^^ because the top 1% aren't affected by the income tax rates anyway. They LOVE the income tax, because it hits people who are striving to be like them. Who the fuck do you think first called for the income tax?

7/18/2011 4:42:22 PM

today obama came out saying he maybe would accept a short term deal. Basically he's ready to cave AGAIN. They can call his bluff all day. The GOP are so badass that they are practically running the entire government from the house.

7/20/2011 7:22:19 PM

Quote :

"The fact is that the top 1% pay over 30% of their income to the federal government, when you add up the combined income tax, capital gains tax, corporate taxes and inheritance taxes that they end up paying. No other income bracket comes close."

Are we going to start feeling sorry for the top 1% now, really?

Because that's what you are doing.



[Edited on July 20, 2011 at 8:30 PM. Reason : as]

7/20/2011 8:25:56 PM

No one's asking you to feel sorry for them. They are asking you to question why so few should pay so much for our entire government. I don't think it's asking too much to suggest that we stop milking the rich and expect more people to pay for what they use

7/21/2011 7:12:04 PM

A 30% tax rate on people who posess 85% of the wealth and 60% of the income in this country is...milking?

lol

7/21/2011 7:19:06 PM

let's see... piling the taxes on them. Yep! Milking. What would you call it? Or are you one of those funny people who thinks that the super rich actually pay taxes?

7/21/2011 7:21:24 PM

The rich don't pay taxes?

7/21/2011 7:40:37 PM

well, income taxes

7/21/2011 7:56:13 PM

What taxes do they pay then?

And how are the rich being milked if they don't pay taxes?

7/21/2011 7:58:39 PM

aaron had another brain fart....

7/21/2011 9:48:13 PM

The super rich pay less taxes than everyone else because their "income" is a small fraction of their income.

7/21/2011 10:03:13 PM

A wealth tax sounds like it would be less disruptive than an income tax.

As such, I think we should have a flat income tax, say 15%, coupled with a wealth tax.

7/21/2011 11:48:01 PM

wealth would be a lot harder to tax. Actually wealth tax exists as printing money. Just raise taxes for everyone back to pre Bu$h, raise the SS age to what it should be adjusted for lifespan, 68, and print money to pay off the rest. Its quite simple but too simple for politics.

7/22/2011 1:24:04 AM

printing money does not tax wealth, it taxes people unable to put their assets into appreciating assets. As money becomes worth less, the value of my mansion or overseas accounts stays the same or appreciates. Only the poor, trapped with nothing better than a savings account at Wachovia if that, find themselves becoming poorer over time.

7/22/2011 9:55:43 AM

Quote :

"The super rich pay less taxes than everyone else because their "income" is a small fraction of their income."

Please explain/elaborate

7/22/2011 10:53:14 AM

Most of their income is investment income, not salary income.

Long term capital gains are taxed at 15%. Short-term gains are taxed at the same rate as ordinary income.

7/22/2011 11:10:40 AM

Before we move forward with a discussion on how taxes should be levied (esp. on the "rich"), we need to figure out why they aren't paying that much already. The answer is actually pretty simple: the income tax allows write-offs (tax shelters), and the rich don't keep their money in the bank, they put it in investments that are taxed at a lower rate.

I don't think I could come up with a worse way to tax the general population than the income tax, at least the way that the income tax is set up in this country. I know I'm not the only one that sees a problem with a tax system that requires years of education to gain a working a knowledge of.

And, yes, inflation (long applauded as a way to fund social programs and wars alike) hurts the elderly and poor more than anyone else. The rich aren't living paycheck to paycheck, and if they aren't stupid, they have most of their money in something other than cash. Again: Is it not peculiar that you've never heard Barack Obama mention the Federal Reserve? It's an institution that plays a huge role in how the government operates.

7/22/2011 11:23:59 AM

Does property investment count as investment income? Or do the property people have to pay the standard income tax.

7/22/2011 11:25:35 AM

Personally, I don't think it should count as an investment. In a legitimate economy not fueled by loads of artificial credit, you wouldn't buy a home thinking it would go up in value. Housing should be considered an expense. Maintaining a house is very costly, and increasing it's value should be a function of...you know, adding value to the home, not just having home prices soar year after year.

When the housing bubble was still intact, people thought they could buy a house and retire off the appreciation. Think about that. Absurd, right?

7/22/2011 11:48:21 AM

Quote :

"printing money does not tax wealth, it taxes people unable to put their assets into appreciating assets. As money becomes worth less, the value of my mansion or overseas accounts stays the same or appreciates. Only the poor, trapped with nothing better than a savings account at Wachovia if that, find themselves becoming poorer over time."

Nope. The poor are in net debt. Inflation pays off their debt. The upper middle class has savings.

7/22/2011 11:48:24 AM

What you're saying is in direct contrast with reality.

Many poor people have lost access to credit. They live paycheck to paycheck.

The upper middle class, on the other hand, still has maxed out credit cards. They have 200k student loans. They have million dollar mortgages. A lot of what we think of as "the middle class" is actually hanging on by a thread, and that thread is cheap credit that won't always be available.

You know who is the most likely to have cash deposits and no outstanding debt? Old people.

7/22/2011 11:58:55 AM

so. we are fixing this to make sure old people keep their social security. Theres no benefit in dying with money.

7/22/2011 12:10:29 PM

What?

7/22/2011 12:17:41 PM

Quote :

"You know who is the most likely to have cash deposits and no outstanding debt? Old people."

You are probably right.

And Dave Ramsey's followers.

But do you know why that's true?

Because old people grew up with living within their means. They weren't used to credit cards; they spent the money they earned, and nothing more. If they didn't have the money to buy something, they didn't have something.

And they worked too hard for the money they made to spend it away buying (cool) crap they didn't need.

A great quote from The Book of Eli:

Quote :

"People had more than they needed. We had no idea what was precious and what wasn't. We threw away things people would kill each other for now."

7/22/2011 12:31:31 PM

fuck old people.

burning them should be this nation's alternative energy policy.

7/22/2011 12:51:51 PM

You keep talking about protecting the savings of old people. Why would you value some of them dying with money ove all of themr getting social security to live off of?

7/23/2011 3:09:47 PM

[Edited on July 24, 2011 at 4:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/24/2011 4:28:54 PM

yall amusing teabaggers.....

7/24/2011 5:08:26 PM

[Edited on July 24, 2011 at 10:18 PM. Reason : jk]

7/24/2011 10:17:44 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/24/curl-is-obama-a-pathological-liar/

7/25/2011 8:21:43 AM

^^it'd be interesting to see the after-tax income of both of those groups in constant dollars.

here we go:


[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2011 9:12:34 AM

^and clearly the bottom income bracket people are putting their tax free lives to good use...

7/25/2011 9:43:13 AM

Quote :

"tax free lives"

really doubt any of those people are living tax free lives. sales tax, property tax, taxes on communication, alcohol, state taxes, local taxes.

they probably pay a decent percent in taxes even if they don't pay much/anything in federal income taxes.

7/25/2011 9:54:12 AM

Enough with the intellectually dishonest "paying no taxes" bullshit. That is a blatantly misleading talking-point used by mainstream conservative shills.

7/25/2011 10:06:07 AM

LOL

Bottom income bracket people= Bottom 80%

7/25/2011 10:26:49 AM

I didn't look at the scale increments on the right.

7/25/2011 11:27:59 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/white-house-stokes-debt-ceiling-crisis/2011/03/29/gIQAvx8DYI_blog.html

Looks like Reid has agreed to Boehner's plan, brought it to the White House, and the Complainer-in-Chief rejected it.

7/25/2011 12:33:46 PM

good.

game over in 2012.

[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 1:15 PM. Reason : mission accomplished, GOP.]

7/25/2011 1:15:31 PM

The president's job isn't to submit to the demands of the house.

The speaker's job is to bring things to the floor that the president would be willing to pass though.

[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 6:03 PM. Reason : Somehow things have been reversed and boehner is the acting president. ]

7/25/2011 6:02:18 PM

7/25/2011 6:35:33 PM

bush tax cuts should also be under obama

[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 6:43 PM. Reason : and obama wars as well]

7/25/2011 6:42:10 PM

Read that graph again.

7/25/2011 6:46:36 PM

Yeah well a "changes" graph is misleading considering Obama EXTENDED the Bush policies instead of allowing them to expire. Its not like he "didn't change them" he EXTENDED them and INTENSIFIED the war in Afghanistan and INITIATED the war in libya.

7/25/2011 6:51:37 PM

see "stimulus tax cuts"

7/25/2011 7:14:31 PM

yeah so when you add those in obama has cut taxes more than bush

7/25/2011 7:15:53 PM

hm?

i was under the impression the bush tax cut extension was in that number. could be wrong though. the chart is rather unclear

[Edited on July 25, 2011 at 7:19 PM. Reason : also. it's funny that not renewing bush tax cuts is a tax hike. and renewing is adding tax cuts. heh]

7/25/2011 7:18:19 PM

Extended the tax cuts...sure, Obama agreed to extend the tax cuts when Congressional Republicans threatened obstructionism (much like they're doing now).

Extended Iraq and Afghanistan...as opposed to what? An immediate withdraw on January 21, 2009? That would have been fantastic, but we both know that's neither practical nor right.

I'll give you Libya.

7/25/2011 7:19:25 PM

It's July 25th, 2011. Obama has had more than enough time to get the troops out. Instead, he's ramped up the war effort.

Don't defend his bullshit.

7/25/2011 7:32:12 PM

^stop spreading nonsense

7/25/2011 7:55:47 PM

Can we do Yemen next, please?

7/25/2011 8:07:14 PM