[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

Fact: Government spends money badly.

Here’s another fact for you: Under Bush and the Republican Congress, Federal Spending increased at the fastest rate in 30 years.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=31

Why would a fiscal conservative vote for Republicans when they spend more money than Democrats? Is it because you’re an idiot?

[TheBreeze]

So now you’re shifting the argument to capital gain instead? Like FLU said, that’s the way the system work for a very long time. Either find way to succeed with the system or find another system that’ll make you more happy.

The capital gains tax rate is a big loophole that needs to be fixed immediately. Then we can work on increasing the rates on those in the upper income brackets.

And there’s no need for me to find another system. All I need to do is wait for Obama to get elected. With a Democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President, I think the tax system will get changed a might quickly.

After Obama ends the war and increases taxes, we can go back to being a nation that pays its bills as it goes as opposed to taking on mountainous debt.

You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don’t you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?

[TheBreeze]

So now you’re shifting the argument to capital gain instead? Like FLU said, that’s the way the system work for a very long time. Either find way to succeed with the system or find another system that’ll make you more happy.

The capital gains tax rate is a big loophole that needs to be fixed immediately. Then we can work on increasing the rates on those in the upper income brackets.

And there’s no need for me to find another system. All I need to do is wait for Obama to get elected. With a Democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President, I think the tax system will get changed a might quickly.

After Obama ends the war and increases taxes, we can go back to being a nation that pays its bills as it goes as opposed to taking on mountainous debt.

You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don’t you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?

[TheBreeze]

So now you’re shifting the argument to capital gain instead? Like FLU said, that’s the way the system work for a very long time. Either find way to succeed with the system or find another system that’ll make you more happy.

The capital gains tax rate is a big loophole that needs to be fixed immediately. Then we can work on increasing the rates on those in the upper income brackets.

And there’s no need for me to find another system. All I need to do is wait for Obama to get elected. With a Democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President, I think the tax system will get changed a might quickly.

After Obama ends the war and increases taxes, we can go back to being a nation that pays its bills as it goes as opposed to taking on mountainous debt.

You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don’t you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?

[TheBreeze]

So now you’re shifting the argument to capital gain instead? Like FLU said, that’s the way the system work for a very long time. Either find way to succeed with the system or find another system that’ll make you more happy.

The capital gains tax rate is a big loophole that needs to be fixed immediately. Then we can work on increasing the rates on those in the upper income brackets.

And there’s no need for me to find another system. All I need to do is wait for Obama to get elected. With a Democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President, I think the tax system will get changed a might quickly.

After Obama ends the war and increases taxes, we can go back to being a nation that pays its bills as it goes as opposed to taking on mountainous debt.

You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don’t you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?

[TheBreeze]

So now you’re shifting the argument to capital gain instead? Like FLU said, that’s the way the system work for a very long time. Either find way to succeed with the system or find another system that’ll make you more happy.

The capital gains tax rate is a big loophole that needs to be fixed immediately. Then we can work on increasing the rates on those in the upper income brackets.

And there’s no need for me to find another system. All I need to do is wait for Obama to get elected. With a Democratic majority in Congress and Obama as President, I think the tax system will get changed a might quickly.

After Obama ends the war and increases taxes, we can go back to being a nation that pays its bills as it goes as opposed to taking on mountainous debt.

You guys have seen what happens in the housing market when there is too much debt. Why would you want the same thing for the entire country? Don’t you want the U.S. to be a nation that pays its bills?

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[TheBreeze]

Breeze – I usually find your posts insightful and generally well thought out, but this time you’ve fallen short. To say “tax the hell” out of the that bracket is one of your more stupid comments because it lacks any of the pragmatism and logic you generally have in your posts. It’s an emotional reaction, with little or no thoughtful input. Do you have any thoughtful input on this subject?

My more thoughtful, reasoned response is that the upper income brackets are not paying their fair share of taxes. It’s my understanding that a lot of the super-rich make most of their income on capital gains. If those gains are long-term, I think the rate is something like 15%. So here you have the super-rich paying about half the rate as most of the rest of us.

If you don’t believe me, listen to Warren Buffett. He has a lower tax rate than his secretary:

Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece

So there you have it. Buffett has a tax rate of 17.7% (without even trying to use any loopholes), while his secretary was taxed at 30%. How is that fair?

The wages slaves are generally taxed at a reasonable progressive rate. It’s those guys that make most of their money off of capital gains that are making a killing with their low tax rate.

[Author]

Posts