along the way.

[red states rule]

I'll take this seriously when you show your dad made over $250k in law practice under Eisenhower. It's more than obvious on this site that you've been outed and not privy to a huge fortune, unless you lost it along the way.

I malso wonder if MM kept his Bush tax cut or if he sent it back to the government

[Kathianne]

I malso wonder if MM kept his Bush tax cut or if he sent it back to the government

I think he made it clear he keeps what he's entitled to, regardless of principles of what 'should be.'

[red states rule]

I think he made it clear he keeps what he's entitled to, regardless of principles of what 'should be.'

Oh, so while he wants others to pay more in taxes - he will keep as much of HIS money as possible

Got it Kat. Thanks

[Kathianne]

Oh, so while he wants others to pay more in taxes - he will keep as much of HIS money as possible

Got it Kat. Thanks

yep, and to his credit, I think he's been clear on that. Does it make him a hypocrite? Well he could write the check to IRS...

[red states rule]

yep, and to his credit, I think he's been clear on that. Does it make him a hypocrite? Well he could write the check to IRS...

and add a couple of hundred bucks on top of it. After all remember what Biden said about paying taxes

I am sure MM would want to show he is more patriotic then some of us here :laugh2:

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UCqgNWRjmAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Gaffer]

I thought MM was moving to mexico to live like a king and not have to pay all the taxes. Being so cheap to live down there and all. 35,000 dead, vacation resorts with bodies laying around. Daily gun fights in the streets. What a wonderful place to retire too. I'm sure a fat rich gringo would be perfectly safe down there.

[red states rule]

I thought MM was moving to mexico to live like a king and not have to pay all the taxes. Being so cheap to live down there and all. 35,000 dead, vacation resorts with bodies laying around. Daily gun fights in the streets. What a wonderful place to retire too. I'm sure a fat rich gringo would be perfectly safe down there.

and he is not a small target either :laugh2:

[maineman]

The econmy grew eh?

Look at the growth in the economy when JFK cut the taxes

It is not a lie when the fact is the small minority that is paying the majority of taxes will be handing over nearly 2/3 of thier income to the government

As far the rest of my post you ingored I will try again

Are you really such a liberal hack that you believe that will bring postive results to the US economy? That Dems will be able to tax America into prosperity?

and you seem to love the Obama economy

Record number of people on food stamps

Record number of foreclosures

9% unemployment

$4/gal gas

$1.6 trilllion dollar annual deficit

$4 trillion added to the national debt (and counting)

Housing prices tankjing despite BILLIONS to prop up the housing sector

and little job growth despite all the "stimulus" money spent

and the ONLY way to solve these problems is to take nearly 2/3 of the producers income and give to those more deserving
the economy certainly grew during Ike's administration, and lots of folks got wealthy during that time period.

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

[maineman]

I thought MM was moving to mexico to live like a king and not have to pay all the taxes. Being so cheap to live down there and all. 35,000 dead, vacation resorts with bodies laying around. Daily gun fights in the streets. What a wonderful place to retire too. I'm sure a fat rich gringo would be perfectly safe down there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030205529.html

I dare you to read it.

[red states rule]

the economy certainly grew during Ike's administration, and lots of folks got wealthy during that time period.

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

Where the hell is the economy growing? You have to ignoring all the bad news that has ben coming out recently

Did you see the Dow today and why it tanked?

We will get a jobs report on Friday and it expected to be terrible and continue to show Obamnomics is NOT working - lust like the millions who have lost their job since Obam took office

And keep ducking what the Dems realy want - higher taxes on those who are already paying a huge majoirty of the taxes

It is what you do best MM

[maineman]

and add a couple of hundred bucks on top of it. After all remember what Biden said about paying taxes

I am sure MM would want to show he is more patriotic then some of us here :laugh2:

<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/UCqgNWRjmAc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I will always cheerfully pay every penny of taxes that my government says I owe... and I always have.

[red states rule]

I will always cheerfully pay every penny of taxes that my government says I owe... and I always have.

But did you keep the Bush tax cut you got?

[maineman]

But did you keep the Bush tax cut you got?

of course I did.

[maineman]

the economy certainly grew during Ike's administration, and lots of folks got wealthy during that time period.

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

chirp chirp

[red states rule]

of course I did.

Why would you do that if we need to pay more in taxes?

Oh it is EVEYRONE ELSE who needs to pay more - not YOU

Of course we can see how the economy is "growing" under Obamanomics





Today's Markets

The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 280 points, or 2.2%, to 12,290, the S&P 500 fell 30.7 points, or 2.3%, to 1,315 and the Nasdaq Composite slumped 66.1 points, or 2.3%, to 2,769. The FOX 50 was off 18.9 points, or 2%, to 920.

The weaker-than-expected reports added to market participants' fears that the economic recovery is entering a soft patch.

Every Dow component and major sector ended the day in the red. The Dow and S&P sustained the biggest percentage decline since August 2010 and the Nasdaq had its worst day since February. In a sign of the volatility, the VIX, often seen as a gauge of fear, soared 19%.

Private payrolls increased by 38,000 jobs in May, far shy of Wall Street's forecast of an increase of 175,000, according to payroll firm ADP. The number of private payrolls was the lowest since September 2010.

As a result, many analysts cut their expectations for gains in the highly-watched monthly non-farm payroll report from the Labor Department. The consensus estimate for payroll increases is now 175,000, down from 205,000 prior to the ADP report. The unemployment rate forecast remains unchanged at 9%.

The economic recovery "is sputtering a bit," said Josh Feinman, global chief economist at DB Advisors, Deutsche Bank's institutional asset management business.

Feinman notes there are several factors, such as high energy prices, that have presented a temporary roadblock to robust economic recovery. However, even as those factors ebb "we still have a long hill to climb" to get back to pre-recession economic growth, he said.

Large businesses and the goods-producing sector were the biggest drags, according to the report, while the service producing sector and small and medium businesses accounted for most of the gains.

The Institute for Supply Management's gauge of manufacturing activity fell to 53.5 in May from 60.4 in the prior month, less than estimates of 57.7. Readings above 50 point to expansion in the manufacturing sector, but the rate of expansion has slowed significantly, the data show. The new orders sub-index slumped to 51 for the month, from 61.67 the prior month.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/06/01/stock-futures-point-lower-following-rally/#ixzz1O4OCyglU





and I seem to remember a poster here saying so what if the "stimulus" only provided temp jobs - they would be able to more another job after the stimulus gets the economy going

Does that ring a bell MM? :laugh2:

[maineman]

Why would you do that if we need to pay more in taxes?

Oh it is EVEYRONE ELSE who needs to pay more - not YOU




as I said, I have always cheerfully paid every penny of taxes that my government asked me to.

and let me repeat:

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

[red states rule]

as I said, I have always cheerfully paid every penny of taxes that my government asked me to.

and let me repeat:

nd yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

So why didn't you give the money back if you were opposed to the tax cut?

and don't tell me you supported the Bush tax cut

and you keep ducking the valid and truthful point the tax burden on the producers of this economy - the ones that can pull Obama's ass out of the fire - will be paying nearly 2/3 of their income to the government

[maineman]

and I seem to remember a poster here saying so what if the "stimulus" only provided temp jobs - they would be able to more another job after the stimulus gets the economy going

Does that ring a bell MM? :laugh2:

"they would be able to more another job?"

that doesn't ring a bell at all. it is not even comprehensible. It is as if it were written by someone who speaks english as a second language. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

[maineman]

So why didn't you give the money back if you were opposed to the tax cut?

and don't tell me you supported the Bush tax cut

and you keep ducking the valid and truthful point the tax burden on the producers of this economy - the ones that can pull Obama's ass out of the fire - will be paying nearly 2/3 of their income to the government

I will pay the taxes that my government asks me to pay. every penny.

and when will you own up to the fact that comparing 28% to 62% is a lie?

[jimnyc]

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

You can keep harping on that, but here is the reality of the article:


If the Democrats' millionaire surtax were to happen—and were added to other tax increases already enacted last year and other leading tax hike ideas on the table this year—this could leave the U.S. with a combined federal and state top tax rate on earnings of 62%. That's more than double the highest federal marginal rate of 28% when President Reagan left office in 1989. Welcome back to the 1970s.


So Chimpy very well might bring our country back to the 70's and the very 62% you keep harping about. Either way, it's too fucking high already and I'm tired of being asked to buy others through their lives. Again, I will use my money to donate and/or spend the way I see fit, I don't need the Chimp in Chief taking it from me and doing what HE wants.

[jimnyc]

I will pay the taxes that my government asks me to pay. every penny.

And nothing more as per your own words - so as per Biden's - you should update your moniker and remove the patriot part. Rather odd that you speak out against the "military industrial complex" and use a military ship for your avatar.

[Kathianne]

as I said, I have always cheerfully paid every penny of taxes that my government asked me to.

and let me repeat:

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

From your posts, it seems your real problem isn't with what you pay, that others pay more, much more. You will gleefully follow them. Again, the issue isn't what it accomplishes, just that folks have to pay. If it were accomplishments and you were principled, others would matter.

[red states rule]

"they would be able to more another job?"

that doesn't ring a bell at all. it is not even comprehensible. It is as if it were written by someone who speaks english as a second language. I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Yea, it was a guy who posted under Moderate Democrat

Of course that wasn't you right?

[red states rule]

I will pay the taxes that my government asks me to pay. every penny.

and when will you own up to the fact that comparing 28% to 62% is a lie?

So even when you oppose a tax cut you took it

Now you demand other pay more

How liberal of you MM

[maineman]

And nothing more as per your own words - so as per Biden's - you should update your moniker and remove the patriot part. Rather odd that you speak out against the "military industrial complex" and use a military ship for your avatar.

no. If my government asks me to pay more, I will willingly, gladly, contribute more, because I have been blessed by living in this country and I have NO problem paying back for that blessing.

great picture, isn't it? I can't even remember which Knox class it was that was in our wake, but I remember that night in the south china sea... serving my country... putting my life on the line for the likes of you. makes me swell with pride.

and it was Ike who first spoke out against the military industrial complex, by the way... a pretty fucking patriotic guy, if you ask me.

[jimnyc]

no. If my government asks me to pay more, I will willingly, gladly, contribute more, because I have been blessed by living in this country and I have NO problem paying back for that blessing.

great picture, isn't it? I can't even remember which Knox class it was that was in our wake, but I remember that night in the south china sea... serving my country... putting my life on the line for the likes of you. makes me swell with pride.

Makes me sick, and think of a liar, and one who would later toss it in their faces by saying they don't deserve the money. How fucking pathetic.

[red states rule]

no. If my government asks me to pay more, I will willingly, gladly, contribute more, because I have been blessed by living in this country and I have NO problem paying back for that blessing.

great picture, isn't it? I can't even remember which Knox class it was that was in our wake, but I remember that night in the south china sea... serving my country... putting my life on the line for the likes of you. makes me swell with pride.

and it was Ike who first spoke out against the military industrial complex, by the way... a pretty fucking patriotic guy, if you ask me.

Why wait for them to ask - make a donation

Yea, it was risky. Never know when you might fall in the head while cleaning it :laugh2:

[maineman]

So even when you oppose a tax cut you took it

Now you demand other pay more

How liberal of you MM

I pay what Uncle Sam asks me to. I expect others to do the same.

[Kathianne]

Once again i was crediting some semblance of logic with him. It's my nature, like your's allowing the hopelessly irreparable to return. MM is an ass of a degree I don't have adjectives for. I'm tired and he is an ass. Neg him. Don't ban him, everyone likes making shit out of his posts.

[red states rule]

I pay what Uncle Sam asks me to. I expect others to do the same.

as long as they don't ask you - you are fine

Do you think it is "fair" that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes?

or the top 5% pay 65%?

or the top 50% pay 97%?

Do you really think raiing taxes will have positive effects on the economy?

[red states rule]

Once again i was crediting some semblance of logic with him. It's my nature, like your's allowing the hopelessly irreparable to return. MM is an ass of a degree I don't have adjectives for. I'm tired and he is an ass. Neg him. Don't ban him, everyone likes making shit out of his posts.

Will do

MM has won another red square Kat

[red states rule]

and given this current news on the economy -which you ignored - a tax increase would do wonders for the economy



Today's Markets

The Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbled 280 points, or 2.2%, to 12,290, the S&P 500 fell 30.7 points, or 2.3%, to 1,315 and the Nasdaq Composite slumped 66.1 points, or 2.3%, to 2,769. The FOX 50 was off 18.9 points, or 2%, to 920.

The weaker-than-expected reports added to market participants' fears that the economic recovery is entering a soft patch.

Every Dow component and major sector ended the day in the red. The Dow and S&P sustained the biggest percentage decline since August 2010 and the Nasdaq had its worst day since February. In a sign of the volatility, the VIX, often seen as a gauge of fear, soared 19%.

Private payrolls increased by 38,000 jobs in May, far shy of Wall Street's forecast of an increase of 175,000, according to payroll firm ADP. The number of private payrolls was the lowest since September 2010.

As a result, many analysts cut their expectations for gains in the highly-watched monthly non-farm payroll report from the Labor Department. The consensus estimate for payroll increases is now 175,000, down from 205,000 prior to the ADP report. The unemployment rate forecast remains unchanged at 9%.

The economic recovery "is sputtering a bit," said Josh Feinman, global chief economist at DB Advisors, Deutsche Bank's institutional asset management business.

Feinman notes there are several factors, such as high energy prices, that have presented a temporary roadblock to robust economic recovery. However, even as those factors ebb "we still have a long hill to climb" to get back to pre-recession economic growth, he said.

Large businesses and the goods-producing sector were the biggest drags, according to the report, while the service producing sector and small and medium businesses accounted for most of the gains.

The Institute for Supply Management's gauge of manufacturing activity fell to 53.5 in May from 60.4 in the prior month, less than estimates of 57.7. Readings above 50 point to expansion in the manufacturing sector, but the rate of expansion has slowed significantly, the data show. The new orders sub-index slumped to 51 for the month, from 61.67 the prior month.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2...#ixzz1O4OCyglU

[maineman]

Makes me sick, and think of a liar, and one who would later toss it in their faces by saying they don't deserve the money. How fucking pathetic.

I think everyone deserves all the money that they earn after they pay their legally required taxes.

[red states rule]

I think everyone deserves all the money that they earn after they pay their legally required taxes.

and some Dems like Charlie Rangle deserve all the money they earn after NOT paying their legally required taxes

and likke you, he wants people to pay more in taxes

[maineman]

as long as they don't ask you - you are fine

Do you think it is "fair" that the top 1% pay 40% of all federal income taxes?

or the top 5% pay 65%?

or the top 50% pay 97%?

Do you really think raiing taxes will have positive effects on the economy?


I think all of that is fair.

[red states rule]

I think all of that is fair.

How is that fair?




Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all 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 like they do now with the present income tax structure.

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 of the bill.
So that is what the ten men decide to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you all are such good customers I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20”. Dinner for the 10 men now costs just $80...

The group still wanted to pay the bill the same way that they paid their taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the Paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everybody would get his “Fair Share”?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth and sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal…So, the restaurant owner suggested it would be fair to reduce each mans bill roughly the same amount; and proceeded to work out the amounts each man would pay.

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

Each of the six was better off then before. And the first four continued to eat 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. Its unfair that he got ten times more than me!?”“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 exploit’s the poor!”The nine men surrounded the tenth man and beat him up…

The next night the Tenth man did not show up for dinner, so the Nine sat down and ate 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 the bill!

http://rightsideva.blogspot.com/2008/02/ten-men-go-out-for-dinner-who-pays-what.html

[jimnyc]

I think everyone deserves all the money that they earn after they pay their legally required taxes.

Too bad that reply had NOTHING to do with my post which you even quoted when replying to.

[maineman]

Yea, it was a guy who posted under Moderate Democrat

Of course that wasn't you right?

the sentence doesn't make sense. Clearly, it wasn't a typo... it was written by someone who can't write.

[maineman]

From your posts, it seems your real problem isn't with what you pay, that others pay more, much more. You will gleefully follow them. Again, the issue isn't what it accomplishes, just that folks have to pay. If it were accomplishments and you were principled, others would matter.

Others do matter for me... so much so that I am perfectly willing to pay MORE in taxes because I have been given more... I have been given more in intelligence, I have been given more in terms of education, I have been given more in terms of station... and I have no problem with shouldering more of a tax burden than those who have not been as blessed as I have been.

[maineman]

Makes me sick, and think of a liar, and one who would later toss it in their faces by saying they don't deserve the money. How fucking pathetic.

is this the post you were referring to ? In rereading it, I guess it really doesn't make much sense to me. Could you rephrase it so that I can understand the point you are trying to make?

[jimnyc]

Others do matter for me... so much so that I am perfectly willing to pay MORE in taxes because I have been given more... I have been given more in intelligence, I have been given more in terms of education, I have been given more in terms of station... and I have no problem with shouldering more of a tax burden than those who have not been as blessed as I have been.

Get a refund and then get your head examined. Go to a new board where people are clueless about who you are if you want to try and pass that utter bullshit off. And if you are going to stick with these laughable claims, at least use what you have been "blessed" with to go out and buy some class.

[jimnyc]

is this the post you were referring to ? In rereading it, I guess it really doesn't make much sense to me. Could you rephrase it so that I can understand the point you are trying to make?

I rest my case!

It's not my fault you're too fucking stupid to understand plain English.

[jimnyc]

I'll make a "dummy" version for virgil.

1 - You said what you wrote in your post made you swell with pride, but it made me literally sick.

2 - It reminded me of what a liar you are.

3 - I found it odd that you made a reference to spending on the military industrial complex - while "supposedly" being former navy, and using an avatar of a navy ship

4 - I found everything you wrote pathetic. You DID NOT put your life in the line for ME, as I would toss that back in your fucking face just as I did your donation.

[maineman]

I rest my case!

It's not my fault you're too fucking stupid to understand plain English.

very plain.

grammatically incorrect would be more accurate. the antecedents for all the pronouns are unclear.

but hey... when you own the place, you get to be the final arbiter.

[jimnyc]

very plain.

grammatically incorrect would be more accurate. the antecedents for all the pronouns are unclear.

but hey... when you own the place, you get to be the final arbiter.

And when you're a member here, or even a guest viewer here - they can see that you're a liar, a fraud & a no class piece of shit.

As you say, own that.

[fj1200]

I think how the economy grew during those years.

So your proposal would be to bomb the rest of the world back to the stone age so the US would be the only advanced economy in the world? The Nostalgianomics (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124508075585515437.html) of the 50's are over my friend.

[red states rule]

I think all of that is fair.

So you do NOT ant to increase revenue to the government then




So what was the effect of the Bush tax cuts? The data reveals that tax revenues in 2006 were actually $47 billion above the levels projected by the Congressional budget office before the 2003 tax cuts. Clearly, tax rates were beyond the point of equilibrium.

The Bush tax cuts were intended to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest and thus create jobs and increase economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts shows that this is exactly what happened. The following table from Reidl\'s analysis depicts these effects.

The empirical data makes it impossible to validate the liberal claims that the Bush tax cuts were "for the rich," or that they "caused the budget deficit," or that they were in any way responsible for causing this latest economic crisis. In fact, a study by economist John W. Skorburg underscores the positive effects of the Bush tax cuts. Skorburg\'s study found that the Bush tax cuts, which lowered the total federal tax burden from 20.9% in fiscal year 2000 to 17.9% in fiscal year 2008 and 2009, were responsible for increasing the economic growth rate. Further, the author concluded that "[i]f President Obama raises tax burdens, trend growth in real GDP will fall."

The bottom line is that tax policy has far-reaching effects, and for decades, liberals have refused to acknowledge them. The dire consequences of higher tax burdens in times of economic weakness were made most clear when FDR raised taxes in 1937, causing a double-dip in GDP that prolonged the Great Depression. If the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, recovery from the current crisis will likely be prolonged, and we will have no one to blame but ourselves for not observing the lessons of history

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

[red states rule]

the economy certainly grew during Ike's administration, and lots of folks got wealthy during that time period.

and yes... it IS a lie when you try to say that comparing 28% to 62% in your opening post in this thread is honest. It is apples and oranges. The 28% does not include any state income taxes while the 62% figure does. That makes the post a lie... and the poster as well.

I know you ignored the ecoomic news from yesterday - will you ignore the economic news from today MM?




New orders received by U.S. factories declined in April, partly because of a sharp drop in demand for transportation goods, according to a Commerce Department report on Thursday.

Overall orders fell 1.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted $440.4 billion after an upwardly revised 3.8 percent rise in March. That was steeper than the 1 percent fall that Wall Street economists surveyed by Reuters had forecast for April and implied some weakness in the factory sector that had performed relatively well until recently and helped support economic recovery.

Transportation orders plunged 9.3 percent in April, nearly wiping out a 10.6 percent rise in March orders. It was the sharpest falloff in monthly transportation orders since an 11.9 percent fall in December.

But order declines were widespread in April, affecting categories including primary metals, machinery, computers and electrical equipment in addition to cars and other transportation goods.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/43250930




and


Jobless Claims Fall Less Than Expected, Productivity Gains




New U.S. claims for unemployment benefits fell last week, but not enough to assuage fears the labor market recovery has taken a step back.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits slipped 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 422,000, the Labor Department said on Thursday, less than economists' expectations for a fall to 415,000.

The claims report falls outside the survey period for the government's closely watched data on nonfarm payrolls for May.

The government is expected to report on Friday that employers hired 150,000 last month, according to a Reuters survey, after increasing payrolls by 244,000 in April.

"Every indication we have had so far points to a slightly softer labor market in the U.S.,'' said Camilla Sutton, chief currency strategist at Scotia Capital in Toronto.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/43249395




So MM, tell us again who the economy is "growing"

But give everyone time to sit back any enjoy another installment of Uncle Virgil's Grim Fairy Tales :laugh2: