Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Are Republicans exaggerating the effects of tax increases to small businesses?
- This topic has 210 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 2 months ago by
dbapig.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 28, 2009 at 7:19 AM #357626February 28, 2009 at 7:38 AM #357057
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=DoJC]
1. People making $200,000+ per year represent a mere 7% of the population, yet they pay a whopping 62% of all federal income receipts.
[/quote]I wonder how many of this group are bankers who only made their money by taking enormous risks over the last 30 years which is now being paid for by taxpayers?
When you think about it, Wall Street has essentially lost money over it’s entire existence since every few decades they lose all of the ‘profit’ they’ve made. Decades of lost ‘profit’ from Wall Street is now being paid by taxpayers.
What is really needed to be fair is a retroactive 100% wealth tax targeted at those who have made their money through banking/money management/etc over the last 30 years.
[quote=DoJC]
2. The richest 1% of all taxpayers earned above $388,806 paid 39.9% of all federal income receipts.Tell me: how is it that the top 7% pay 62% of all federal income receipts and yet they’re both evil AND not paying their share?
[/quote]You’re not too bright are you? To analyze this situation you would have to know what percent of total income these people took in. If the top 1% took in 39.9% of the income shouldn’t they account for 39.9% of the federal income reciepts? And if the top 7% took in 62% of the income, shouldn’t they pay 62% of the income tax?
Now, I don’t know what percent of national income these guys accounted for, but the way you framed the situation in your post is asinine.
[quote=DoJC]
Also – I’d like to know how anyone here would like it if their taxes were raised by 4% just because someone in the government felt they made enough money, and could easily afford another 4% in taxes? We’re screaming about our tax increases in CA, yet they’re tiny compared to what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]That extra 4% is on income over $250K. Someone making $400K would at most pay an additional $6,000 (0.04 x $150K) in taxes. So the tax increase on someone making $400K is only 1.5% when calculated over their entire income. That’s hardly some great injustice.
[quote=DoJC]
This all reminds me of a story about the Nazis in WWII. IT goes like this: when they came for the Polish I did nothing because I wasn’t Polish. When they came for the lame I did nothing because I wasn’t lame. When they came for the Jews I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish. When they came for me there was no one to defend me. No one here is in the effected tax brackets, and therefore think nothing about the government reaching into their pockets to shake them down for even more cash. Sadly, when these same people have their taxes raised by the same amount they will scream bloody murder.
[/quote]This ridiculous analogy might be relevant if we took rich people and threw them into a gas chamber. Unfortunately, we don’t. Equating higher taxes to what the Nazis did makes you look like a total moron.
[quote=DoJC]
It’s a sad day for out country when everyone is crying about how evil and bad rich people are, and how they deserve to have their money taken away since they can afford it.
[/quote]The banker class who grew rich by raping this country absolutely deserve to have their money taken away. They didn’t ‘earn’ that money, they just took ridiculous risks with other people’s money which is now being paid for by taxpayers.
[quote=DoJC]
I for one aspire to hit the highest tax bracket I can through various investments I plan to make. The idea of paying additional funds just because someone else thinks I can afford it is an affront![/quote]If you aspire to get rich using your ‘intelligence’, and this post is any indication, I would venture to say that those higher taxes on rich folks will never affect you.
February 28, 2009 at 7:38 AM #357359Participant[quote=DoJC]
1. People making $200,000+ per year represent a mere 7% of the population, yet they pay a whopping 62% of all federal income receipts.
[/quote]I wonder how many of this group are bankers who only made their money by taking enormous risks over the last 30 years which is now being paid for by taxpayers?
When you think about it, Wall Street has essentially lost money over it’s entire existence since every few decades they lose all of the ‘profit’ they’ve made. Decades of lost ‘profit’ from Wall Street is now being paid by taxpayers.
What is really needed to be fair is a retroactive 100% wealth tax targeted at those who have made their money through banking/money management/etc over the last 30 years.
[quote=DoJC]
2. The richest 1% of all taxpayers earned above $388,806 paid 39.9% of all federal income receipts.Tell me: how is it that the top 7% pay 62% of all federal income receipts and yet they’re both evil AND not paying their share?
[/quote]You’re not too bright are you? To analyze this situation you would have to know what percent of total income these people took in. If the top 1% took in 39.9% of the income shouldn’t they account for 39.9% of the federal income reciepts? And if the top 7% took in 62% of the income, shouldn’t they pay 62% of the income tax?
Now, I don’t know what percent of national income these guys accounted for, but the way you framed the situation in your post is asinine.
[quote=DoJC]
Also – I’d like to know how anyone here would like it if their taxes were raised by 4% just because someone in the government felt they made enough money, and could easily afford another 4% in taxes? We’re screaming about our tax increases in CA, yet they’re tiny compared to what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]That extra 4% is on income over $250K. Someone making $400K would at most pay an additional $6,000 (0.04 x $150K) in taxes. So the tax increase on someone making $400K is only 1.5% when calculated over their entire income. That’s hardly some great injustice.
[quote=DoJC]
This all reminds me of a story about the Nazis in WWII. IT goes like this: when they came for the Polish I did nothing because I wasn’t Polish. When they came for the lame I did nothing because I wasn’t lame. When they came for the Jews I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish. When they came for me there was no one to defend me. No one here is in the effected tax brackets, and therefore think nothing about the government reaching into their pockets to shake them down for even more cash. Sadly, when these same people have their taxes raised by the same amount they will scream bloody murder.
[/quote]This ridiculous analogy might be relevant if we took rich people and threw them into a gas chamber. Unfortunately, we don’t. Equating higher taxes to what the Nazis did makes you look like a total moron.
[quote=DoJC]
It’s a sad day for out country when everyone is crying about how evil and bad rich people are, and how they deserve to have their money taken away since they can afford it.
[/quote]The banker class who grew rich by raping this country absolutely deserve to have their money taken away. They didn’t ‘earn’ that money, they just took ridiculous risks with other people’s money which is now being paid for by taxpayers.
[quote=DoJC]
I for one aspire to hit the highest tax bracket I can through various investments I plan to make. The idea of paying additional funds just because someone else thinks I can afford it is an affront![/quote]If you aspire to get rich using your ‘intelligence’, and this post is any indication, I would venture to say that those higher taxes on rich folks will never affect you.
February 28, 2009 at 7:38 AM #357496Participant[quote=DoJC]
1. People making $200,000+ per year represent a mere 7% of the population, yet they pay a whopping 62% of all federal income receipts.
[/quote]I wonder how many of this group are bankers who only made their money by taking enormous risks over the last 30 years which is now being paid for by taxpayers?
When you think about it, Wall Street has essentially lost money over it’s entire existence since every few decades they lose all of the ‘profit’ they’ve made. Decades of lost ‘profit’ from Wall Street is now being paid by taxpayers.
What is really needed to be fair is a retroactive 100% wealth tax targeted at those who have made their money through banking/money management/etc over the last 30 years.
[quote=DoJC]
2. The richest 1% of all taxpayers earned above $388,806 paid 39.9% of all federal income receipts.Tell me: how is it that the top 7% pay 62% of all federal income receipts and yet they’re both evil AND not paying their share?
[/quote]You’re not too bright are you? To analyze this situation you would have to know what percent of total income these people took in. If the top 1% took in 39.9% of the income shouldn’t they account for 39.9% of the federal income reciepts? And if the top 7% took in 62% of the income, shouldn’t they pay 62% of the income tax?
Now, I don’t know what percent of national income these guys accounted for, but the way you framed the situation in your post is asinine.
[quote=DoJC]
Also – I’d like to know how anyone here would like it if their taxes were raised by 4% just because someone in the government felt they made enough money, and could easily afford another 4% in taxes? We’re screaming about our tax increases in CA, yet they’re tiny compared to what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]That extra 4% is on income over $250K. Someone making $400K would at most pay an additional $6,000 (0.04 x $150K) in taxes. So the tax increase on someone making $400K is only 1.5% when calculated over their entire income. That’s hardly some great injustice.
[quote=DoJC]
This all reminds me of a story about the Nazis in WWII. IT goes like this: when they came for the Polish I did nothing because I wasn’t Polish. When they came for the lame I did nothing because I wasn’t lame. When they came for the Jews I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish. When they came for me there was no one to defend me. No one here is in the effected tax brackets, and therefore think nothing about the government reaching into their pockets to shake them down for even more cash. Sadly, when these same people have their taxes raised by the same amount they will scream bloody murder.
[/quote]This ridiculous analogy might be relevant if we took rich people and threw them into a gas chamber. Unfortunately, we don’t. Equating higher taxes to what the Nazis did makes you look like a total moron.
[quote=DoJC]
It’s a sad day for out country when everyone is crying about how evil and bad rich people are, and how they deserve to have their money taken away since they can afford it.
[/quote]The banker class who grew rich by raping this country absolutely deserve to have their money taken away. They didn’t ‘earn’ that money, they just took ridiculous risks with other people’s money which is now being paid for by taxpayers.
[quote=DoJC]
I for one aspire to hit the highest tax bracket I can through various investments I plan to make. The idea of paying additional funds just because someone else thinks I can afford it is an affront![/quote]If you aspire to get rich using your ‘intelligence’, and this post is any indication, I would venture to say that those higher taxes on rich folks will never affect you.
February 28, 2009 at 7:38 AM #357527Participant[quote=DoJC]
1. People making $200,000+ per year represent a mere 7% of the population, yet they pay a whopping 62% of all federal income receipts.
[/quote]I wonder how many of this group are bankers who only made their money by taking enormous risks over the last 30 years which is now being paid for by taxpayers?
When you think about it, Wall Street has essentially lost money over it’s entire existence since every few decades they lose all of the ‘profit’ they’ve made. Decades of lost ‘profit’ from Wall Street is now being paid by taxpayers.
What is really needed to be fair is a retroactive 100% wealth tax targeted at those who have made their money through banking/money management/etc over the last 30 years.
[quote=DoJC]
2. The richest 1% of all taxpayers earned above $388,806 paid 39.9% of all federal income receipts.Tell me: how is it that the top 7% pay 62% of all federal income receipts and yet they’re both evil AND not paying their share?
[/quote]You’re not too bright are you? To analyze this situation you would have to know what percent of total income these people took in. If the top 1% took in 39.9% of the income shouldn’t they account for 39.9% of the federal income reciepts? And if the top 7% took in 62% of the income, shouldn’t they pay 62% of the income tax?
Now, I don’t know what percent of national income these guys accounted for, but the way you framed the situation in your post is asinine.
[quote=DoJC]
Also – I’d like to know how anyone here would like it if their taxes were raised by 4% just because someone in the government felt they made enough money, and could easily afford another 4% in taxes? We’re screaming about our tax increases in CA, yet they’re tiny compared to what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]That extra 4% is on income over $250K. Someone making $400K would at most pay an additional $6,000 (0.04 x $150K) in taxes. So the tax increase on someone making $400K is only 1.5% when calculated over their entire income. That’s hardly some great injustice.
[quote=DoJC]
This all reminds me of a story about the Nazis in WWII. IT goes like this: when they came for the Polish I did nothing because I wasn’t Polish. When they came for the lame I did nothing because I wasn’t lame. When they came for the Jews I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish. When they came for me there was no one to defend me. No one here is in the effected tax brackets, and therefore think nothing about the government reaching into their pockets to shake them down for even more cash. Sadly, when these same people have their taxes raised by the same amount they will scream bloody murder.
[/quote]This ridiculous analogy might be relevant if we took rich people and threw them into a gas chamber. Unfortunately, we don’t. Equating higher taxes to what the Nazis did makes you look like a total moron.
[quote=DoJC]
It’s a sad day for out country when everyone is crying about how evil and bad rich people are, and how they deserve to have their money taken away since they can afford it.
[/quote]The banker class who grew rich by raping this country absolutely deserve to have their money taken away. They didn’t ‘earn’ that money, they just took ridiculous risks with other people’s money which is now being paid for by taxpayers.
[quote=DoJC]
I for one aspire to hit the highest tax bracket I can through various investments I plan to make. The idea of paying additional funds just because someone else thinks I can afford it is an affront![/quote]If you aspire to get rich using your ‘intelligence’, and this post is any indication, I would venture to say that those higher taxes on rich folks will never affect you.
February 28, 2009 at 7:38 AM #357636Participant[quote=DoJC]
1. People making $200,000+ per year represent a mere 7% of the population, yet they pay a whopping 62% of all federal income receipts.
[/quote]I wonder how many of this group are bankers who only made their money by taking enormous risks over the last 30 years which is now being paid for by taxpayers?
When you think about it, Wall Street has essentially lost money over it’s entire existence since every few decades they lose all of the ‘profit’ they’ve made. Decades of lost ‘profit’ from Wall Street is now being paid by taxpayers.
What is really needed to be fair is a retroactive 100% wealth tax targeted at those who have made their money through banking/money management/etc over the last 30 years.
[quote=DoJC]
2. The richest 1% of all taxpayers earned above $388,806 paid 39.9% of all federal income receipts.Tell me: how is it that the top 7% pay 62% of all federal income receipts and yet they’re both evil AND not paying their share?
[/quote]You’re not too bright are you? To analyze this situation you would have to know what percent of total income these people took in. If the top 1% took in 39.9% of the income shouldn’t they account for 39.9% of the federal income reciepts? And if the top 7% took in 62% of the income, shouldn’t they pay 62% of the income tax?
Now, I don’t know what percent of national income these guys accounted for, but the way you framed the situation in your post is asinine.
[quote=DoJC]
Also – I’d like to know how anyone here would like it if their taxes were raised by 4% just because someone in the government felt they made enough money, and could easily afford another 4% in taxes? We’re screaming about our tax increases in CA, yet they’re tiny compared to what we’re talking about here.
[/quote]That extra 4% is on income over $250K. Someone making $400K would at most pay an additional $6,000 (0.04 x $150K) in taxes. So the tax increase on someone making $400K is only 1.5% when calculated over their entire income. That’s hardly some great injustice.
[quote=DoJC]
This all reminds me of a story about the Nazis in WWII. IT goes like this: when they came for the Polish I did nothing because I wasn’t Polish. When they came for the lame I did nothing because I wasn’t lame. When they came for the Jews I did nothing because I wasn’t Jewish. When they came for me there was no one to defend me. No one here is in the effected tax brackets, and therefore think nothing about the government reaching into their pockets to shake them down for even more cash. Sadly, when these same people have their taxes raised by the same amount they will scream bloody murder.
[/quote]This ridiculous analogy might be relevant if we took rich people and threw them into a gas chamber. Unfortunately, we don’t. Equating higher taxes to what the Nazis did makes you look like a total moron.
[quote=DoJC]
It’s a sad day for out country when everyone is crying about how evil and bad rich people are, and how they deserve to have their money taken away since they can afford it.
[/quote]The banker class who grew rich by raping this country absolutely deserve to have their money taken away. They didn’t ‘earn’ that money, they just took ridiculous risks with other people’s money which is now being paid for by taxpayers.
[quote=DoJC]
I for one aspire to hit the highest tax bracket I can through various investments I plan to make. The idea of paying additional funds just because someone else thinks I can afford it is an affront![/quote]If you aspire to get rich using your ‘intelligence’, and this post is any indication, I would venture to say that those higher taxes on rich folks will never affect you.
February 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM #357062Anonymous
Guest[quote=TheBreeze]WTF? You make decisions on where to take your vacation based on the sales tax rate? Please don’t have kids.[/quote]
I make my decision based on cost and what I can afford. I’m responsible person who knows my limitation on what I can spend, not like others who pretends to live like the Jones’s. As you well know, leisure tax is built into cost. So yes, if CA is too expensive I wouldn’t go there.
BTW I do have kids, not sure what your point is about this!
[quote=TheBreeze]It seems like every ‘argument’ I hear against higher taxes is made by some doofus dittohead parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh and usually has no logic behind it. [/quote]
O’Reilly has a right to his opinion. I don’t know much about Limbaugh, since he’s too far right for me. However, it’s up to the folks to discern from fact or fiction. Until this moment, I have not had any cause. Now, if O’Reilly skewed the facts for the sake of party affiliation, then yes, I would agree with you. You must agree that some on the other side do tend to lie about what they report. For instance “Reporter Loses Job Over Altered Video Of Fox’s Gibson” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403215.html?hpid=moreheadlines). I guess you would love for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be enacted?
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me.
February 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM #357364Guest[quote=TheBreeze]WTF? You make decisions on where to take your vacation based on the sales tax rate? Please don’t have kids.[/quote]
I make my decision based on cost and what I can afford. I’m responsible person who knows my limitation on what I can spend, not like others who pretends to live like the Jones’s. As you well know, leisure tax is built into cost. So yes, if CA is too expensive I wouldn’t go there.
BTW I do have kids, not sure what your point is about this!
[quote=TheBreeze]It seems like every ‘argument’ I hear against higher taxes is made by some doofus dittohead parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh and usually has no logic behind it. [/quote]
O’Reilly has a right to his opinion. I don’t know much about Limbaugh, since he’s too far right for me. However, it’s up to the folks to discern from fact or fiction. Until this moment, I have not had any cause. Now, if O’Reilly skewed the facts for the sake of party affiliation, then yes, I would agree with you. You must agree that some on the other side do tend to lie about what they report. For instance “Reporter Loses Job Over Altered Video Of Fox’s Gibson” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403215.html?hpid=moreheadlines). I guess you would love for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be enacted?
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me.
February 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM #357503Guest[quote=TheBreeze]WTF? You make decisions on where to take your vacation based on the sales tax rate? Please don’t have kids.[/quote]
I make my decision based on cost and what I can afford. I’m responsible person who knows my limitation on what I can spend, not like others who pretends to live like the Jones’s. As you well know, leisure tax is built into cost. So yes, if CA is too expensive I wouldn’t go there.
BTW I do have kids, not sure what your point is about this!
[quote=TheBreeze]It seems like every ‘argument’ I hear against higher taxes is made by some doofus dittohead parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh and usually has no logic behind it. [/quote]
O’Reilly has a right to his opinion. I don’t know much about Limbaugh, since he’s too far right for me. However, it’s up to the folks to discern from fact or fiction. Until this moment, I have not had any cause. Now, if O’Reilly skewed the facts for the sake of party affiliation, then yes, I would agree with you. You must agree that some on the other side do tend to lie about what they report. For instance “Reporter Loses Job Over Altered Video Of Fox’s Gibson” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403215.html?hpid=moreheadlines). I guess you would love for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be enacted?
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me.
February 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM #357532Guest[quote=TheBreeze]WTF? You make decisions on where to take your vacation based on the sales tax rate? Please don’t have kids.[/quote]
I make my decision based on cost and what I can afford. I’m responsible person who knows my limitation on what I can spend, not like others who pretends to live like the Jones’s. As you well know, leisure tax is built into cost. So yes, if CA is too expensive I wouldn’t go there.
BTW I do have kids, not sure what your point is about this!
[quote=TheBreeze]It seems like every ‘argument’ I hear against higher taxes is made by some doofus dittohead parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh and usually has no logic behind it. [/quote]
O’Reilly has a right to his opinion. I don’t know much about Limbaugh, since he’s too far right for me. However, it’s up to the folks to discern from fact or fiction. Until this moment, I have not had any cause. Now, if O’Reilly skewed the facts for the sake of party affiliation, then yes, I would agree with you. You must agree that some on the other side do tend to lie about what they report. For instance “Reporter Loses Job Over Altered Video Of Fox’s Gibson” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403215.html?hpid=moreheadlines). I guess you would love for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be enacted?
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me.
February 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM #357641Guest[quote=TheBreeze]WTF? You make decisions on where to take your vacation based on the sales tax rate? Please don’t have kids.[/quote]
I make my decision based on cost and what I can afford. I’m responsible person who knows my limitation on what I can spend, not like others who pretends to live like the Jones’s. As you well know, leisure tax is built into cost. So yes, if CA is too expensive I wouldn’t go there.
BTW I do have kids, not sure what your point is about this!
[quote=TheBreeze]It seems like every ‘argument’ I hear against higher taxes is made by some doofus dittohead parroting O’Reilly or Limbaugh and usually has no logic behind it. [/quote]
O’Reilly has a right to his opinion. I don’t know much about Limbaugh, since he’s too far right for me. However, it’s up to the folks to discern from fact or fiction. Until this moment, I have not had any cause. Now, if O’Reilly skewed the facts for the sake of party affiliation, then yes, I would agree with you. You must agree that some on the other side do tend to lie about what they report. For instance “Reporter Loses Job Over Altered Video Of Fox’s Gibson” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403215.html?hpid=moreheadlines). I guess you would love for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be enacted?
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me.
February 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM #357067Participant[quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
February 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM #357369Participant[quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
February 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM #357508Participant[quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
February 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM #357537Participant[quote=gothicreader]
But back to the original argument. Was I wrong about the increase in taxes in CA? If so, please enlightened me. [/quote]Sales tax in California is going up. 1 percent. Yes, you were wrong to insinuate that anyone is going to be dissuaded from coming to California on vacation just because the sales tax has gone up 1 percent.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.