OT – Inside Obama’s “Tax Cut” Can you say Redistribution!

[TheBreeze]

[quote=asianautica]TheBreeze, don’t look now but the “rich” are your boss. They’ll make you feel the pain first before they’ll take the pain on themselves. You also agreed with FLU without even knowing it. The fat cats will not be hurt by Obama’s plan, they have plenty of ways to get around this. The one will be hurt are the people who actually work for their money. The one who will benefit most are the lazy a$$ who sit at home and do nothing and pay no taxes. They’ll get even more tax credits for doing nothing.[/quote]

Whether the fat cats can get around Obama’s tax increases will depend on whether Congress goes the extra step and closes any loopholes.

The concept is pretty simple: Anything someone receives for doing work should be taxed as income. This includes stock. Stock options should be taxed as income when they are exercised. All income above $250K should be subject to the Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.

The capital gains rate should also increase for those with income+capital gains exceeding $250K. Perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to make the fat cats capital gains tax rate equal to their income tax rate.

In any event, all the loopholes mentioned above can be closed. Hopefully a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress will actually close the loopholes. All it would take is some legislation that Obama could sign into law.

[gandalf]

That’s right. Income from a conceptual point of view is a positive change in wealth year over year. Income to a CFO or tax accountant is a whole different subject. Any discussions of tax policy that fail to address the definition of income are generally partisan bullshit.

That’s how you can tell if someone is full of shit, BTW. When they talk about income taxes being unfair but don’t talk about definitions of income.

Republicans used to be, but are not anymore, the party of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Saying “Democrats are tax-n-spend socialists” is pretty much a joke now.

Want to blame ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Washington’? That would be okay. I agree. Think it’s a party issue? Democrats are going to steal your money, and republicans are for small government and fiscal sensibility? That’s a joke.

[gandalf]

That’s right. Income from a conceptual point of view is a positive change in wealth year over year. Income to a CFO or tax accountant is a whole different subject. Any discussions of tax policy that fail to address the definition of income are generally partisan bullshit.

That’s how you can tell if someone is full of shit, BTW. When they talk about income taxes being unfair but don’t talk about definitions of income.

Republicans used to be, but are not anymore, the party of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Saying “Democrats are tax-n-spend socialists” is pretty much a joke now.

Want to blame ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Washington’? That would be okay. I agree. Think it’s a party issue? Democrats are going to steal your money, and republicans are for small government and fiscal sensibility? That’s a joke.

[gandalf]

That’s right. Income from a conceptual point of view is a positive change in wealth year over year. Income to a CFO or tax accountant is a whole different subject. Any discussions of tax policy that fail to address the definition of income are generally partisan bullshit.

That’s how you can tell if someone is full of shit, BTW. When they talk about income taxes being unfair but don’t talk about definitions of income.

Republicans used to be, but are not anymore, the party of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Saying “Democrats are tax-n-spend socialists” is pretty much a joke now.

Want to blame ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Washington’? That would be okay. I agree. Think it’s a party issue? Democrats are going to steal your money, and republicans are for small government and fiscal sensibility? That’s a joke.

[gandalf]

That’s right. Income from a conceptual point of view is a positive change in wealth year over year. Income to a CFO or tax accountant is a whole different subject. Any discussions of tax policy that fail to address the definition of income are generally partisan bullshit.

That’s how you can tell if someone is full of shit, BTW. When they talk about income taxes being unfair but don’t talk about definitions of income.

Republicans used to be, but are not anymore, the party of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Saying “Democrats are tax-n-spend socialists” is pretty much a joke now.

Want to blame ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Washington’? That would be okay. I agree. Think it’s a party issue? Democrats are going to steal your money, and republicans are for small government and fiscal sensibility? That’s a joke.

[gandalf]

That’s right. Income from a conceptual point of view is a positive change in wealth year over year. Income to a CFO or tax accountant is a whole different subject. Any discussions of tax policy that fail to address the definition of income are generally partisan bullshit.

That’s how you can tell if someone is full of shit, BTW. When they talk about income taxes being unfair but don’t talk about definitions of income.

Republicans used to be, but are not anymore, the party of conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Saying “Democrats are tax-n-spend socialists” is pretty much a joke now.

Want to blame ‘Wall Street’ or ‘Washington’? That would be okay. I agree. Think it’s a party issue? Democrats are going to steal your money, and republicans are for small government and fiscal sensibility? That’s a joke.

[Dukehorn]

Oh please, do any of you have an ex-roommate from law school whose sole job at KPMG is to figure out how corporations and rich executives can avoid tax obligations. I do (and he earns over 400k a year with no billable requirements to figure out how to avoid the tax code).

Last I saw, no “middle class” worker has that kind of firepower to figure out how to avoid taxes.

If you think that folks aren’t going to work hard because of tax implications maybe you should examine the current state of the economy and accept the notion that folks are going to work hard to save their jobs. (Or are you taking McCain’s position that we have stable fundamentals right now?) Or is that the new Republican byline–unemployment is the first step to being an entrepreneur?

Maybe you should wonder why Chris Buckley left the National Review or why David Brooks just wrote an article stating that the Republican party is now the anti-education party. Or how David Frum got his ass handed to him by Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. This isn’t the party of Reagan 20 years ago.

[Dukehorn]

Oh please, do any of you have an ex-roommate from law school whose sole job at KPMG is to figure out how corporations and rich executives can avoid tax obligations. I do (and he earns over 400k a year with no billable requirements to figure out how to avoid the tax code).

Last I saw, no “middle class” worker has that kind of firepower to figure out how to avoid taxes.

If you think that folks aren’t going to work hard because of tax implications maybe you should examine the current state of the economy and accept the notion that folks are going to work hard to save their jobs. (Or are you taking McCain’s position that we have stable fundamentals right now?) Or is that the new Republican byline–unemployment is the first step to being an entrepreneur?

Maybe you should wonder why Chris Buckley left the National Review or why David Brooks just wrote an article stating that the Republican party is now the anti-education party. Or how David Frum got his ass handed to him by Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. This isn’t the party of Reagan 20 years ago.

[Dukehorn]

Oh please, do any of you have an ex-roommate from law school whose sole job at KPMG is to figure out how corporations and rich executives can avoid tax obligations. I do (and he earns over 400k a year with no billable requirements to figure out how to avoid the tax code).

Last I saw, no “middle class” worker has that kind of firepower to figure out how to avoid taxes.

If you think that folks aren’t going to work hard because of tax implications maybe you should examine the current state of the economy and accept the notion that folks are going to work hard to save their jobs. (Or are you taking McCain’s position that we have stable fundamentals right now?) Or is that the new Republican byline–unemployment is the first step to being an entrepreneur?

Maybe you should wonder why Chris Buckley left the National Review or why David Brooks just wrote an article stating that the Republican party is now the anti-education party. Or how David Frum got his ass handed to him by Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. This isn’t the party of Reagan 20 years ago.

[Dukehorn]

Oh please, do any of you have an ex-roommate from law school whose sole job at KPMG is to figure out how corporations and rich executives can avoid tax obligations. I do (and he earns over 400k a year with no billable requirements to figure out how to avoid the tax code).

Last I saw, no “middle class” worker has that kind of firepower to figure out how to avoid taxes.

If you think that folks aren’t going to work hard because of tax implications maybe you should examine the current state of the economy and accept the notion that folks are going to work hard to save their jobs. (Or are you taking McCain’s position that we have stable fundamentals right now?) Or is that the new Republican byline–unemployment is the first step to being an entrepreneur?

Maybe you should wonder why Chris Buckley left the National Review or why David Brooks just wrote an article stating that the Republican party is now the anti-education party. Or how David Frum got his ass handed to him by Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. This isn’t the party of Reagan 20 years ago.

[Dukehorn]

Oh please, do any of you have an ex-roommate from law school whose sole job at KPMG is to figure out how corporations and rich executives can avoid tax obligations. I do (and he earns over 400k a year with no billable requirements to figure out how to avoid the tax code).

Last I saw, no “middle class” worker has that kind of firepower to figure out how to avoid taxes.

If you think that folks aren’t going to work hard because of tax implications maybe you should examine the current state of the economy and accept the notion that folks are going to work hard to save their jobs. (Or are you taking McCain’s position that we have stable fundamentals right now?) Or is that the new Republican byline–unemployment is the first step to being an entrepreneur?

Maybe you should wonder why Chris Buckley left the National Review or why David Brooks just wrote an article stating that the Republican party is now the anti-education party. Or how David Frum got his ass handed to him by Rachel Maddow a few nights ago. This isn’t the party of Reagan 20 years ago.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: The appointment of Sarah Palin should dispel any and all doubts as to the intentions of the Republican Party. That was pandering, pure and simple, and any attempts to claim otherwise is bulls**t.

The stalwarts of the Right are making no attempt to dress that move up as anything other than what it is, a shameless ploy to garner what now constitutes the “loyalist” vote for the GOP: un- or under-educated evangelicals who will blindly do as they’re told by a political machine built to maintain nothing other than power.

This isn’t Reagan’s party; it isn’t Goldwater’s party; s**t it ain’t even Nixon or Ford’s party.

I won’t be voting for either of these two clowns come November.

I agree with Gandalf’s sentiment that we have entered a new and dangerous phase in our history and we need to move past “wedge issues” and the “culture wars” and “identity politics” and realize that we are standing on the edge of the abyss.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: The appointment of Sarah Palin should dispel any and all doubts as to the intentions of the Republican Party. That was pandering, pure and simple, and any attempts to claim otherwise is bulls**t.

The stalwarts of the Right are making no attempt to dress that move up as anything other than what it is, a shameless ploy to garner what now constitutes the “loyalist” vote for the GOP: un- or under-educated evangelicals who will blindly do as they’re told by a political machine built to maintain nothing other than power.

This isn’t Reagan’s party; it isn’t Goldwater’s party; s**t it ain’t even Nixon or Ford’s party.

I won’t be voting for either of these two clowns come November.

I agree with Gandalf’s sentiment that we have entered a new and dangerous phase in our history and we need to move past “wedge issues” and the “culture wars” and “identity politics” and realize that we are standing on the edge of the abyss.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: The appointment of Sarah Palin should dispel any and all doubts as to the intentions of the Republican Party. That was pandering, pure and simple, and any attempts to claim otherwise is bulls**t.

The stalwarts of the Right are making no attempt to dress that move up as anything other than what it is, a shameless ploy to garner what now constitutes the “loyalist” vote for the GOP: un- or under-educated evangelicals who will blindly do as they’re told by a political machine built to maintain nothing other than power.

This isn’t Reagan’s party; it isn’t Goldwater’s party; s**t it ain’t even Nixon or Ford’s party.

I won’t be voting for either of these two clowns come November.

I agree with Gandalf’s sentiment that we have entered a new and dangerous phase in our history and we need to move past “wedge issues” and the “culture wars” and “identity politics” and realize that we are standing on the edge of the abyss.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Duke: The appointment of Sarah Palin should dispel any and all doubts as to the intentions of the Republican Party. That was pandering, pure and simple, and any attempts to claim otherwise is bulls**t.

The stalwarts of the Right are making no attempt to dress that move up as anything other than what it is, a shameless ploy to garner what now constitutes the “loyalist” vote for the GOP: un- or under-educated evangelicals who will blindly do as they’re told by a political machine built to maintain nothing other than power.

This isn’t Reagan’s party; it isn’t Goldwater’s party; s**t it ain’t even Nixon or Ford’s party.

I won’t be voting for either of these two clowns come November.

I agree with Gandalf’s sentiment that we have entered a new and dangerous phase in our history and we need to move past “wedge issues” and the “culture wars” and “identity politics” and realize that we are standing on the edge of the abyss.

[Author]

Posts