Obama is a 1 percenter paying a lower tax rate than most of the 99 percenters

Barack and Michelle Obama's 2011 tax forms have been made public and they reveal some interesting items. First, they have income of almost $790,000, but their effective tax rate was slightly over 20 percent. Many of us would love to pay that rate! I suppose Obama is trying to amplify the "rich don't pay their fair share" malarkey. Wouldn't they set a great example by saying "We want to pay our 'fair share' so we are foregoing itemized deductions"? But that doesn't fit with "the rules don't apply to liberal, ivy league-educated elites."

Another interesting item involves the purchase and sale of U.S. Treasury securities.

The Obamas bought $2,768,000 in U.S. Treasury notes in 2010 and sold all of them in 2011. How does a couple that has an annual income (not counting book sales) of $394,821 afford purchasing millions of dollars in Treasury investments? One might think that this has something to do with a history of financial success, but according to Senate records, in 2004, Obama had assets between $200,00 and $400,000. There's quite a jump between that amount and having the means to purchase almost $3 million in Treasury securities.

Another example of the Obamas' hypocrisy concerning tax shelters is that both Barack and Michelle "gifted" $12,000 to each of their daughters--for a total of $48,000 in tax-free distributions. I guess some tax loopholes are okay--just depends on who's getting them!

If you're not already tired of looking at your own IRS forms, here's a link to the Obamas' forms:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_complete_r...

No votes yet

of ANYTHING when you have never earned that kind of big bucks? Almost everything that makes absolutely no sense or hints of scandal regarding BO has been very effectively swept under the rug.

My search for any kind of truth about this prez we know almost nothing about - has been on other matters than his income. For the simple reason, that secret donors give magic income to most (not all) of those who attain positions of political power. Thinking as I type - I had Jimmy Carter AND Ronald Reagan in mind when I said not all - but Carter was backed by David Rockefeller, so who knows.

I mean look at the Clintons and Whitewater, among other skulduggery involving them. There are people who want these know-nothings in power, so they support them financially.

BO - just about everything about his past is a secret. There is a really great color photo (group picture) of his grandfather welcoming his father to Hawaii. I'll post it sometime. Problem with the photo? The date of the photo is a year PRIOR to the date given for his mother supposedly meeting this man in a college classroom. So what's afoot there? Well... lying about dates for one thing.

And why does he have more than one Social Security number on record? Would the media ignore that in ANY OTHER PRESIDENT? Of course not.

The other interesting secret about Obama is his college education. Considering his giant ego, wouldn't he love people to see his outstanding college transcripts? His resistance to release those tells me they wouldn't support the "smartest President" label the liberals have given him.

Also, I can guarantee that the number of undergraduate transfer students that Columbia University has ever admitted wouldn't require all 10 fingers to count. Isn't it interesting that Obama started his college career at Occidental College in California then transferred to Columbia? Did Obama get into Columbia not on the merits of his academic achievements, but because he filled a quota requirement? His unwillingness to release his records leaves us to speculate.

It still boggles my mind how he skated into office. All he had to do was look better than Hillary & McCain - how easy was that. How in the world did both parties get such terribly awful candidates as Hill & John? I mean, seriously - how? That election makes a credible case for those who say our election process is manipulated behind the scenes, and we only THINK we have a choice every 4 years.

Having said that, here are the Rasmussen poll results for today:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administra...

Romney ahead 48% to 44%. Not too bad. Anyone wanting to easily click into this daily presidential tracking poll (Rasmussen's), can either save in their own e-mail archives, or just click into where it's posted here at swampbubbles. Rasmussen's link updates itself every day, regardless of when it was originally posted.

Obama doesn't have to be the smartest. He just had to be smarter than the average Liberal, which isn't difficult.

Obama's plan is to raise his own taxes. Romney's plan is to lower his own taxes, even though he pays less than 14%...

Can you enlighten us as to where he came by $2,768,000 in 2010? I'd like to get in on a secret windfall like that - I won't tell anyone if you can get me on that gravy train, ha ha.

Obama doesn't need a "plan" to raise his own taxes--he could just pay more (or not accept a refund). Why doesn't he serve as an example and encourage his left-wing millionaire friends in Hollywood to follow suit? I'll tell you why. Because people who make millions know they can hire accountants and lawyers to help them find tax shelters. They never would ACTUALLY have to pay the inflated tax rates that Obama is proposing--so why would they volunteer to do so. It's all a campaign ploy to exploit class warfare--to make a rich, ivy league-educated president seem like a regular guy to the ignoramuses who will believe it.

from all appearances, a lot of his cronies are getting him to exempt them from his social healthcare program as well. Why would any rules apply at all?

In re his college career? I also find it fun that the editor of the college paper apparently wrote no editorials. At least none that anyone can find, and that's all public record. the contents of a college newspaper should be out there for anyone to look up.

Raise their taxes!

Pink Slip

Jay Leno had a great line the other night.

"President Obama filed his 2011 tax returns. According to the return Obama made $900,000 dollars less in 2011 than he did in 2010 .

You know what that means?

Even Obama isn't doing as well under Obama."

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

I'll bet it's up! And the Lenos are much higher among the top 1% than are the Obamas!

So there are differences among the 1 percenters?! I'll never be able to keep up with the double standards of the liberals. Obama--good 1 percenter. Leno--bad 1 percenter.

Those are your words. I NEVER said that any "one per center" is bad.

I am merely pointing out that many people have made a LOT of money in the stock market in the last 3+ years. Those with the most to invest, have made the most...Duh!

Since late January of 2009, when Obama was sworn into office, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is up over 59%. The broader-based Standard and Poors 500 stock index, which most analysts believe is a better overall index with which to judge how stocks are doing, is up over 64%. The NASDAQ index, which tracks high tech stocks is up over 103%!!

Ok--so you're saying that the rich are getting richer because the Stock Market has done well, and thus Obama is correct in wanting to increase the income tax for the rich.

A quiz--how much income tax do the rich pay on Stock Market investments?

You haven't been paying close enough attention to the liberal dogma, all rich people are evil.................unless of course they are liberals themselves.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Most liberals want the super-rich -- top 1% or 2% -- to pay their fair share! Why should millionaires pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes than do those who make their appointments, file reports for them to read, or greet those who come to see them?

"Fair share" is like "middle class"--an often tossed around term that no one can define.

What is someone's "fair share"? Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? Does it depend on the person? If so, what are the criteria? Who gets to decide what my "fair share" is? Can I decide what your "fair share" is? Is someone paying 0% "fair"?

I have never wanted to earn less money for the specific purpose of paying less taxes. It just makes no sense to have multi-millionaires paying a lower percentage than I do, or the people who work for them do! And to have a significant number of those multi-millionaires paying zero taxes? Unconscionable! The tax codes must be rewritten and simplified.

Dear lord--Is there anyway we can get you liberals to understand the tax system?!

You can't compare the INCOME tax rate you pay with the CAPITAL GAINS tax rate that people like Mitt Romney and Warren Buffet pay! If you made millions or billions from investments--you would pay the same rate they do. What's more--you'd probably be complaining about being over taxed on investments because you already paid income tax on the money you invested when you initially earned it through your paycheck.

When Reagan pushed for his tax cuts, which lowered the top rate from 70% to 50%, he stated that if the top rate became low enough, there would be no good economic reason to give a break to investors on capital gains. At the time, 1/2 of the money one earned from long term capital gains, which were considered investments held for more than 6 months (now it's one year), were free of income taxes.

For several years capital gains were taxed at the same rate as all income. That's fair!! Why should Mitt or I pay less for money we earn on investments than others pay for the same dollar amount earned by mental and/or physical labor? YOU CONSERVATIVES!!

Should multi-millionaires earn millions and pay NOTHING, while hard-working people pay thousands which are dear to them?

YOU CONSERVATIVES!!

Dear lord--Is there anyway we can get you liberals to understand the tax system?!

Is there any way we can GET YOU CONSERVATIVES TO UNDERSTAND FAIRNESS??

Please enlighten us. PinkSlip defines fairness as 70%. Last time we had tax rates like that the country worked swimmingly didn't it!

So please define fairness.

MikeyA

Ronald Reagan understood fairness. Learn from him!

LOL

LOL,

So you don't define it. See this is the problem.

When you don't define limits upon the government we end up with a convoluted system like we currently have.

How about this Dale, 1) we do a Constitutional Amendment to set income rates.

2) It says the highest 1% earners pay 45% in taxes, the highest 3% pay 35%, the highest 5 pay 27%, the highest 10 pay 20%, the highest 50 pay 10%, the highest 75% pay 1%, below 75% pay nothing. Rates are decided every 10 years by the US Census. Capital Gains is set at 10%, National Sales tax at 1%. Once you pay on money you don't pay again except for the sales tax. i.e. capital gains isn't taxed as income.

Thus we never touch taxes again but when we do we BETTER make sure there's a consensus because it requires ratification of 66% of the country.

Now that's how you define fairness. It's upfront, a 6th grader can understand it, it takes consensus to change.

MikeyA

You have no problem taxing investment income at a lower rate than income generated by those who do the work that makes the company in which others invested, successful. Ronald Reagan and I respectfully disagree with you.

IMHO...the best Federal income tax rates we had in my lifetime were those in place when Bill Clinton left office. In addition, we should plug some of the more egregious loopholes and have a real minimum tax rate for the super-rich who play little or nothing. This would create a healthy balance between revenues needed and fairness about who pays what.

No and here's why.

First, how did they come to that money they invested? They earned it. So again, you can only tax the gains under that scenario because the rest of the money has already been taxed. Now when they spend it, under the scenario I posted, we actually get another chance to tax the money when good/services are purchased.

"In addition, we should plug some of the more egregious loopholes and have a real minimum tax rate for the super-rich who play little or nothing. This would create a healthy balance between revenues needed and fairness about who pays what." We already have the AMT. It is a failure. We know it's a failure because you are arguing that the rich aren't taxed enough. So when you change the tax code for things like this is when it isn't simple, it isn't generic, and now we have a situation where loopholes are given and the tax code is complicated putting us back into the current situation where our tax code is complicated and broken and as you up it "unfair".

And since my scenario puts limits upon the government moreso than yours I respectfully reject your contention that Ronald Reagan disagrees. For it was Reagan who said "Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem." And your scenario puts more government into the lives of people whereas mine limits government. I think Reagan would agree with me.

MikeyA

Why not lower the other 98-99% taxes to meet the rates of the rich?

What is fair about a large percentage of people living on the government dole,( paid by you, I and the top wage earners), that pay nothing?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Actually what is fair about a large percentage of people living on the government dole? Start with that premise first.

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Welfare recipients are limited to receiving welfare payments to a maximum of five years for their lifetime!

Most of those who receive government assistance are either children, the elderly, or the disabled. And many mentally disabled people are so messed up they live on the streets rather than receiving government assistance.

It depends on what state they reside in. There are a few states where there is NO limit.
Plus, most states don't limit aid to minor children, so we can have deadbeats pop out kid after kid and get more and more aid.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

and NO FEDERAL money way be used for the extended benefits.

If you want children to suffer, take that position.

Are you also against abortion? If so, how many MORE unwanted children would be born whom you would abandon? It's not the children's fault that they are born into dysfunctional situations. But, your children and mine will still have to share our community and our world with them.

Way down at the end you sneak in the old godless chestnut that can be condensed like this:

Murder them in the womb (using some of Hitler's own methods) - so that they won't "suffer" in life. Oh give me a massive break!

And guess where I first heard that godless rationalization - from someone I worked with in a school district for 2 years.

I don't have the latest figures at my fingertips, how many babies have been murdered to date, since Roe v. Wade - but many of the millions upon millions of children who have been torture-murdered in abortion mills could now be doing the following:

Populating the school system, K through college.
[I never cease to be amazed how many liberal teachers cannot connect the dots between "declining enrollment" and almost 40 years of murdering babies - seriously - can you NOT connect those dots, with your college education and all???]
(list continues:)
Buying cars
Buying other consumer goods
Contributing to Social Security
Having children of their own.... the list is endless...

... including, these killed babies who would have been adults now, paying state and local taxes so that teachers can keep collecting those nice pensions - which WILL disappear before too long when the national economy really implodes.

I think when they reform Social Security AND teacher's pensions, it should be along these lines:

You register as to whether you favor murdering babies in abortion mills. Those who favor it will be denied SS benefits - BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR SS WERE KILLED IN THE WOMB.

And everyone who admits that killing babies is wrong gets SS. There - that was easy... Barbara Walters and her hollywood buds don't need SS anyway. They need souls, but they don't need Social Security.

And p.s., all babies are wanted by God, and many would be adopted, if willing parents were given the chance.

All are going to stand before a Holy God one day, Dale, and frankly, I don't think anyone, yourself included, will even TRY to justify killing babies to God's face.

You want lots of unwanted babies born. You don't want to adopt any yourself. And you don't want anyone to pay higher taxes to help out the families with all of these unwanted children. Did I point out that these children are UNWANTED?

Typical right-wing hypocritical malarky!! Do you oppose birth control, too?

You must be thrilled that we have all of those illegal immigrants working for us old folks!

BTW...your analysis makes no sense whatsoever. The poorest countries today have birth rates which are out of control. The most successful, "emerging" economies have severely lowered their birth rates.

Based on nothing but your own ignorance and hysteria at being called out on abortion. Tough bananas, And yes, you have pointed out that the murdered babies are unwanted - BY YOU. Yes, you have highlighted, very well, your own lack of human decency and compassion.

You can't justify burning babies to death (saline), you can't justify beheading them, and ripping them limb from limb, and tossing their remains in dumpsters. Heck - you can't even look at the pictures of what your participation in this holocaust has caused. Your participation, by the way, is your approval and defense of these murders. Indefensible murders - so you throw a tantrum.

You know nothing about whether anyone would adopt. You know nothing about my family's history of care for foster children or work at inner city missions [we've never seen you there, by the way.]. Where on this board have you seen me EVER say I don't think the rich should pay more taxes? And what does that have to do with murdering babies anyway?

These babies are "unwanted"? SAYS YOU - for the simple reason that you are trying to justify the unjustifiable.. Someone wants them, and God created them, YOU, DALE ARE NOT GOD. Babies are murdered in abortion mills in almost all cases for CONVENIENCE of the parent or parents. Murdered because people are embarrassed that others will now know something about their sexual behavior - so they kill the baby to cover up their behavior.

Dale, your posts on abortion prove one thing - you don't know right from wrong. And teachers such as yourself is one of the primary reasons that the number of charter schools is growing, why so many parents are turning to home schooling or religious schools. They do not want their children ifluenced or infected by rank godlessness.

Your post is mostly about an extremely emotional issue that is not on the main topic of this thread. Unlike what you imply, I am at peace with my pro-choice position regarding abortion.

BTW...according to the records, I have been a member of SwampBubbles for 4 years, 6 weeks.

... and thought nobody would call you on it. So again, tough banans. And yes, I get that you are at peace with the horrific manner in which babies are killed in abortion mills. That is what is so disturbing.

Your position on this issue drips with your religious beliefs. You are entitled to your beliefs. But the First Amendment assures both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Neither you nor anyone should be able to make religious beliefs into public laws.

Our Founding Fathers were extremely concerned that we would not make the same mistakes in governing which they had observed in the great nations of the world in the 18th Century. One of those mistakes the Founding Fathers observed was that those great nations all had an official religion, which gave a veto over legislation to religious leaders of the "chosen" religion. NOT IN THE UNITED STATES! NOT EVER!!

Protestors, who are in a female punk rock band, got on the pulpit of a Russian Orthodox church and chanted, "Mother Mary, drive Putin away." Police were called. They were arrested for "hooliganism". Their detention is being extended until June 24! They face up to 7 YEARS IN PRISON for this protest!! The official investigator stated that the actions of the women, "...in a holy place was illegal and utterly cynical." Please note that the protestors said nothing directly about the Russian Orthodox religion. Theirs was strictly a political protest.

This is exactly the type of event our Founding Fathers wanted to ensure would never happen in their new nation when they approved the First Amendment! Can anyone imagine protestors at a house of worship in America being held without bail for more than 60 days for saying from a pulpit or its equivalent, "Mother Mary, drive Obama away"? The police probably would not even be called.

Dale, try it. Go into your local Church, Cathedral, Temple and begin your own protest that has nothing to do with the services there. I'm sure the First Amendment will protect you from trespassing. I will donate $1 to your legal defense fund and try to get purnhrt to send it around facebook so every like and Mark Zuckerberg will donate $1 to it as well.

Let's call your protest "Occupy Futility". It has a nice ring to it.

MikeyA

There are laws in America against disturbing the peace. However, more than likely, three young women would be laughed off of the pulpit area, or some people in the pews would pull them away! If the police were called for their disturbing the peace, they would be taken away, booked, and released within a few hours. They certainly would NOT be detained for over 60 DAYS, with a possible sentence of from several months to up to 7 YEARS IN JAIL.

Too many Americans don't appreciate the extent of our freedoms. And I sincerely thank you, Mikey, for your service to this country which helps us all to keep our freedoms!

And the situation would be no different if they disturbed the peace at a performance at the Stranahan or the zoo amphitheater! Please note that part of the reason stated for their arrest was that the women did what they did, "...in a holy place". We must maintain the separation of church and state!

I was taking a contention with the last sentence of your post. The one where you suggested the police would not be called. Yes if you did that scenario the police would be called. "or some people in the pews would pull them away!" Would you accuse them of being vigilantes?

Now you discuss being detained for 60 days. An implication of lack of habeas corpus. Yet the President you support signed a bill into law that would prevent just that.

"Too many Americans don't appreciate the extent of our freedoms. And I sincerely thank you, Mikey, for your service to this country which helps us all to keep our freedoms!" Are you aware that our military members can be confined for 45 days without charges? Are you aware that this is what happened to Bradley/Brieanna Manning and liberal groups have made constant complaints against it?

MikeyA

The military has different rules as you know much better that I. Civilians have fewer restrictions. Currently, we have no draft, so people enter the military voluntarily. They are taught about the rules.

Under martial law, Lincoln had several pro-Confederacy legislators arrested and detained before the vote by the Maryland legislature on secession. Was this an abuse of Presidential authority? Absolutely! Is Lincoln roundly criticized for this action? Not in the least! In fact, many reading here will look it up to make sure I'm not lying about a man often considered to be the greatest President our nation ever had.

No American in our country would be treated nearly so harshly as these women are being treated by their government over a peaceful protest in a religious building. Period. And, again, I really do sincerely thank your for helping to maintain this level of free political talk.

Today I went to Walgreens and was behind a woman in line who was probably about 40. She used her Ohio EBT card (the food stamp debit card).

I didn't think much about it until I got out to the parking lot and saw her climb into a huge SUV. It was really sharp--the kind I wouldn't mind having.

Talk about "fair." It was especially ironic because I had just written a check to the IRS for the largest payment I have ever made. I hope she has a taxpayer-paid steak on me!

You should be paying more taxes Galt. The GSA has more conferences scheduled? Who is gonna pay for them? Take some time to think of people other than yourself.

MikeyA

Well, if you believe the current tax system is a pile of horseshit (and it is), then you certainly can't stand by Cain's "999 Plan". He'd have zapped all capital gains taxes. That would have given the Romney/Santorum class of person a free ride in the USA, while of course the balance would be made up by truly confiscatory levels of taxes upon those who income-earn and consume at a higher fraction of their incomes.

There is no moral or financial justification whatsoever for taxing wage/salary income differently than capital gains or inheritance. It's all "in-come" to you. It doesn't matter how you got it; dollar for dollar, it's a gain. That's what's truly fair in this system.

The rich will keep tweaking this system to achieve Cain's plan until they end up with a free ride on average. The onus of then-crushing taxation will fall upon the working man and consuming poor (gotta "heat-n-eat" to live). They will work for their bills and nothing else. Currently the working man has about 15% of his paycheck being truly discretionary spending, but tax raises will eat that up in a hurry. Health-care costs alone will decimate that.

What happens then? Well, the majority of the consumer economy will collapse. Therefore the rich in the USA are the most insane people to have ever lived. They will collapse the domestic economy in their drive to own everything, including all your future work and personal time.

But voting for Obama again won't stop that process. On the contrary, Obama is an employee of Wall Street, which is promoting this idea that the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate) must run the economy. Obama and Romney are exactly the same for what must happen in 2013-2016: More poor, more working poor, and less of the real middle class. While that process is acting, the rich will continue to attain a larger share of the nation's incomes and capital gains.

GZ

GZ, I like most of what you said. I don't want to get rid of capital gains taxes but the fact remains that in the capitalist system risk is required for growth. Now I have problem taxing capital gains but if we tax it too much we could deter risk too much and thus limit growth.

I have no problem discussing the Cain plan, this was one place I thought it needed tweaking, the question is what is the optimal rate and should we make it difficult to lock these rates into place.

Also of note, not just the rich take advantage of capital gains. Many working class Americans have their retirements tied to an investment that is subject to capital gains. I know a very good friend inherited his mother's home, rented it for several years, stupidly depreciated it, and finally sold it and realized he depreciated it too much over the years and was hit with capital gains which totally nullified the taxes he recieved over the years. I would never describe this man as "rich", just a retail manager who thought he could do better renting his mother's house than selling it and planned to use it for retirement, the hit on taxes delayed his retirement 3 years.

MikeyA

"I don't want to get rid of capital gains taxes but the fact remains that in the capitalist system risk is required for growth. Now I have problem taxing capital gains but if we tax it too much we could deter risk too much and thus limit growth."

But risk was already rewarded: With profits. Why are you worried about anything beyond that?

If I invest 50 thousand dollars, and I make 5 thousand, a very nice return, and the government takes half of that 5k then will I be willing to risk my 50K for a 2.5K? Again I'm not saying taxing it is wrong. I'm saying we have to balance it to not deter risk and thus growth.

Here's another example I think you can agree with. The lotter swells to 100 Million. That's all money from the state. Yet before I get cent one of my winnings the government takes half. Now I would argue that they should advertise that the payout is actually 50 Million.

Yet not as many people will buy tickets for a 50 million dollar prize will they? How many people bought powerball tickets this week vice two weeks ago?

MikeyA

Mikey, you're being obstinate. Your profits are income, in the most general sense. So you'll take that income anyway. By your reasoning, people would elect not to work, either, if the taxes were taking so much. But they work anyway, since something is better than nothing. Investment returns are better than no returns, or losses.

This entire idea that capital gains are sacrosanct in some way, is ideology, and as such has no real justification. It's all income. People invest to make money easily. Greed tends to drive that. So they'll do it anyway. And it's not like the money will sit in a mattress otherwise, stuffed there in a huff over "high" taxes. Money that just "sits there" tends to sit in the banks, where it's loaned out and continues to drive economic action. As a society we're not being harmed.

I don't want capital gains to be more than wage-income taxes, but I sure as heck don't want them to be less. The rich already have a lot of advantages, merely from being rich; giving them better tax rates is just too much to tolerate. By the same token, they shouldn't be hit with higher tax rates, either. I never agreed with the "progressive" tax system and I want it dismantled. Tax rates should be FLAT. That's the only way to make them fair.

GZ, I do take issue with some of the things you posted but this here:

"I don't want capital gains to be more than wage-income taxes, but I sure as heck don't want them to be less.

I could see some agreement with. Like I've said, I have no problem with a capital gains tax I just want to find the level where we can maximize tax revenue without hindering risk/growth. Is that the level you are advocating, I'm willing to say it is very possible.

I am not as against the progressive system as you are, I just feel it should be tied to the census as to prevent us from constantly dealing with the issue. Liberals won't support that because it prevents them from dipping into the coffers when their pet projects don't pan out as they usually don't.

MikeyA

Damn you liberals can be hilarious. The way to deal with unwanted children is to KILL them. It's so simple, I should have thought of that.

BTW, the reason that capital gains being taxed at the same rate as regular income is NOT fair is this. Where do you think that the money used to invest, to make that capital gain came from? That's right, it was income...TAXED income.

The reason we always hear about millionaires getting away with paying no taxes is the ridiculously bloated taw code, 70,000 pages plus.

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Ronald Reagan understood that the important thing is to have tax rates which are low enough that people are encouraged to both work hard and take risks as entrepreneurs and investors. Once he was able to get Congress to get the top rate low enough, Reagan also saw the fairness of everyone at the same income level PAYING THE SAME RATE!

What was Ronald Reagan's background? Show business. What was his experience in show business? He observed that the on screen talent got paid well, and paid a huge amount in taxes. Before Kennedy's tax cut proposals became law, the top rate was 90%! However, investors in show business were often able pay the top rate on HALF of their income. Reagan and his acting colleagues experienced the unfairness of having a lower rate for investors than the rate for those who created the product from which the investors gained profits. Why do you think so many high level corporate officers get a lot of their remuneration in the form of stock options rather than straight salary?

Ronald Reagan's commitment to fairness is a prime reason why he was able to get so many votes from working people. Reagan came from a humble background. Even though he became a conservative Republican, he related to working men and women. He was beloved by many who are not considered to be among your usual Republican voters. It's all about fairness..

"The way to deal with unwanted children is to KILL them. It's so simple, I should have thought of that."

And they wonder why we conservatives were able to forsee a jump to death panels when socialized medical costs become too big to bear. LOL

MikeyA

In that far left-wing publication, Bloomberg's Businessweek, there is an article by Jesse Drucker entitled, "How to Pay No Taxes: Ten Strategies Used by the Rich".

Here is a quote from the article. "If you have lots of money, Monday, April 16, was one of the best tax days since the 1930s: Top tax rates on ordinary income, dividends, estates, and gifts remain at or near historically low levels."

Of course, we do have to consider the source, since Bloomberg's Businessweek is well known as an outlet for the far-left Pinko Communists masquerading as Socialists!

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Bloomberg is a left-wing publication!

A little homework. Who owns the Bloomberg publication? Who was considered to be a strong contender as Obama's running mate in 2008? Who was a Democrat before he ran for public office (when he switched parties to better his chances for election)? Who's girlfriend sits on the board of the real estate company that owns Zucotti Park (the company that allowed the Occupy Wall Street crowd to inhabit the park)?

Once you have the answer to those questions, you'll know why Bloomberg is going out of its way to spin the "rich don't get taxed enough" tripe.

Strom Thurmond, and Phil Gramm!

This would be Robin Hood in reverse! Simplistic solutions are seldom fair or workable.

In case you've been living in a cave...in the 21st Century, we judge individual wealth by income. Wealthy people pay a very low percentage of their total income as sales taxes. It is a popular tax because it goes out in dribs and drabs, instead of sitting down once a year and seeing what a big chunk we pay yearly in income taxes. Of course, with a sales tax rate in single digits, this is the case. There would be a LOT more push back on such a tax if it would be as high as proposed in this propaganda diatribe! 23%?? WOW!!

And what would a 23% sales tax do to sales? You know, consumption? The main engine which moves the economy?? Imagine: you're looking for a new car. You're ready to pay $25,000. With tax, your total is now $30,750! You likely drive right out of the auto dealership with the OLD CAR, and drive it right over to the repair shop. And the repairs would be a LOT less than the SALES TAX ALONE!!

What you allude to is correct. The power to tax is the power to destroy. This is true of both income and sales tax. That is why more than anything I propose and support limitations on the government.

Solving our income tax issue with a constitutional amendment does that.

MikeyA

Some sort of national sales tax on that order has the great benefit of hitting everyone without regard to where their money came from. You don't have so-called arguments about how to tax wage income or capital gains or gifts or inheritances or lottery winnings.

There are other benefits. You don't like taxes? That's fine, just stop spending so much. You decide your level of tax contribution, at least more so than now.

However, the Mikeys of the world wouldn't love that system since it "penalizes" capital gains at the purchase. After all, when you buy a share or bond, it's a purchase, hence it should be subject to a sales tax. But at that point, fair should be fair, eh? A sale is a sale, hence is subject to tax. Note that that is different than a deposit, which sits in a bank account.

I like the idea of a national sales tax, except it's impossible -- literally impossible -- to implement it like it's advertised. And why is that? Because the U.S. Congress has been well advised on how to implement such a thing, by our nefarious hero Greenspan. That obscene troll stood up in front on the Congress and testified that, so sorry, it would be necessary to implement a national sales tax concurrently with the income tax. And you know darned well what that means, eh? The income tax won't go away. The Congress will just refuse to turn it off on schedule. And then the national sales tax will just grow and grow. Sure, it'll start out small, but it WILL grow.

So however much I like the NST idea, it will never be fairly implemented, hence I am against it.

GZ...if the sales tax would be applied to the purchase of stocks and bonds, THAT would kill off investment. Who would invest in stocks or bonds with a built-in 23% deficit? And would stock options for corporate executives be taxed upon receipt by the executives at the 23% too?

You will never hear me say "oh those poor rich people". So I don't care. If we zap income and capital-gains taxes, the tax base is definably based on purchasing, and that's exactly what you're doing when you buy a company or a stock or a bond. Deal with it.

But if the NST is ever implemented, it will NOT be implemented fairly. Therefore the rich will have a host of exemptions. That's why I'm against the NST in the first place.

It hardly matters, now. With the FIRE sector (finance, insurance, real estate) ruling so much of the nation today, we middle class are doomed. Of course, Dale, you're not the middle class. Being part of the unionized morons, you're in the "golden class", situated thusly:

1. Super-rich
2. Rich
3. Golden class
4. Working class
5a. Working poor
5b. Welfare poor
6. Homeless

Eventually the Great Die-off will shrink the golden class to nothing; it will evaporate. Concurrently the War on the Middle Class will push the working class into the working poor and below. The middle class in the USA will be put into the dustbin of history, which arguably is where it belongs. We Westerners only temporarily dallied with the idea of such an extensive middle class; and that dalliance was fueled by that one-time deal known as the Petroleum Age. Without so much cheap energy, we're going to be forced to go back to the time of scarcity, land dominance and elitist social controls.

Actually GZ, I agree with you on a NST. The only way I support one is if it's through a Constitutional Amendment and IF that were to pass I am against it being over 3% because like the lottery it does essentially become a tax on the poor, because even with little money they buy a lot of useless crap. Billy Mays didn't get famous selling monocles to the rich.

MikeyA

you're trying to make sense of nonsense.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.