|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 15, 2012 10:15:27 GMT -5
soaktherich.us/Soak The Rich! Note that you have to click the above link to get the interactive progress bar.... it is fun, it is easy....“We have looted the future to bribe the present. You can do that for a little while, but eventually it catches up to you.” Mark Steyn, appearance on CSPAN-2 BookTV, 02/05/2012 Politicians, the editorial page of The New York Times, the talent at CNN, and the average Fine Arts professor agree: the answer to America’s debt crisis is to make The Rich pay their “fair share.” With this consensus from such a broad swath of America’s leading minds, who are we to argue? Maybe you’ve been frightened or inspired by David Burge and Mary Katharine Ham – now it’s your turn to solve America’s $16.1 trillion national debt! Let’s start with a realistic goal: the 2011 federal deficit of $1.3 trillion. Click an industry to double income taxes on the nation’s largest employers and take all of their CEOs’ pay. For more information, simply click each industry you’d like to soak. Track your progress below, and click the “Show Results” button at any time to see the impact of your new taxes! Sources: www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=npwww.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.htmlwww.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/nws/financialswww.reuters.com/finance/stocks/officerProfile?symbol=MROfinapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/CIAtAGlance.jsp?tkr=GE
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 10:44:05 GMT -5
We have bills to pay. The top 1% have made a ton of money over the last few years. Everyone else has lost money.
My are some in the middle class defending the people who took all our money???
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 10:52:55 GMT -5
if the R's get their way "deductions" will be limited.... that will increase the effective tax rate by increasing what taxable income is... if the D's get their way, the 15% investment income tax rate on 1% of the population (mostly 0.1%) will rise to between 20% and 39.6% (maximum)...
now, in both cases the tax rate is effectively being increased... but one way is good and the other is bad.... does Congress think we are stupid?
but, as 99% struggles to get by, let's preserve the ability for George Soros, the Koch Brother to make more and fund the next Super Pac for 2016... taxes will need to go up, but we need a smart approach, asking those who are doing okay to chip in a little more, while it won't really dent the deficit, will even the playing field which really favors the super rich these days....
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 15, 2012 11:05:30 GMT -5
We have bills to pay. The top 1% have made a ton of money over the last few years. Everyone else has lost money. My are some in the middle class defending the people who took all our money??? I'll first point out that you are referring to company's producing product or providing services to the middle class who demanded these products/services and the transaction was voluntary and free. Are you certain everyone lost money in the last 10 years? My net worth increased nearly 15 fold. As a further point, the GINI Co-efficient has been flat for about 20 years.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Nov 15, 2012 11:07:03 GMT -5
www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/11/two-things-barack-obama-doesnt-understand-taxes-and-mathematics.phpTwo Things Barack Obama Doesn’t Understand: Taxes and Mathematics Negotiations over the “fiscal cliff,” which I wrote about here, will begin soon. President Obama has laid down a single marker: he insists that taxes on “the rich” go up; specifically, that the Bush-era marginal income tax rates be allowed to expire as scheduled under current law on January 1, to be replaced by the rates that prevailed during the Clinton administration. Obama has conveyed the strong impression that canceling these “tax cuts for the rich” will solve the nation’s fiscal problems, and he has specifically urged Congress to preserve the Bush-era tax cuts for everyone else: Mr. Obama reiterated his demand that the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest individuals, and asked the groups to focus their members on getting Congress, in particular House Republicans, to pass the tax cuts for everyone else. So let’s do the math. How plausible is Obama’s claim that increasing income taxes on “the rich,” defined by him as families with incomes over $250,000, will get the nation’s fiscal crisis under control? Currently, the national debt exceeds $16 trillion. In fiscal year 2012, the Obama administration added another $1.1 trillion to that debt. No doubt most people who hear Obama say that his only priority is raising taxes on the rich back to their Clinton-era levels assume that doing this would eliminate a good part, if not all, of our deficit. So what would happen if we returned the top marginal income tax rate from 35% to 39.6%, and the second marginal rate from 33% to 36%, as Obama has proposed? Let’s note first that the top rate kicks in at a taxable income of $388,350 for a married couple, and the 33% rate at $178,650, so we are actually reaching deeper than the $250,000 level that Obama likes to talk about.The Joint Committee on Taxation has done the math. Raising the top two rates as proposed by Obama would increase revenue by $22.35 billion in FY 2013, assuming that no economic activity is deterred by the higher rates. Which means that higher taxes on the rich, Obama’s only proposal to deal with the nation’s impending fiscal calamity, would cover around 2% of the current federal budget deficit, and would make no contribution at all toward dealing with our $16 trillion debt. So, Barry, what’s your plan for the other 98%? And, hey, how about that debt? I’m just kidding, really. Obama’s entire career has been built on the premise that voters are stupid, and so far he hasn’t been proved wrong. By his own admission he is “bad at math,” which I guess means that the other 98% is up to the Republicans.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 11:07:31 GMT -5
We are not middle class Sav. We are doing better than the middle class.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 11:07:45 GMT -5
ok....lets say we add 10% extra tax to the rich
now what??
it doesnt even scratch the surface of the problem
we have a spending problem.....we need to take the credit cards away from the teenagers in dc
if you cant put it in the budget...and keep the budget balanced...you cant do it!
we cant wait 10 more years......
we need a balanced budget next year!
how do you propose we do that?
16 trillion in debt now.....which will take YEARS to payoff if we can stop adding to it now
taxing the rich will not even get you close, so where do we cut?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 11:30:57 GMT -5
if the R's get their way "deductions" will be limited.... that will increase the effective tax rate by increasing what taxable income is... if the D's get their way, the 15% investment income tax rate on 1% of the population (mostly 0.1%) will rise to between 20% and 39.6% (maximum)... Both sound good to me- as well as letting the Bush cuts expire across the board. Add spending cuts as well and maybe we will get somewhere. How about a nice transaction tax in the stock market as well? High frequency traders can pay high frequency taxes ;D.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 11:36:31 GMT -5
ok....lets say we add 10% extra tax to the rich now what?? it doesnt even scratch the surface of the problem we have a spending problem.....we need to take the credit cards away from the teenagers in dc if you cant put it in the budget...and keep the budget balanced...you cant do it! we cant wait 10 more years...... we need a balanced budget next year! how do you propose we do that? 16 trillion in debt now.....which will take YEARS to payoff if we can stop adding to it now taxing the rich will not even get you close, so where do we cut? Its one piece of the puzzle. It would be almost a Trillion over 10 years. WHY ARE WE DEFENDING THE RICH? The we up SS retirement a few years and we look at Medicade and Medicare.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 11:48:47 GMT -5
ok....lets say we add 10% extra tax to the rich now what?? it doesnt even scratch the surface of the problem we have a spending problem.....we need to take the credit cards away from the teenagers in dc if you cant put it in the budget...and keep the budget balanced...you cant do it! we cant wait 10 more years...... we need a balanced budget next year! how do you propose we do that? 16 trillion in debt now.....which will take YEARS to payoff if we can stop adding to it now taxing the rich will not even get you close, so where do we cut? Its one piece of the puzzle. It would be almost a Trillion over 10 years. WHY ARE WE DEFENDING THE RICH? The we up SS retirement a few years and we look at Medicade and Medicare. based on your number thats 100b per year our deficits are 1.2t per year....so if your numbers are good....we have 9% of it handled...and you have taxed the rich upping ss retirement age will help, but YEARS in the future....they are not cutting benefits for those getting them now medicaid and medicare.....okay what is the plan? this is the issue...no one can see but a small part of what needs to be done.....and getting everyone to agree is a near impossibility we need to CUT today......10% across the board for every nickel that the feds spend thousands of lost jobs...but necessary kill off government agencies that are useless slash defense.....pet projects for states, and the number of bases oversea....again more job losses kicking the can down the road.....it was great for a time.....but very soon those bonds we need sold to maintain the debt....noone is going to be buying them, and when that happens we have to increase the yields so they become more palatable....added interest expense....and the proverbial last straw
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 13:34:10 GMT -5
I agree with all the cutting G.
And we need to raise taxes on the super rich also.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Nov 15, 2012 14:41:15 GMT -5
The bottom line is always protected- a little more taxes on the won't change a thing as far as jobs go. Tax rates have almost nothing to do with jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 14:43:19 GMT -5
nope....it wont affect jobs
it will affect how much we pay for stuff
profits are not going down because taxes are going up
count on it....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 15:00:40 GMT -5
I soaked Aerospace, Banking, Biotech, Defense, Food & Beverages, Oil & Gas: What do I win? Some perspective on reality? :-\
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 15:03:12 GMT -5
I do not understand the tax increases on individuals profits will cause people to get fired or goods to cost more....I thought the market makes those decisions... I guess only when it's convenient it's all about free market... but when it comes to tax it can only be bad....
Corporate tax rates are possibly going down, but some really targeted "loopholes" may be eliminated to pay for it... the President has made this clear, he want to cut the corporate tax rates.. not as far as the R's, but he proposed a cut. (and do not give me the S corp, C corp BS, S corp owners can become C corps and then they do not pay the tax on the money retained, the company does and it may be cheaper)
The salary paid to the CEO may be taxed higher... the dividends that Warren Buffer gets may get taxed higher, if someone sells their investment that may pay a little more tax, how does that relate to the corporation, who may get a tax cut having to fire people and raise prices as a result of taxes only.
why, if a rate goes up it will be armageddon, but if we cut deductions (which increases the effective tax rate) that's acceptable.... it's the same thing....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 15:06:00 GMT -5
The point of this exercise is to show that even if there are no deleterious effects whatsoever from doubling corporate income taxes on these corporations and confiscating 100% of CEO pay, the additional revenue is still a drop in the proverbial bucket.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 15:09:32 GMT -5
"The point of this exercise is to show that even if there are no deleterious effects whatsoever from doubling corporate income taxes on these corporations and confiscating 100% of CEO pay, the additional revenue is still a drop in the proverbial bucket."
Yet, no one has proposed this far fetched idea other than the doom and gloomers....the only ones in fear of this non reality are the Koch Brothers, the real estate guy in Florida, Papa John and the ones who think only the super rich are job creators and everyone else is a taker.... let them close up shop... the market will replace them if their is a need for their products....
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 15:16:59 GMT -5
"The point of this exercise is to show that even if there are no deleterious effects whatsoever from doubling corporate income taxes on these corporations and confiscating 100% of CEO pay, the additional revenue is still a drop in the proverbial bucket." Yet, no one has proposed this far fetched idea other than the doom and gloomers....the only ones in fear of this non reality are the Koch Brothers, the real estate guy in Florida, Papa John and the ones who think only the super rich are job creators and everyone else is a taker.... let them close up shop... the market will replace them if their is a need for their products.... I'm not saying you shouldn't up taxes on the rich. I'm saying that if you do up taxes, you'll still need to squeeze the other 92% out of spending cuts. That's assuming the yearly deficit remains at a "paltry" $1.3 trillion rather than growing.
|
|
Driftr
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 10, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
Posts: 3,478
|
Post by Driftr on Nov 15, 2012 15:21:36 GMT -5
The 'good' news is that if we look at fiscal years, and my math from yesterday is correct when I wrote this stuff down, total debt outstanding increased by 1.885T in FY09, 1.556T in FY10, 1.324T in FY11 and 1.276T in FY12. We are getting closer to the 1.017T in FY08. Next stop after that is the .501T from FY07. Possible the trend has reversed? I'll certainly let everyone know in 4 years (and probably multiple times between then and now)...
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 15, 2012 15:27:59 GMT -5
The 'good' news is that if we look at fiscal years, and my math from yesterday is correct when I wrote this stuff down, total debt outstanding increased by 1.885T in FY09, 1.556T in FY10, 1.324T in FY11 and 1.276T in FY12. We are getting closer to the 1.017T in FY08. Next stop after that is the .501T from FY07. Possible the trend has reversed? I'll certainly let everyone know in 4 years (and probably multiple times between then and now)... *lol* All hail second derivatives!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 15:42:45 GMT -5
mwcpa
if you own a company...and the company's profits go down because of tax rates going up, what are your options?
1. take the hit to the bottom line net 2. increase gross to offset the tax increase 3. decrease expenses to offset tax increase 4. combination of the above
i can tell you that not one of the owners i have worked for in 30+ years, would choose option 1
they invested x into their company...and expect to get a ROI of y
good years, bad years. and in between.....they need and will make x, or they would close the operation down
any good businessman will do the same
so if unable to raise prices, they will try cutting expenses....but they are not just going to take the tax increase lying down
any tax increase will inevitably be passed on to the consumer
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 15:46:54 GMT -5
"I'm saying that if you do up taxes, you'll still need to squeeze the other 92% out of spending cuts. That's assuming the yearly deficit remains at a "paltry" $1.3 trillion rather than growing."
I agree spending needs to be controled (and not just social programs, we need to stop this nation building we got involved with and build at home first).. but when we have drunken sailors at the helm, and have had at the helm for years, no matter if it is a D or R, Congress has no fiscal responsibilty, yet we re-elect our guy, he's good, your guy is bad....
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 15:49:24 GMT -5
"if you own a company...and the company's profits go down because of tax rates going up, what are your options?"
All proposals from the President and the Congress suggest this is not true... company (corporate sepcifically) rates will go down if either sides plan goes into effect....
the pay the CEO takes will be taxed higher, that has nothing to do with the company.... his salary is supposed to be market driven, or so we are lead to beleive.....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 15:54:19 GMT -5
"if you own a company...and the company's profits go down because of tax rates going up, what are your options?" All proposals from the President and the Congress suggest this is not true... company (corporate sepcifically) rates will go down if either sides plan goes into effect.... the pay the CEO takes will be taxed higher, that has nothing to do with the company.... his salary is supposed to be market driven, or so we are lead to beleive..... i have with one exception worked for chapter S or LLC's in my entire career there is no corporate rate....it is the owner's individual's return and his taxes...and his profits......are what matter to him and how many business'es like that across the country that employ 50-1000 people...... i dont know....but i would say thousands easily ( i have worked for 4 of them in my little corner of the usa)
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 16:03:25 GMT -5
I agree with all the cutting G. And we need to raise taxes on the super rich also. Go ahead and raise the taxes on the rich. It won't make a dent in our economy, but it will sure lose us some more jobs. They will protect their bottom line at the cost of jobs. We're seeing it already. So, go for it! Raising taxes on the rich WILL NOT cost us jobs.
|
|
usaone
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 9:10:23 GMT -5
Posts: 3,429
|
Post by usaone on Nov 15, 2012 16:11:41 GMT -5
nope....it wont affect jobs it will affect how much we pay for stuff profits are not going down because taxes are going up count on it.... IT WILL NOT affect what we pay for stuff. We have a free market economy and the smart companies WILL NOT pass a tax increase onto the consumer and those companies will see an increase in sales that will more than make up for a small tax increase.
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 16:18:22 GMT -5
"i have with one exception worked for chapter S or LLC's in my entire career"
And since tax paid is their personal profit they can always restructure as C corps if it is more advantageous, which is may be....nothing says you have to have pass through tax treatment....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 1, 2024 14:17:46 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2012 16:20:21 GMT -5
nope....it wont affect jobs it will affect how much we pay for stuff profits are not going down because taxes are going up count on it.... IT WILL NOT affect what we pay for stuff. We have a free market economy and the smart companies WILL NOT pass a tax increase onto the consumer and those companies will see an increase in sales that will more than make up for a small tax increase. well damn....if you say it like that, it must be true "We have a free market economy and the smart companies WILL NOT pass a tax increase onto the consumer and those companies will see an increase in sales that will more than make up for a small tax increase." are you kidding.....do you work for a public company? if you do, ask the owner if he wants to take a pay cut that is what you are saying...that owners of companies will willingly take pay cuts for the good of the economy really?
|
|
mwcpa
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 7, 2011 6:35:43 GMT -5
Posts: 2,425
|
Post by mwcpa on Nov 15, 2012 16:35:14 GMT -5
"if you do, ask the owner if he wants to take a pay cut"
I do know what I will do if my 10 million salary needs to be cut to 9.5 million, not sure if I can get by....
|
|
TonyTiger
Junior Associate
Mundi est stupenda locus
Joined: Apr 15, 2012 20:08:39 GMT -5
Posts: 5,583
|
Post by TonyTiger on Nov 15, 2012 16:43:24 GMT -5
How does Fearless Leader plan to get this through the Republican-controlled House? Oh, wait... Executive Order... yeah, that's the ticket... I mean... after all... President O-bumble's DREAM Act redux... it, too, was arguably unconstitutional, and it just bypassed that pesky ol' intransigent Congress thingey... ;D
|
|