Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Romney pays 15% income tax. Hes not the only one.

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 17, 2012, 7:09 p.m. EST by gestopomillyy (1695)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

This is by his own words. Proof that the rich do not pay thier fair share.

Mitt Romney tried Tuesday to defuse a growing controversy dogging his front-runner campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by saying that he "probably" pays a tax rate of 15 percent, far lower than the 35 percent top rate one might assume that a multimillionaire pays.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/17/2117672/romney-says-he-probably-paid-only.html#storylink=cpy

274 Comments

274 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 15 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

forbes said he's worth between $190 million and $250 million; he was born into this money, it's inherited--please guys, don't buy his "i am a brilliant businessman" BULLSHIT--give me a 40 yard head start, i will beat every single sprinter in the 100 yard dash that ever existed on the face of the planet !!! i may even beat most cars too.

[-] 1 points by 4TheHumanSocietyProject (504) 2 years ago

Not the Honda Prius!

[-] 0 points by utahdebater (-72) 2 years ago

Romney was actually not born into his money. He truly made it on his own.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

this is not true, although it's clearly the sales tactic of GOP/romney. they're trying to confuse people on this point and clearly have succeeded--he had a huge head start courtesy of dad who was CEO of American Motors and Governor of Michigan, and he is the beneficiary of his parents' trust, believed to be a dynasty trust. Focus on that word "dynasty." then imagine how many people want you to work with you, have you at their school or their hedge fund given this background, and then imagine leveraging that background to get jobs and business associations. and romney has shifted his position publicly 4 times on whether he inherited--first it was nothing, then he gave some away, then he gave most away, but the reality is that he's recharacterizing whether trust money (which he can collateralize to get loans) is an inheritance because principal in such a large trust remains in the trust and beneficiaries are usually required to live off income and not touch principal--feels like clinton asking what the meaning of the word "is" is (i.e., just a recharacterization of facts to hide truth). the trust still exists and he might be giving some of the millions in income away to create an "image," of a do-gooder. nobody can think this is a normal, typical, hard working upbringing or success story. he's a slime who got lucky by circumstance trying to spin it for all it's worth. in sharp contrast, at least obama succeeded on his own without an enormous head start. regardless, i think they both are lousy choices,,, america can do much better.

[-] 0 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

except he didn't inherit any money so there goes that theory..

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

a very many people who know him apparently say he inherited quite a bit. then, i read investigative reports that cast serious and credible doubt on his claim to the contrary. then in later talks he conceded to inheriting "some money;" then in a later comment he claimed to give away part of it--so he backed off his initial claim, and lied initially, then more claims dribbled out....in a courtroom this guy's credibility would be destroyed for this kind of testimony and side stepping. regardless, he definitely was from the prep school, silver spoon, well connected track--will you concede that? i don't care though, no way this slime gets my vote. it may mean i have to vote obama, who is ineffective, but he will do less harm and doesn't wear kinky underwear.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

15% is the capital gains rate. ANYONE who experiences a capital gain gets this rate. what's the big deal ? What did you pay in taxes last year?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

who is jon galt?:):) i've worked with ultra high net worth people who don't file for a long time after particularly big years. then they use legal process for an offer in compromise to pay a lower tax bill years later. in the meantime the money is making money.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Sounds great to me - what's the problem?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

i agree financially, it works well. but it's an abuse of the system. while the rest of taxpayers overpay, like idiots, and look for a big refund, these guys are cheating the system because they know they can. if everyone did this, there'd be a real problem. maybe that should be a new movement--the non-filer movement:) that would be the only way to get the government to listen and to stop mortgaging (i.e., giving away) peoples' future income in their profligate spending ritual.

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

If it's within the bounds of the law - it's not cheating. Work to change the law. Lobby your congressman

[-] 2 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Lobby our congressmen? With what? A shoestring? Sorry I cant afford to attend their fundraisers to get a word in edge-ways...

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

with heads! you need to organize people and threaten to vote them out. Did you not pay attention to the Tea Party? What you are doing here is a waste of time. A childish temper tantrum.

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 2 years ago

Erm... right... so OWS is not an organization of people threatening our politicians with the consequences of their actions? Perhaps that is a misconception on my part.

Who is to say that if we were to organize against a specific congressman that it would also not be called a childish temper tantrum?

Where does a childish temper tantrum end and a movement for change begin?

It may sound like sarcasm, but those are genuine concerns I have.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

you are ranting about the 1% while occupying various locations around the world. You should be occupying your congressman @ a Town Hall and tell them what your specific policy disagreements are and tell them if they dont vote to satisfy their constituency they will be voted out of office. Of course you need enough people that agree with YOU to do this.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

you think not paying taxes for years is within the bounds of the law? the law says if you have income, you have to pay taxes on it yearly. the abuse arises from skirting the law, and using a settlement mechanism to lower taxes.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

who's not paying taxes? what "settlement mechanism"

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the "offer in compromise" as described earlier in the thread. basically don't file,,, wait many years,,, petition IRS for a settlement, and pay less than you would have 3-5 years before.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Sounds good to me. Get a tax attorney to argue your case to the IRS and reach a settlement. Great. Anything to keep more of the money I earned out of the hands of crooked politicians is always a good thing.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

while i agree politicians are crooked and misguided, i take the opposite view and call this tax evasion, and so does the IRS, but they cave in settlement to get the money in the door and move on.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

If taxes weren't so confiscatory maybe people wouldn't feel the need to evade them. In fact - I am glad you brought this up because history shows, the higher the tax rates go - the more the government misses their projected revenue from those tax increases. I wonder why? Could it be people try to avoid being ripped off by irresponsible politicians? Enough with the taxes already.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Teabaggers raised my taxes.

The (R)epelican fucks.

Why is it they're always doing that?

I don't understand why anybody votes for them.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Not his fault his father was an astute businessman, is it? Stop whining

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Running AMC into the ground makes George astute?

Now his son is a vulture, running for president?

Hiding his money like a man suffering from pleonexia?

Voting for him, would not be smart.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

exactly. i don't support obama, i think he's a failure as pres. mostly. however, i think he'll do the least damage. thanks for the AMC reference. it's like saying loyd blankfein of goldman is a great businessman. bullshit, he crashed a whole company, that's failure, i've run businesses better than these so-called good businessmen. i just didn't hire publicists to promote my brand.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

George was one of the original vulture boys.

Crashed the company, sold off Jeep and Eagle to Chrysler, and cashed in to run for governor.

Like father, like son.

Only Mitt hides his money.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

everyone with a certain level of assets, that I know of, has foreign accounts and holdings for asset protection, sovereign risk and currency risk hedging reasons, etc... every one, without exception. and yes, because i work extremely closely with them, i know that for a fact.

that said, my mom said if you can't say anything nice. and that's why i can make no comment about that screw up GW bush.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I get that they do that, but I feel it shows a huge lack of faith in the very markets they have a hand in controlling.

Plus they are not running for President.

[-] -3 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

clinton has money off shore. clinton made over 80 million giving speeches. GE makes billions and pays no taxes, immelt is a friend and economic advisor to 0bama.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What has this to do with either Romney?

Try and maintain focus.

[-] 1 points by ModestCapitalist (2342) 2 years ago

This particular psychological trick, referring to those who speak out against a perceived injustice as 'whiners' is so common and transparent that no adult that I know of has ever responded in the manner hoped for. It has proven to be one of the most ineffective attempts at intimidation or discreditation ever. Still, smartcapitalist and others like him or her try in hopeless vane to achieve results that will never come.

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

results? i have achieved quite a bit for myself

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

not whining--i don't begrudge the very wealthy; money begets money--where would he be without his inheritance? i believe strongly he'd be making 50k working a shitty job. his claims of being a good business man, given a huge headstart, are bullshit. if he came from nothing, like say steve jobs, then i'd call him a good business man and want him in the whitehouse. i've worked on LBOs, like the ones he did at bain, and they're not really business in the traditional sense such as innovation or meeting demand. they're finding an undervalued company with little debt; loading it up with debt to buy the company, maybe contributing a little of your own money, laying off employees to make them more profitable, usually taking no management role, and floating them publicly after a few years... that would not qualify him as a great businessman.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

I dont get excited about beliefs, either your or mine. Where would you be if you were born in say Somalia or if you were born in Nazi Germany. Those are stupid whatifs. As for LBOs, I have worked with the M&A side of a well known bank and i find your definition highly simplistic. It's like saying that programming is nothing but typing on a keyboard.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

simplistic for a reason... one doesn't know who they're dealing with. we could discuss the finer points, and i could get very sophisticated on the big deals i've negotiated, but i think the point is made more clearly with simplicity. if i was born in somalia i would leave and find another place to prosper. nazi germany, i would be repulsed by their ideals and leave as well.

[-] -3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Y'all may be interested in the following :

a) "Romney Hiding Millions in Dozens of Secret Offshore Accounts : Report", by Stephen C. Webster ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30296.htm ,

b) "Massive File on Romney Hits Internet, Likely from 2008 McCain Campaign", by 'The Daily Caller' ; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article30299.htm ,

c) REVEALED: The 30 American Companies That Paid Less Than $0 In Income Tax Over The Last 3 Years : http://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-30-american-companies-that-paid-less-than-zero-income-tax-from-2008-2010-2011-11?op=1#ixzz1k1O9JNzz ,

d) http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf &

e) The Indispensable Documentary Film, "INSIDE JOB" : http://documentarystorm.com/inside-job/ ; 'Inside Job' provides a comprehensive analysis of the global financial crisis of 2008, which at a cost over $20 trillion, caused millions of people to lose their jobs and homes in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and nearly resulted in a global financial collapse.

fiat justitia ...

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

thanks! no surprise though. every single person with more than 50 million (ultra-high net worth category) does alot of estate planning to minimize taxes, and they also do what the wealth management industry calls "asset protection." this means they hide stuff all over the world through a complex chain of controlled entities, foreign banks accounts and foreign investments. they claim to pay rightfully US owed taxes, but it's so hard to trace it, even in an audit, that who knows? my guess is they evade alot of taxes. swiss banks are now slowly complying with IRS demands of 3 years ago to divulge 200 peoples' records there. so it's not just complexity that makes it hard, many countries do not comply, since their banking industry is FOUNDED on secrecy. these include panama, switzerland, leichtenstain, monaco, argentina and urugua to name a few. US requests, they give it the finger.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

Please tell me - Why do you want wealthy people to give more money to the wreckless irresponsible spenders in government again?

[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

so they wont have to get those taxes from the middle class, duh. Besides, I believe private investment firms are dumber than my federal bureaucracy.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I heard that R gave McCain 10 years of tax returns. I didn't see anything about them in the McCain info, did you? Thanks for the good stuff.

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

'b' : All I have to go off re. your question is : http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/McCain-2008-Oppo-File-on-Romney.pdf but I haven't cross checked this for the Romney Tax Returns, so good luck !!

However, tho' I fear that I may sound like a bit of a stuck record on this, my stronger recommendation is to really put some time aside to watch these two videos :

As such and as a primer, you may be interested in this short video : Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) from 1999, on the deleterious demise of Glass-Steagall : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg !

Stay well and aware.

pax et lux ...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I have since found that R gave McCain 23 years of returns. I still can't find them but if R doesn't cough them up, I think it is likely somebody will play Deep Throat and slip them to somebody. who will post them.

I have researched the demise of Glass - Steagall because one of my local ex-senators turned lobbyist was on the Senate Banking Committee and assisted the Christmas surprise.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

That is a dynamite trove of sources. Thanks very much. The truth will set us on a course that might just lead to justice. Freedom without justice is license.

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Please also avail yourself of a very relevant precursor and scene setter to "Inside Job", the revealing documentary "The Warning": http://video.pbs.org/video/1302794657/ about the silencing of Brooksley Born ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooksley_Born ). Thanx for your gracious words ;-)

ipsa scientia potestas est ..

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I believe I have seen it. Greenspan had a column in the Financial Times today. Says this isn't capitalism, it's corruption. About time he got the word.

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

LoL ! "This Isn't Capitalism ; it's Corruption" !! What a gr8 slogan !!! Thanx. radix malorum est cupiditas.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"Ad astra, per aspera," as Buzz Lightyear would say

[+] -6 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Yeah mate - so long as it isn't to Newt Gangrene-ish's 'Project Moonbase' !

I'm still digesting Alan "There was a Flaw in my world-view" Greenspan's corruption comment and I'm contemplating putting it on a T-shirt ! I wonder if Greenspan has any contrition for the said "corruption", as it mushroomed on his watch 'n' all !! The way he speaks (cf "Meddle with the market at your peril" in The FT recently!) - anyone'd think that he had nothing at all to do with anything that happened !!!

Which also reminds me of a documentary, so new that I can't easily find a copy for y'all, namely "The Flaw" ( http://theflawmovie.com/ & trailer : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7IQe7CBPCc ).

Also, fyi : http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/category/economics/ .

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I haven't looked at them yet but he is in denial, at best, what he did to Ms. Born was unconscionable on several levels. But said that we didn't need to do anything about fraud, that the market would take care of it. Using that rational I guess we should just ostracize a mass murder until he gets tired or lonely, but if you were on his target list you might cave a different course of action.

Sadly, I took economics courses from him before he went to the Fed and off the deep end.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

I'd be hiding my millions also if I had it - who wants to be taxed on the earnrings @ 36% then again on the investment gains @ 15%. double taxation.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

do you know how income is taxed? the first 16k is at 10%, next 38k at 15%... and so on. and yes there's alot of double taxation. we need wealthy to pay more taxes because.... well there's a lot of money owed and those not living paycheck to paycheck are the only ones who can be taxed. 90% of middle class is paycheck to paycheck.

[-] -3 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

"90% of middle class is paycheck to paycheck." So that gives you the right to confiscate more of what other people have? hahaha! pleassse. Your user name says it all. And you want to give them more money?

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

the government has created a right in favor of itself to tax citizens to pay for advancement of the common good. i don't want to give them more, i want them to cease unnecessary spending, and to become responsible.... but there's a mountain of debt to be paid.... so how do we raise the funds?? it can only come from those who are not strapped--i.e., top 10-15% of earners.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

prohibit foreign aid! this is a billion a year that could go towards the budget! and this is just the tip of the iceberg stop foreign aid

http://news.yahoo.com/egypt-bans-travel-us-officials-son-9-others-164826371.html

[-] -2 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

define "common good' everyone has a different notion. If you lower taxes & grow the economic pie your deficits go away. If you try to confiscate peoples money they will evade & do everything they can to shelter their money. And rightly so. You want to give people incentive to invest so they can make money. In turn everyone else benefits as well. You cant just force things that you wish for to happen. There is such a thing as reality.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

you cannot grow the economic pie when 75% of citizens live paycheck to paycheck, 50% are at the poverty level, and the government cannot borrow anymore money to spend. the US and it's citizens are tapped out. credit expanded for 30 years to it's maximum, and the country has witnessed it's brightest days years ago. the common good is a broad term that is defined by those in power. GW bush thought the common good involved occupying iraq and afghanistan for a decade (at enormous expense), spying on americans via homeland security, and providing the biggest expansion of medicare (part D) ever. your trickle down beliefs are considered to be discredited, it's not even worth arguing about.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

so you are an economist on par with Art Laffer & Milton Freedman I suppose. If we cant grow the economy then we are screwed. Trickle down - discredited by who?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Everybody is an economist on a par with Laffer and Friedman. I learned mine from Greenspan, who is just as wrong as the other two. Now cite Rothbard for me.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

p.s. jon galt, if you could introduce me to Art and milton, we'd have a horrific, intellectual spar in which they would be destroyed. i am not an amateur.

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

yes. i have proven by my investments to be better. i am reasonably well known (among my fund investors/ publication recipients) for predicting this meltdown--they applaud me!! I've never won fans like this--and I've learned the amazing addications of stardom--I am now "known", but I am a humble person). Points is, I won huge and Greenspan looks like an amateur playing putt-putt. I never thought this would happen to me. In fact: I didn't even think I was smart. they will never leave since i saved them from giant losses... and, for them, i am up 180% since 2008 plunge; and having gone long via calls in January 2009 vs. their other managers--so the difference is like a HS quarterback vs. Troy Aikman (now I speak your language), so they're locked for life. and the few who left, because they thought i was crazy (and they sent me emails to that effect) they're back now and, in my view, locked forever, and with much more money. we're in 85% cash now looking for PE deals (particularly RE section 8 and currency trades: i.e., long USD, NZT and CHF, vs. short EUR, plus gold), with only a few publicly traded holdings, particularly REITS. we;re ready to go net short when the time arises (kurtosis, and asymptosis--my guess is you don't even know what that is); so that once again i will prove that math needs to be combined with psychology, and the latter cannot be quantified with current methods. so you need to be "on bloomie." that's where the money's moved--and psychology is reflected. if you want to talk on it, it costs about $10k to subscribe. you better believe I will go head to head with these guys. and i will be right,,,, once again.... while they (like greenspan) are dead wrong. they even missed this whole disaster which i am well known for predicting and capitalizing on. you'd have to be an "accredited investor" (within the 1934 Act) to even receive my publication--sorry buddy--you are 1,000 leagues out of your sea on this one.

[-] 0 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

In your Marxist dreams

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You sound like one of those Americans I can't stand. Show me your credentials, please. Those that hang on the words of suites and ties strangle their understanding. I'm telling you trickle down is a farce. You can't grow a consumer economy when people live pay check to pay check. you should read Jean Jacques Rousseau and learn how group think is an idiot maker. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Arts_and_Sciences After reading this essay, I was free to never hang on stupidity again. you should try it.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Discredited by current events. If trickle down was working we'd be drowning in jobs right now.

[-] -1 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 2 years ago

I don't think you can draw conclusions about trickle down based on our current economic prioblems. Our current problems are more a result of the wall st casino mentality...derivative, credit default swaps, cdo's, sub prime mortgages, the housing bubble. Not to mention 10 yrs of war. In fact, it seems the WORLD's economy is on the brink and trickle down is not a worldwide practice.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

True. But the fact that there is tremendous wealth accumulation at the top, is an indication that, at least in this point in time, trickle down is not working.

I would say there is more of a problem of trickle up. The wage stagnation of the middle class puts more pressure on the economy, through reduced demand, and puts pressure on government programs (unemployment benefits).

Healthcare is a great example of how the financial stress of the middle and lower classes combined with increased healthcare costs, created the need for a government healthcare program. Something had to fill that gap. The financial stress of the middle class trickles up.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Much of that Wall Street mentality, however, was trickle down oriented. The people at the top were allowed to do their gambling, but told us not to worry since their winnings would trickle down to us.

All the scams that resulted from deregulation, probably had some foundation in the idea that the profits would eventually reach the wider public.

The global economy was based on the idea that the profits globalists made while hiring underpaid workers in China would some how trickle down to both us and eventually those poor laboring Chinese.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

If Capitalists weren't being threatened with confiscation of their capital - perhaps they would be more eager to invest. We have the most anti business President in the history of the country. I'd be moving my money out of the U.S. until the climate changes.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 2 years ago

Capitalists are being threatened? Sounds scary. By who?? President Obama? I think the bigger threat to the entire economy is the unregulated greed of Wall Street. The bubbles they create and the financial crises they cause.

What are they afraid of? That the middle class might prosper again? An increase in consumer confidence and demand for goods and services. And business conditions might improve? Top line growth instead of layoffs and cost cutting to maintain profitability? Oh yes, that sounds really threatening and scary.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

all land was confiscated by bloodshed at one time or another, why should it be any different now? Not to imply that bloodshed isnt a viable solution in the future. I know mormons have a scripture on it in 3rd nephi 21-22, the father is supposed to give the land back to them (the decendants of jacob in our midst) and our bodies are heaped up in piles on the earth.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's the one about all of the Israelis who lived here right after Australopithecus Afarensis and before the Cleveland Indians, right?

Actually my relatives bought theirs from native Americans in Massachusetts in 1634. So, do we have to give it back anyway?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

back then im sure the land was fair and affordable, ive been working my ass off to the bone, im tired, and almost 50 and i still dont own land, i stand back in awe, at that greed of this land, and cant wait till the judgement so that I may cast my complaint against the people who hogged it up.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Not to mention it's being invested and there is a risk of losing it all, and if he is only making 10% on his money he only gets 8.5% after taxes. If they raise the tax rate on capital gains to 35% he would only make 6.5% on his money and after considering risk I wouldn't even invest the money. That would barely keep up with inflation.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Let's see, that would reduce his fortune from $250 million to ....Well, yeah, how could anyone live on that?

[+] -6 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

the repelican party is DONE

.


.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago

You have deluded yourself.

↥like ↧dislike reply permalink

.


.

That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.

Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.

The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.

Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.

Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.

It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.

It's just a matter of time.

It's also a matter of national security.

  • the repelican party is DONE.

You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.

What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.

we will see.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Apparently just 13.5%, and he's only releasing two years of returns.

[-] 2 points by OurTimes2011 (377) from Arlington, VA 2 years ago

"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe." Abraham Lincoln

[-] 2 points by GreenMonster (8) from Atlanta, GA 2 years ago

Ok let's first try to separate income taxes from capital gains taxes.

Obama paid income tax at a rate of 33.7, his income from being a senator and book sales. Rommney paid a 15% tax on his capital gains from he vast array of investments. His only income is from various capital gains, no salaries or sales.

When President Obama reinvests the millions he cleared from the sale of his two books, any profits he earns from these investments, like Mr. Rommney will be taxed at 15%. Investments that fail or stocks that lose money, is just lost money. Many folks here are confusing income tax, with capital gains tax. You first need to earn money and pay income tax on that, then take the left over money and invest that, and pay 15% on any profits you may make.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

so what if its lost money thats what happens when you gamble get over it. buy bonds instead of you are so worried about losing. why get rewarded double for winning? when you gamble anywhere else.. you pay the max in taxes how is gambling in the stock market any different?

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

What I find interesting is the way he's being foisted upon the Republican "Mavericks," and they'll vote for him the moment their corporate banking masters tell them to. You gotta admire a bunch of independent minds like that. Wow, what backbone, what courage!

I find all those Republican rebels really inspiring!

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

http://www.mormon-underwear.com/images.html

Kirby asked if Mormon magic underwear is pink. It looks like there is that option.

[-] 2 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago
  • Yes, but what he keeps trickles down to help the little people.
[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

omg you believe that? and sooo why didnt it? why are so many people outa work? broke? where are those jobs? whre is that money? the corrupt rich built a damn somewhre upstream . i think thats proof enough that that idea is pure propaganda/

[-] 1 points by Toynbee (656) from Savannah, GA 2 years ago

Its just sarcasm.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

This is vulture taxism !

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

Mitt Romney tried Tuesday to defuse a growing controversy dogging his front-runner campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination by saying that he "probably" pays a tax rate of 15 percent, far lower than the 35 percent top rate one might assume that a multimillionaire pays.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/01/17/2117672/romney-says-he-probably-paid-only.html#storylink=cpy

[-] 4 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The attention to this issue and the Republican attacks on "vulture capitalism" are evidence of the strength of the OWS viewpoint.

[-] 1 points by flip (6774) 2 years ago

the system is the problem not the individual!

[-] 1 points by UtahDebater15 (10) from Coalinga, CA 2 years ago

Honestly, if you had a completely legal chance to pay a lower tax rate, wouldn't you?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Just wondered. if you bought a bunch of politicians to pass that law that you are now complying with, does that make a difference?

[-] 1 points by UtahDebater15 (10) from Coalinga, CA 2 years ago

If you bought a bunch of bananas, wouldn't they make you hungry?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Corruption is an acquired taste that I don't find satisfying, are you comfortable with it? Suitable for banana republics, but not the US and A.

Besides, I'm an old guy and I don't buy green bananas.

[-] 1 points by UtahDebater15 (10) from Coalinga, CA 2 years ago

Only rotten bananas taste like corruption, and why would you buy green bananas in the first place?

[-] 1 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

i'm voting for Romney. someone that is that successful has to know how to run a country.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

you forgot the rest of the sentence, "into the ground, loading it with insurmountable debt, selling off the assets, pocketing the money and sticking the taxpayers with the pension obligations. Or, having a board seat while the company perpetrates a $1.2 billion Medicare fraud." That is his applicable experience. Google it! http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/06/us-campaign-romney-bailout-idUSTRE8050LL20120106

Putin has also gotten rich since trading the KGB for politics. If financial success is to be the measure, he must be the best leader for Russia.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Romney is severely beaten with this news. Once his tax return(s) are released he's through.

Check him off, the repubs are stuck in a ditch, just like where they left the country before Obama took over.

Peace

[-] 1 points by PeaceNow (84) 2 years ago

That's nothing. The elite, the 0.1% (not the 1%), That is, the obscenely, disgustingly wealthy pay 0%. Those should be the ones we expose. These guys wouldn't be caught dead on a Forbes list or any other list of wealthy people. They want no lights on them. Shall we get the spotlights out?

[-] 1 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

He inherited about $1 million, but after he had already become rich at Baine Capital. He's still a corporate tool--but let's keep the facts straight :)

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 2 years ago

What percentage is fair? Should investments be taxed the same as other types of income? Taxed more? Taxed less? Let's discuss what is really fair.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

not investments.. the money gained from investments. if you receive money,, from any source besides a gift or inheritance it should be taxed as income. maybe if you only reinvest the money then maybe 15% but if you keep the money then same as income.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 2 years ago

My understanding was that Romney's core income came from investments. Currently taxed at 15%. If we decide to call it income, which is fine by me, what would be a fair rate for taxing income. I see that most people on here are against a flat tax rate, so I am curious at how we can decide what is fair. Fair seems to be the basic buzz word. Many hollering that Romney / the rich should pay a fair tax. So, let's define a fair rate. This will allow me and others to have a base sense of what others think is fair.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes 15% would be fair. and since no one can agree on flat tax.. just make this the maximum amount .. then if they want to finagle words like 'effective' capital gains etc. they could as long as no one paid more than 15%.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by PeteG2 (393) 2 years ago

Well it's official, and I was not far off. Mr. Romney announced he pays about a 15% federal income tax rate. And again if you include unrealized capital gains, which grow tax-free, it's probably more like 10%. And clearly it's almost all investment income, so no payroll tax to fund Social Security on his income.

Meanwhile, even a minimum-wage workers typically pay 7.5% in Social Security taxes on every dollar of wages. If you believe economists, the employer portion of - another 7.5%, is also paid by the worker in reduced wages. That's 15%. Add in sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes and you go over 30% of wages paid in taxes by a minimum-wage earner. [Note: Minimum-wage-workers are among the 50% constantly maligned by the GOP as paying NO (federal income) taxes.]

Yes, doubt Mr. Romney would prefer to discuss all this in a "quiet room" with h Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and a few other millionaire buddies.

That's not gonna happen. Those on the side of justice are coming: BHO, OWS, EW, http://fairsharetaxes.org

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Why should unrealized capital gains be included? By definition they are not real.

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

What do you care, you don't pay any. Oh yeah, you think if he got taxed more, somehow your life would be better...NOT! Born a loser, die a loser.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

Obama pays 33.7%. And there are fools that would elect a man that believes thats ok.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I'm sure he doesn't pay that much.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TimMcGraw (50) 2 years ago

Except that it was all from capital gains.. so he's only paying 15% the second time through. The first time he paid the 35%.

People need education on what capital gains, investing, etc....

You gotta give people some incentive to invest their money?!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

no you do not.. its free money.. its just like gambling.. if you win or lose too bad.. you gambled. and not even gambling a chance.. you dam well know if you put money into ge or ibm.. you definitely will get money back!

[-] 0 points by BradinUtah (32) 2 years ago

Let him who has paid more in taxes than Mitt Romney cast the first stone. The rest of you should shut up.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

As a percentage, many people do. I forgot, money is virtue in Utah, pardon me, the Provisional State of Deseret.

[-] 0 points by BradinUtah (32) 2 years ago

Actually, I just moved here from Washington DC and love it. Nice try but "as a percentage" MOST DON'T and half pay NOTHING.. As the old Bruce Cockburn song goes, "Everybody wants to see justice done, to somebody else. "

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

"As a percentage, many people do." was my statement. And that is many more than the number of people who get the loophole of carried interest. I get that justice has to be defined in every conversation, like art. But people are so afraid of discussing "fairness" that they will not even try to define it. "Life isn't fair, and we are making sure of that." brightonsage

Wait until they start pressing your kids to go to the after school indoctrination sessions in the building adjacent to the school.

If you aren't black, you have a great opportunity to learn what it's like.

Go out and sell door to door and get told that they won't buy from you if you aren't LDS. Been there, done that.

[-] 0 points by Matthias (1029) 2 years ago

There is no doubt about it: Mitt Romney is the perfect face of the 1%.

He does not work and gets the yearly wage of a MainSt worker in one DAY if it is true what I heard and I calculated right. When I immigrated to the USA somone told me, welcome to capitalism central. Yes, welcome to a country that blinds its people by boasting about being the land of the free. A groundless claim because one truth is not considered but valid. The rich rule over the poor and the borrower is servant to the lender, as Salomon says.

So what went wrong? You cannot serve both, God and riches says the Bible.

And in this respect the 99% of the USA are responsible as well. As long as they refuse to accept Christ as King of King, supreme lawgiver and head of all governments, they will not have a free society. Democracy is a smoke screen. It is ruled by the rich. Currently more than ever because of the huge national debt.

Watch: German preacher's thoughts on 2012 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpLYq525SpM

[-] 1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

He does not have to work now because he worked enough earlier. If you failed to strike big as an immigrant, that's your problem.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

There is always a twist, first would you really rather the government take 35% of the rich money or 15%. My preference is 15%, this is because the government doesnt give a damn about us, as we would never see a dime of it anyways. Just take a look at the 115,000,000 dollars the consumer protection agency got from fining wells fargo. I was a victim and I havent seen a dime. Id rather the rich keep all their money if this is the case. Then at least, the rich are likey to purchase, or hire one of us to help install a new product or service. Don't be fooled about these statistics.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

hire? sooo that is why 500k people had thier jobs eliminated.. cause the rich might hire ?? you cant see that ?

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

funny i dont work for someone else, and im exhausted, havent had a vacation for a year. maybe people are missing something... become SELF reliant. Of course my points are against, our current economic system that DOESNT help small business, so the people are more like corporate cows, than men.

[-] 0 points by sguynn66 (0) 2 years ago

"their fair share" is objective. your anger should be with the tax code that makes it possible for someone in the 35% bracket to pay 15%, not the rich themselves.

either way, you ignore the fact that our tax code is made up of marginal brackets. a millionaire in the 35% bracket will not pay 35%, even if there were no deductions or alternative minimum tax. someone earning $1 million and filing with their spouse would be in the 35% bracket yet owe just under $320,000 before deductions. someone earning $75,000 would be in the 25% bracket yet owe only $11,000 before deductions. this person only owes 15% of their salary. so if you would like to complain about the rich using the tax code to their advantage, you'd better be prepared for revisions that will affect all taxpayers, not just the rich. and these changes would have significantly more impact on the middle class. just say "i think the rich should pay more simply becuase they are rich", because there is really no issue here other than romney using all of the advantages the tax code affords him.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that is my point! this man wants to be in charge of all our laws and our country this man wants the power to make law,, veto law and so on. he wants the power to lower or raise this percentage. you can say he takes advantage of whats in place,, but does he want to change it? does he plan to do anything about it if he had the power to do something? and he finds it humourous that this law exist!. theres something wrong there!. it shows that the rich believe this is ok. that these laws are ok.. he did not mention increasing this tax to 35% he laughed and was smug in his wealth. i take his attitude as representative of the other rich. he should have been railing against this and promising to see to it that this law would be repealed and replaced with a law that does not distinguish between where the money comes from.

[+] -4 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

the 15% tax rate is on capital gains. Not income tax

[-] 5 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Capital gains are income.

[-] 4 points by jeivers (278) 2 years ago

Capital Gains taxes should be eliminated and all investment income should count as actual income and be taxed at the appropriate rates by the federal and state governments!

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Correct. And it is taxed at 15%.

[-] -3 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Legally they are a different type of income from your salary. Hence the different tax rate, so as to reduce the extent of double taxation.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

"Double taxation" is NOT a person being taxed twice on the same income, it is the taxation of income at the corporate level, and then taxation of corporation distributions at the personal level. When many corporations don't pay any taxes at all, this is especially repugnant.

Low rates on "investment" income devalue labor. Want to complain about job loss in America? It is the direct result of tax policy that rewards investment, and especially foreign investment.

Follow the money, all the way to Romney's Cayman Islands tax haven.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Did Romney do something illegal? Of course not. Bill Clinton illegally smoked pot, as did Obama. Obama blew a little snow too. Shame on them.

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Hiding money to avoid taxes is illegal.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

The revenue of a firm is nothing but the income of it's shareholders (the principal). So when the firm pays tax, it is in effect the shareholders money which is getting taxed. And then you tax the shareholders again at 15%. If I was the sole proprietor of a restaurant, the restaurants income is my income.There is no logic to tax it twice, once assuming it's corporate profit and latter as my capital gain.

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

But corporations are people, too! And therefore they should be taxed like people. And if they pay someone else, that money should also be taxed.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

Corporations are already being taxed 35%. And corporations are 'people' in a strict legal sense. Corporations pay dividends to their share holders.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

The effective corporate tax rate is around 20% despite the official rate of 35%. And many corporations, especially the largest and most profitable, pay no taxes at all, and some get significant taxpayer subsidies (welfare).

person n., A human being regarded as an individual.

Can a person own another person? If people own corporations, then a corporation is not a person.

[-] -2 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

That's a stupid argument. An argument that only dumb occutards can agree to.

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

It is in fact a strictly logical argument based on legal precedents, which is why you are unable to fathom it.

If a corporation is a person, and a corporation is owned by a person, that is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

[-] 0 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

please argue this in a court of law sir. u r genius

[-] -1 points by smartcapitalist (143) 2 years ago

but before that you might wanna read the Companies Act

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Or you could look at it this way.

The "investors" are like the mafia.

They "loan" you the money to run your restaurant.

They demand a constantly rising "vig".

If you can't make the "vig" payment, they will break your restaurants "legs" , by calling in the "investment loan".

Effectively crippling your business.

This would make all investment "profits" a form of gambling, meaning it's "profits" should be treated as a windfall and taxed at a minimum 41%.

[-] -2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

let us not forget the write-off for losses when a new product fails or an institution loans money to people that cannot pay it back and write that off. These are failures of the company and it's management, the cost of which is shoved onto the rest of society. Why can't I write-off failed ideas then have corporations pay the balance of said failure? I don't suddenly think you're cool but I never see you make his argument and write-offs are how companies go from 34% tax rate to 15%-0%.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I am a strong believe that if you close all tax loopholes there would be no need to raise taxes. Plus don't talk about fair share. The rich are taxed the most and yet they use the least amount of services. So they pay more but don't use the services, how is that fair at all?

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The services they relieve include sending soldiers and resources to defend their investments and a pet project of some of them that's called "Israel." Also they may not know but they need infrastructure like roads, bridges, bus systems and subways so their employees and customers can be exploited.

[-] -1 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Do you know who actually makes up the 1%?

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2012/0115-one-percent-occupations/index.html

Not so sure that Israel is a secret plan made by Doctors and Lawyers.

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's not a secret plan and I'm not speaking of any majority or even plurality of Jewish Americans, most of whom seek to live normal lives as Americans. (edit) IN fact many who prize "Israel" as a pet cause aren't even Jewish.

[-] -1 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I don't think your anti-semtic. I believe that Israel was a bad idea. But we must be vigilant because Iran wants to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Are you another Jew hater? OWS is home to losers like you!

[-] 3 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Are you telling me that "Israel" is not a pet project of some of the one percent? What does that have to do with hating Jews? You endanger Jewish people with such talk in fact because there are many many American Jews who do not care about Israel one way or the other, some who absolutely oppose Israel and a majority who do not contribute to Israeli causes, who are not members of pro Israeli organizations and who simply go about their lives like anyone else does.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Oh really? Jews migrate back to their Palestinian homeland by the thousands every year.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

I'm talking about majorities. The majority of American Jews are disengaged from Israel and for that matter from their "community" as such. That's a good thing as far as I can tell, and it speaks well for many Jewish people. Palestine is not the homeland of American Jews. The United States is. Most American Jews conduct their lives as such.

[-] -3 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You are an ignoramus and have a lack of understanding on Jewish matters. Wake up. Leave the Palestinians to self determination. Palestinians include Jews that have lived there for millennia. Get it?

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

And a very very good thing too!

http://www.forward.com/articles/114911/

Time for Straight-Talk About Assimilation Opinion

By Jack Wertheimer

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/114911/#ixzz1jlaKIpCx

From now on, Jewish groups will likely think twice before using any variation on the word “assimilation.” That’s one lesson learned from the recent brouhaha over a 34-second commercial on Israeli television promoting the Jewish Agency’s Masa program, which brings young Jews to Israel for sustained periods of work, study and volunteering. The advertisement, which paired photos of young Jews on missing-person posters with the statement that “over 50% of Jews abroad are assimilating,” drew a firestorm of criticism on blogs and in news reports. Facing mounting international controversy, the Jewish Agency quickly killed the ad. The issues raised by the ad, though, will not go away so easily. While the ad may have been clumsy in its execution, its central point is essentially correct: Large numbers of Jews around the world are disconnected from any Jewish communal activities. Related

An $800,000 Israel Ad Campaign to Save ‘Lost’ Diaspora Jews Falls Flat And Dies

Straight-Talk About Assimilation: An Exchange

Is there any reason to doubt that the Jewish people is suffering an erosion of its engaged membership? In the case of American Jews, we now lack an up-to-date national survey with precise numbers (or a national leadership sufficiently interested in basing its policies on hard data to produce one), but there is ample evidence of large declines in the numbers of Jews who participate in organized Jewish life in recent decades. Most established organizations have seen their membership numbers and donor base implode. And the many new initiatives that are rightly generating much excitement tend to attract only relatively small proportions of the Jewish population. When we add up all the activities of synagogues, federations, service programs, national organizations, cultural providers, educational institutions and the myriad start-ups, it is clear that vast populations of American Jews are steering clear of organized Jewish life.

Describing the world in which he works daily, a rabbi of my acquaintance talks about how, of necessity, he must focus only on the present. Why? Because the Jews he encounters have no connection to a Jewish past, and judging from the absence of any Jewish education among their grandchildren, they have no Jewish future.

Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/114911/#ixzz1jlaDmR4I

[-] 1 points by jinzhao (68) 2 years ago

Those Palestinian Jews would have a right to live their, according to the argument that their families have lived there for a long time.

But the same argument would not apply to American or European Jews whose Jewish heritage derived from the Khazars, whose families were never based in Palestine.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Nonetheless they migrate back to their motherland. I have no problem with that.

[-] 1 points by jinzhao (68) 2 years ago

But for the European and American Jews, Khazaria, which I think is something like Ukraine today, would be their motherland, not Israel. That is if you want to consider "motherland" to be the place where your ancestors came from.

I wouldn't mind if those Jews wanted to live in Palestine, but their constant expansion, is causing a lot of conflict. Now, the possible war with Iran could result in the complete destruction of Israel. I don't think anybody did the Jews a favor by putting them there. It was like putting them on the front line of a war zone.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

That is so true! Khazaria or no, Jewish people are best off assimilating into the cultures of the nations in which they find themselves today.

[-] 1 points by Budcm (208) 2 years ago

That is true of most cultures who have emigrated to other areas of the world. They perhaps should assimilate into the culture they find themselves in, else why did they emigrate there? As far as a "homeland" is concerned: In the UN the Palestinians delegation was deriding the Jews for stealing their homeland territory. The Jewish delegate stated that the Palestinians have been making that claim since Moses. The Palestinian delegate said "We weren't even there at the time of Moses!" The Jewish delegate said. "And there you have my point!" And so the question of just who was in that part of the world first (homeland?) is quite settled.

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Bible stories are harmful. There were indigenous people in Canaan when Moses' mythological band came in and supposedly wiped them out. It's kind of questionable that today's Jews are direct descendants of those marauders anyhow. Certainly no more or less than are the Palestinians.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You are right. They may just get obliterated. However, it's hard to blame the present Jews for the violence there. Bombs are continually being lobbed in, and they exercise amazing restraint. If, let's say, Manitoba lobbed bombs into Minnesota, it wouldn't be long and the U.S. would crush the opposition very quickly and without mercy.

[-] 1 points by jinzhao (68) 2 years ago

I think the Palestinians take quite a bit of abuse as well.

Yes, its hard to blame the Jews who are there now, in fact, there were huge protests by Israelis when a senior Mossad official leaked the information to the public that Netanyahu wanted to bomb Iran.

Unfortunately, I think he works more for the global financial oligarchy and doesn't really care about Israel. How could he, if his plans would get it "wiped of the map"? I think he is more of a threat to Israel than Iran is.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

It's a tiny piece of land. It wouldn't take much to obliterate it. Ahmadinejad believes he is the twelfth Imam. How can one deal with a madman?

[-] 0 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

Lots of people believe that the messiah called whatever they would call him her or it is coming soon. Mitt Romney wears lucky drawers to help the process along.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/mitt-romneys-magic-mormon-underwear/

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Hahahahahahaha. Are they pink?

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

The rich use more infrastructure than the rest of us, more airports mail police roads bridges ports gas and a good chunk of them think they should hide their wealth offshore and let the middle class provide all that stuff for them. How is that fair? why should I pay for Exxon to deliver the oil to the port and transport it across the country? Why should I buy bridges for Walmart to deliver their cheep China goods to their stores? The wealthy use more they should pay more.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i see.. you think 15% of your income is more than 33.7% of your income. with those math skills no wonder america is being destroyed they use the same services as me... roads bridges and property.. how do think they dont?

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Where did you get 33.7%. If your referring to the tax on the rich, if you get rid of the loopholes then they would end up paying the full 33.7%. I'm referring to Welfare, Medicare and other social programs that many of the lower class use. The rich don't use those programs so how can you expect them to pay huge sums of money for things they don't use?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

people using them dont pay taxes either! im talking about teachers, nurses and those people. why do you think welfare has any thing to do with it? do you think a person on welfare pays tax? your showing your ignorance.

i got 33.7% from the same new story where romney states he only pays 15%. and that is verifiable

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

"do you think a person on welfare pays tax? your showing your ignorance."

America921 isn't the ignorant one here.

Welfare payments are not gross income. No tax is owed on this money and it is not reported on the tax return. However if a person receiving welfare payments also has gross income such as interest, wages, Social Security, then that person pays taxes on the income they receive-just not on the welfare portion of their income.

Low-income wage earners who receive the Earned Income Credit are also receiving a form of government welfare. So in this case the tax refund itself is welfare. The Earned Income Credit is the largest welfare system in the United States.

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

Can we please just leave out the imature name calling. I'm trying to have an educated discussion and I can't and won't do it if you keep up the name calling. What I am getting at is the rich for the most part don't use public schools, don't use public transportation, don't use medicare, don't use welfare. They of course use the common infrastructure. But you are asking them to pay for a lot of services they don't in fact use. Now we all realize that we as Americans have to pay for those because that's our duty to God and country. The key is not to raise taxes on the rich, there is no need to constantly attack them. Have you ever tried working with them? Close the loopholes so that everyone pays the 33.7%. Its very simple.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

most teachers, nurses and snow plow drivers dont use them either. and if rich dont use public school thats a choice that does not relieve them of the obligation to pay for these institutions.. they do use the people that came from those places,, because the teachers in those schools most likely did not attend them. the nurses that tended them did not either. that argument would mean that they had paid for the life long education and training of each and every indivudual they do use the service of. waiters, drivers, nurses, pages, cooks, mechanics, the person that built that car they drive etc. other wise yes they do use the service of public education , if not they would not have educational requirements for positions working on their team so to speak. or the requirement would state,, must have received education from private school.not paid for with public funds.. i dont use public transport either do you? no one i know personally uses public transport . and as for working with them? lol helen walton once said,' leave me alone and let me ride my horses' you think they give a flip? as for attacking them.. is pointing out truth an attack?

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

I understand where you are coming from. My point is that what the "Fair Share" for everyone to pay is very subjective. Most people don't use these services and yet they end up paying for them. Now no one is disputing that living in society you must pay for those services, but you cannot talk about "fair share" when you look really deep down nothing about taxes and government spending is fair.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

can i say 'equal'

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

How about "Just Share" or " A sum of money appropriate to that which is necessary from a certain individual for the continued security and tranquility of these United States of America, and for the continued conduct of day to day business of the Union."

You chose....

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

The true question is do YOU pay your fair share?

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that is not a question. im not claiming to be able to run the country now am I

[-] 0 points by America921 (161) 2 years ago

But it is the question. You demand these people pay their "fair share" and yet your suggesting that you don't have to. Your flat out selfish!

[-] 0 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Pay your fair share! Now gestopomilly! Donate. Pay extra. Just do it!

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

What you suggest is the Free Rider dilemma. It is easy to say donate to help the less fortunate but if there is not a law that states unequivocally that you pay this much taxes and it goes to this group of people, there wont be enough revenue for the program. Those that do donate won't do enough and every one else will invest in money making schemes instead of helping. There has to be laws made, such as minimum wage increases, and those laws have to be passed through Congress. You suggestion sounds good but is just that, a good sounding solution with out the bite of law.

[-] -1 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

Is he cheating? If not, what is your complaint, jealousy? Do you write out checks above and beyond your taxes due? Hell no! If you have capital gains you pay 15%. that is current law. So he actually is paying his fair share until law says otherwise. Wake the fuck up!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

he is trying to become the supreme lawmaker in the land! he should have been promising to change that law( enacted by a president/changable by a president) to make it fair, instead he was smug in that he was getting by with it!

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

The 15 % is on capital gains, it's the same for everyone.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Yep. All those people too poor to have any investments benefit from the low tax rates on them.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

if you belong to union, you have investments. unions invest in the stock market in order to grow their money to pay out the pensions.

[-] 1 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

And if you don't?

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

You paid zero, so STFU!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I tought you said they pay zero Whats up with 15% more than you said he paid.

[-] -1 points by Galt01 (55) 2 years ago

and - so what? how much did you contribute? give me a dollar figure not a percentage.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Do you understand the difference between the taxes paid on "wages" and the taxes paid on other forms of income?

Or do you just ignore the difference so you can slander anyone you want to and hope no one else knows or notices?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

there is no difference .. money gained by any means is money. and should be taxed the same. slander? im quoting romney. the fact that 'income' can be sectioned up and renamed is bogus. money in your pocket is money in your pocket. that difference was instituted by rich for the rich.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

So you're for a flat tax where all money is taxed the same. Cool. I'd love that.

Problem is, it's hard to get people to INVEST the money they've already paid their taxes on...because there is so much RISK involved. SO...the US Government gives them an incentive to DO IT ANYWAY, by only taxing them 15% on the interest they earn FROM risking it all. Otherwise, they stop investing so much.

Here's how YOUR effective tax rate compares to Romneys http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Feeling picked on still?

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

households earning up to 100k have an effective federal tax rate of 15%. the top rate or "marginal tax rate" of 39.6% applies only to income over 375k, 36% applies tor 232-375k and 28% for the poor of 138-232--all married joint return. we should definitely have another tier, at say, 45% for income over 1 million. however, the suggestion that without special tax treatment people wouldn't take risk and would not invest is ludicrous. we could and should do away with carried interest--it's bunk, as is the whole tax code... needs a serious re-do since it's riddled with special favors for ultra wealthy.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

obviously this tactic has proven disastrous . there is no need for incentive to invest that is crazy. you invest cause you want money you did not have to work for whether its taxed the same or not. the idea that that money is different is a rich mans tactic.. saying people would not invest is bogus. it would make no discernible difference. a rich man thought that up im sure, one that was already use to not working.

[-] -2 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Capital Gains tax is what your granny pays on her retirement investments. You want granny to pay more too?

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you actually believe most grannies have investments? after working for living ? most grannies live off soc sec.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

So you're OK with higher taxes on the ones that were smart to plan ahead?

[-] 3 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

no the government needs money,,,, it's broke. it borrows to service the debt... like taking a home equity loan to pay your mortgage. it's not to harm anyone. the poor and middles cannot be taxed more... the top 15% do have a little excess money to spend, and people in that class need to suck it up. and the politicians need to reduce spending.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

absolutely. they had to have been living large in order to do so in the first place, why should they get a break? and as for the argument that the money was already taxed,, mostly not. most investments are not taxed at the time of investment, it is deferred. then reduced absolutely not fair

[-] -3 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Less than rich people pay the exact same rate on their "capital gains" as well.

And YES it does affect the willingness of the wealthy to invest just like everyone else. If you've got millions of dollars just lying around somewhere safe, why would you put them back into the economy for any reason if you stood to lose it? Most wouldn't. The risk of losing it ALL in the stock market etc is HUGE, and I wouldn't blame them for just keeping it for themselves. Investing THEIR money allows other people to EARN more money from THEIR investments too.

[-] 2 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

investing in the stock market does not fund companies, when you buy a stock, the seller receives your money, not the company. only in IPOs and follow on offerings does the company receive money. private equity does fund companies, but alot of hedge funds don't want to wait 7-9 years for a return on their assets via a liquidation event.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

True, but the "investing" done by the rich is not ONLY in the stock market. They also invest in other ventures and businesses outside of the market and there is no guarantee that those business etc will be profitable.

Capital gains taxes apply to everyone-including the less rich. Let's say that your father dies leaves you a million dollars that he had saved up over his lifetime. You are a middle class tax payer. Should you have to pay a 15% capital gains tax on it, or 39% "marginal tax" on it? If your father had paid a full and fair income tax on every dollar of that money, then the government charging you a "full tax rate" on that amount is DOUBLE TAXATION of the same money. How is that fair?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

true, rich people have "invest" funds in funds that provide private equity, venture capital, trade commodities, trade currencies, as well as maybe franchising, and buying whole companies.

the inheritance would be subject to an estate tax, which would fall under an exemption in your case. and you get the added benefit of a stepped up basis in the property/stocks/assets, meaning you would be taxed only on gains from the date of death. the exemption is phased out at 5 million...however, rarely do people pay estate tax (55%) as they plan around it so the federally taxable estate is reduced. trusts are established, then there's planned giving, as well as foundations, etc... at some point, too, people hide things overseas. all to keep the government out of it.

lots of things are double taxed, like dividends are taxed first as corporate income, then as your income. or if i resell my car, the buyer pays tax on the resale, and so does the next guy. yeah it's bullshit--

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

15% is a lot of dough. What do you pay? Your fair share? Not.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

i pay a lot more than 15%. maybe there wouldnt be such a deficit if the rich paid the same percentage as me.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 2 years ago

Then you must be one of the "rich" people. Here is a link that shows the "effective tax rates" (and you should learn what that term-"effective" tax rate means) in the US historically. Get familiar.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

How much do you pay in dollars? Not much.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

most of romney's income is from investments so the tax rate he paid is correct for capital gains. 15 % is the tax rate for capital gains.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

a law that was passed by a president. the man wants to be president! he should have been promising to change this so capital gains are taxed at 35% but instead he was smug.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

why should capital gains be taxed at 35%?

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Because taxing investments at low rates devalues labor.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

How?

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Why make money that will be taxed at 35% when you can make money that will be taxed at 15%?

Tell us that you are not as dim as you appear.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

you have already paid taxes on the money that you invest. money made from investments ( capital gains) is taxed at a lesser rate. in order to pay the 15% tax rate, you first have to earn and pay taxes on the income . do you not understand the difference?

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Spoken by someone who has clearly never filed a tax return in their entire life. Alas ...

You are not taxed on the total value of the investment, only on the profit. There is no double taxation. The tax on the income (profit) should be the same whether it is from wages (labor) or investment (dividends, capital gains, etc.).

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

I pay taxes and have done so for decades.

[-] 2 points by UncomonSense (386) 2 years ago

Which does not explain your ignorance.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

cause it is income,, income is income.. why should the 50k that i actually have to work for be taxed at 35%? shouldnt it be that my worked for income should be taxed at 15% and capital gains be taxed at 35%? makes a lot more sense. because to have any income from capital gains means you already have to have a huge amount of principal in the first place. way more than 50k

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

take it up with the irs. this why some people want a flat tax.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

the president bush is the one that changed the tax down to 15% why call the irs.. and romney wants to take the job of bush.. therefore..romney is who will be responsible not the irs.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

romney wants to take 0bama job, bush is out of office.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

president is president by any other name. president is not a person it is a position.

[-] -2 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

according to your reasoning, jefferson was the same as carter who was the same as adams who was the same as lbj who was the same as jackson?

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

yes the job is the same no matter what kid grows up and gets that job.

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

the job description is the same , the person and their agenda is not

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

exactly.. thats why i say that about romney.. he has no interest in improving anything , he is smug in his wealth. he agrees the rich should pay less percent taxes than others. that is the point. he wants to have the power but doesnt want to take responsibility.

[-] -1 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

ABO = anyone but 0bama

[-] 2 points by XaiverBuchsIV (508) 2 years ago

You're late for the Klan meeting ...

[-] 0 points by capella (199) 2 years ago

ABO is about ideology. why would you bring in race?

[-] 1 points by ineptcongress (648) 2 years ago

families w income up to 100k pay 15% of their income too (first 20k is taxed at 10%, next 15k at 15%, next 35k at 20%, etc...) so the blended rate is around 15%. the very wealthy (romney with 200$million) pay almost exactly what average people do.... it's called "carried interest" which benefits hedge fund investors and their managers. he's not a brilliant businessman, he was born rich. so was bush, and others.

[-] -2 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

TAXATION EXPLAINED TO THE MASSES Suppose that every evening, 10 men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The 10 men drank in the bar every evening and were quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner said "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the 10 men would now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay. Therefore, the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing.

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "But he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a buck too. It's unfair - he got 10 times more benefit than me!" "That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy always win!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, boys and girls, journalists, labor unions and fellow Democrats, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier. 

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Your class loves to play fear games.

Nearly 3 in 4 Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy. Do you think a silly beer analogy is going to dissuade people from demanding the wealthy pay their fair share? There is no adequate defense you can muster against the FACT that well-to-do Romney pays much less in taxes than the average American, so you throw out garbage data about beers and veiled threats about leaving for friendlier shores. Good luck with the fear tactics. I doubt it will work this time.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

What exactly is the "fair share" your referring to? 50% of the country pays 97.7 percent of taxes collected and the top 1% you guys hate so much pays 37% of all taxes collected. The average American makes about 32,000 which puts them into the 15% tax bracket, however after deductions and tax credits their effective tax rate averages 0% to .03%

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Fair share? How about we go back to pre-Reagan years before the totally debunked theory of trickle down economics began?

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

So your questioning trickle down economics, ok. So the economy benefits more by the govt taking my money rather then me investing or spending it in other things in our country, and instead of people working for their money it should be taken from me and given to other people for not working. Again our money and wealth in this country is NOT a fixed pie if the government taxes me more I will spend less and therefor wages and hours at gas stations, grocery/department stores and anywhere else I usually spend my money will decrease. That really hurts the poor even more.

The choice is clear I spend my money at a department store and they pay their employees with it and they spend it some where and it just keeps going and going. OR the Government takes it and doesn't produce anything with it and I have less to spend in the free market. Sorry but Keynesian economics does not work BO has spent over 5 trillion in the last 3 years and are you or anyone else better off by it? NO

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

The government doesn't take. The people decide on what the government does. The government is of the people, for the people. (Or should be, I guess we could say government a bit corrupt these days - to understate the matter). This is a matter of policy, not a matter of force. You're twisted philosophy may make you see government as a force against you, but it is not an indisputable fact. In fact, I highly dispute the idea that government is anything 'other' than an institution playing a role in society. I suspect your demonizing government is nothing but another fear tactic employed in order to have your way.

Like I said, your class loves using fear tactics.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

No fear tactics here! Just truly trying to understand why people are so jealous and envious of the 1%. We were guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence. Notice how it says pursuit of happiness not the guarantee of happiness. All outcomes in our country can't be equal there will be failure and there will be success and I personally don't believe we should punish success. Look at all the other countries around this would that try it and fail.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Ah, the politics of envy. Yeah, I heard about that tactic too. Don't you have any new tricks?

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

How about a constructive comment. Do you believe in equal outcome and equal success? First fear tactics then envy tactics and still not and objective thought from you. How about instead you guys have some objective and constructive thoughts about how you can better yourselves and contribute to society rather than being jealous of those of us who do contribute to society.

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Here's a constructive comment for you. Stop playing politics and pay your fair share.

[-] -1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

I think I do pay my fair share, DO YOU? You probably don't I bet your effective tax rate is -20% because you probably get a huge tax refund of way more than you paid in all year right. What do you think my fair share should be on $325,000. While you give me a figure I'll check to see what my effective tax rate last year was

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Oh, so now it's personal, huh? The whole nation's tax policies comes down to a match between you and me. Get a grip. The - don't blame me blame yourself - trick is nothing new either. Don't you have any new tricks?

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

No tricks, every thing is a trick with you guys huh? I told you mine are you going to pull last years tax return and tell me yours or not?

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Stop telling lies, demonizing government, killing the middle class, blaming the poor, & using all your other rich people tricks to pull the wool over the people's eyes. Nobody is falling for it anymore.

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

I'm not telling any lies look it all up prove it's a lie and I'll apologize for being mis leading. Really I'm no different then other people I'm what is called 1st generation "rich" because I have saved and spent my money wisely and worked my butt off and to top it off I dropped out of school in 10th grade to start working and move from my moms house. So don't sit here and accuse me of killing the middle class and using my rich people tricks with out actually backing that up. If your poor it's your fault nobody elses, and I don't think I should have to pay more money to the government for you.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Paid 76,454 and that is an effective tax rate of 23.52% and you think I should pay more. WHY?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21069) 2 years ago

Actually, you're not in the 1%. In 2009, the income cut off to be in the top 1% was $343,927. So, no one is talking about raising your taxes anyway. Relax.

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Obama classifies anyone over $250,000 as rich but anyways so I'm in the 2% range and my tax rate is fair to you guys?

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

No matter what happens there will always be a to tenth of the top 1% and there will always be poor people that do work hard. No matter how mush they are taxed it wont be enough to help poor people and will in fact have the opposite effect of helping them by putting more people in the poor category. And since our wealth is'nt a fixed pie where as shrinking someone elses piece wont increase yours.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21069) 2 years ago

Just, please, keep in mind, that many poor people work very very hard and never get out of that poverty. Have a little compassion.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21069) 2 years ago

I don't think we're looking to touch your taxes, necessarily. It is really the top tenth of the top one percent that we're really pissed off at. Most of the wealth in this country is very highly concentrated at the tippy top.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

you think taxes are punishment then. your starting to understand. and its because like you, you have the roll to play of working, the 1% have a roll to play.. its called creating jobs.. they have reneged on this roll for the sake of greed.. you on the other hand still play your roll until your company shuts down.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

So you want to use taxes as punishment good idea guess what the more I'm taxes for higher pay the less I will work. I've heard suggestions of a 100% windfall profits tax on profits over a certain percent. Guess what I would stop working and so would anyone else when I reached that point and they wouldn't get that money. YOU WANTING TO PUNISH THE RICH OUT OF JEALOUSY IS GREEDY and you will get the exact opposite effect.

[-] 3 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

your the one that used the phrase 'punish success'. I think you should pay the same tax on the winnings from investments that a gambler pays for winning the lottery. why is that not fair? its gambling either way. you are betting that the company or whatever you invest 10k in will give you a return. same as buying a lottery ticket. how is it unfair to tax your winnings the same ?

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Why don't you take a shower, pull your nose ring out, and try to make something of your pathetic self instead of blaming everyone else for your miserable life.

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Do you all go to the same clown school of tactics?

Let's see - the smart one tried to outwit me and couldn't, so here comes the bully.

Will you guys please come up with some new tricks? I'm getting so bored. Yawn.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

why do you think that teachers, nurses , secretaries ,, copy machine techs and such wear nose rings? you must be a crack head.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

no they wouldnt.. the like the clean shiny bar with chairs instead of stools and the beer glasses washed with soap not just creek water. they would stay. is this fear mongering? if there were less rich.. there would be more money for the rest. backfire!

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

No there would not because our money and wealth in this country is not a fixed pie. Eliminating the "rich" will not put money in yours or anyone elses pocket. You say backfire because you believe there is only so much money to go around and your mad at the rich because you believe they have to large of a slice of that pie. Maybe if you understood economics and capitalism a little better you'd understand this.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

true i dont know. but i think ,,scince there is a law against monopolies this must be true. why else would it matter that one man owns all phone companies? cause there is only so much money to be made and the rich decided it had to be shared. so it is a fixed pie. other wise why care that one man owns everything? why make laws to prohibit this? the other people that want to get rich agree with me i think. so they make laws to make it possible. but now that there are millions more wanting part of that pie, its not true anymore?

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Monopolies are illegal because they lead to a lack of competition, higher prices, and inferior products. Not because there is only so much money in this country.

Every single person in this country has the same opportunities as anyone else. Jealousy and envy is what drives people to start movements like this. You people are jealous of what others have accomplished and you want it with out accomplishing anything. We get rich by working our butts off 16 hours a day and investing our money instead of spending it on useless crap. Can you believe my kids don't have any gaming systems they share a desktop that is the first one I bought 10 years ago. My vehicle is 14 years old my wives is 12 years old and we have no debt. Oh and I'm just a simple truck driver.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

that sounds like a load o bull to me.. reasoning thought up by greedy men to cut the ability of another rich man to make all the money. so ma bell would have not been worth a flip with out the laws that kept graham bell from owning the whole show? not likely. and what you say is soo untrue. if you think a kid born to a crack head mother and a thug father has the same opportunity as your kid you live in a dream. but i see that you are scared of the idea of paying 35% tax on your investment income. because you are not rich and that is just more out of your pocket. that brings us back to the fact that money in your pocket is money in your pocket no mater where it came from and you should have to pay the same tax on it.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

I was born to a drunk crack head mother and have never seen my dad so the other kids who blame their laziness on that need to go throw themselves a pity party outside of our public parks. Personally I don't believe there should be any taxes on investment income, I have already been taxed when I made the money working for it and I should be able to do what ever I want to with it. Not to mention taxing it discourages investing it and investing money has helped many many many small business across this country start up and hire people. Me or anyone else paying higher taxes does not help you or anyone else except companies like Solyndra and many other bs spending bills in congress so why exactly do you want people in the 1% to pay higher taxes anyways.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

cause someone has to pay higher taxes. to take care of the soyndra's in the world. and the working class cannot do this. the money must come from somewhere and there is no where else for it to come from. its unfortunate but this country will become a third world country if this is not done. where do you suggest the money come from? the jobs are gone, a huge percentage of the middle class is gone so now there is either the rich or nothing. would you rather they pay more or would you rather see the country become a third world country?

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Look around most people really are middle class. I have been in 48 states and there aren't to many people who don't have the necessities. Most people who think their poor have a flat screen tv, cable tv,internet, cell phone, a new car with payments in the drive way and a home to live in and they think their poor give me a break. Oh and they smoke to, tell me how does a poor person pay for cigarettes at $5.00 a pack. Every so called poor person I know has all that plus some so tell me how their poor.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

do you ever watch cops? they go into the homes of the poor. there are no tv/s the beds are on the floor, everthing is old and run down and dirty,, cause it cost money to be clean. and why do you concentrate on poor? im talking about teachers , nurses administrators,, people who barely make it on 50k a year.. im not talking about poor. but if this doesnt change those making 50k will be living like the poor.. beds on the floor.. 30 yr old refrigerators.. walls that havent been painted in 50yrs.. dirt that accumulates cause theres no money for the luxury of soap. thats the future if the rich dont start paying up.

[-] 1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

That's only their future if they decide it. Attacking the rich will NOT change it. We are all in control of our own destiny not the rich or government. Every single person who has their beds on the floors (which I have done for a few years) or a 30 year old fridge or dirty walls has it that way because of their own actions and choices the rich didn't do it and they don't have enough money to change that. You could confiscate all their wealth and not be able to change it for the better in fact you would most definitely make it worse.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

im not attacking the rich! no its not choice.. when all the jobs go overseas in order to make a few greedy corporate stooges have more money in thier pockets its not thier own fault. if there are no jobs it is not thier fault. sure,, they can pick up cans off the side of the road but that aint gonna pay the rent. ther are no jobs due to the greed of the rich. instead of accepting 1 billion in profit they gotta make 2. at the cost of 100 thousand jobs. the fault is the rich. dont try to blame that on the working people. whirlpool is gonna eliminate 5000 jobs. thats the fault of the worker? you believe there are 5000 jobs to replace those jobs somewhere?not to mention the hundreds of thousands of jobs eliminated in the last 3 or so years.. you think all those hundreds of thousands can just walk out an get another job that doesnt exist! yes maybe in china.. here they are just gonna be destitute. the fault lies with the unending greed of the rich.. the ones that are suppose to be creating jobs not eliminating them. so you got a job..20 yrs ago,. you could not do it again. if you were back to beds on the floor... you would never get out cause there are no jobs! and no.. i could confiscate 5 million a year from them and pay 100k people 50k a year instead of it going into 100 rich guys pocket!~ you see how that could work?

[-] -2 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

How about making a big deal of the fact that half the people in this country don't pay any federal income taxes. Maybe if everyone payed a "fair" share we wouldn't be broke. Fair would be everyone paying the same % of their income instead of some paying all while the rest leach the system dry!

[-] 4 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 2 years ago

why? because the 1% pay 15%? just let that fact go and redirect the problem to the ones that already pay 35%? that makes no sense. teachers and nurses simply do not have more money.. its like telling a 5 ft. man to be 5ft 5. if theres nothing there theres nothing there.

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Actually the top 1% make 19% of the income earned in this country and pay 37% of all the taxes collected. How can anyone in their right mind say that's "fair" when the bottom 50% pay nothing?

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

FALSE

The top 1% controls 42% of all wealth in the US, but pays only 22.3% of all federal taxes including capital gains, personal and corporate income, etc.).

The top 1% are taxed at about 1/2 the rate of everyone else. In fact this is the primary reason they have accumulated so much wealth: tax policy that vastly favors the rich.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

The 400 Highest-Income Americans (average gross income above $109 million) Paid an Effective Rate of 18.1% in 2008.

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/irstop400may2011.pdf

280 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Shelter Half Their Profits from Taxes.

Among the highlights of Corporate Welfare:

GE had a -45.3% tax rate on $10.6 billion in profits (2008-2010); they got $4.8 billion in subsidies straight out of taxpayer's pockets.

http://www.ctj.org/corporatetaxdodgers/CorporateTaxDodgersReport.pdf

[-] -1 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Point 1 you are wrong. The top 1% controlling 42% of all wealth is based on their net worth. Net worth means how much their worth if the liquidate everything they own or have invested in. Bill gates net worth is 59 billion but his yearly salary is only about a million dollars.
You say they only pay 22.3% of all federal taxes, WRONG their average effective federal tax rate is 22.3% of their income, they pay 36.7% of all federal income taxes collected by the IRS. Point 2 may or may not be true I'll have to look at the real IRS info the website www.ctj.org is extremely biased and I don't believe anything from biased sources without verifying it first. The last point may very well be true and if so I am completely against corporate welfare or welfare of any kind.

[-] 2 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

Wealth is power, whatever form it takes.

As for the statistics, I suggest lessons in reading comprehension. The links charts and data are quite clear.

[+] -4 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

Clear yes, trustworthy from a liberal sounding web site NO. What power does Bill Gates, or Warren Buffett have? Oh wait their Democrats lets leave them alone and skip to the first Republican on the forbes 400 list Charles Koch and his brother are always attacked by our lovely liberal media aren't they.

Some of you might say you dislike Obama but do you realize your owe your existence to him? He has drilled this class warfare BS into your minds and you all have sucked it up hook line and sinker.

[-] 3 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

You are severely deluded. A "liberal sounding website". LOL.

"Class warfare" was propagated by republican strategist Frank Lutz and repeated endlessly by the corporate media, FOX, O'Reilly, Beck, Limbaugh and a host of GOP politicians. Lutz has been peddling this crap as far back as 2008. He's also the originator of “government rationing care" and "death panels".

The GOP says government is the problem, then undermines it to make sure that it is. Always blame Washington, never compromise. Hello: the GOP is Washington.

http://newsparticipation.com/frank-luntz-republican-spin-master-is-scared/

[-] 0 points by inthe1percent (2) 2 years ago

If you can't go there and see that web site is Liberal biased then your the one deluded.

Class warfare is exactly what Obama is doing every day. You don"t think the term "Fair share" wasn't picked for this? Every other speech he talks about millionaires and billionaires not paying their fair share, has he ever said what that fair share should be?

[-] 1 points by nucleus (3291) 2 years ago

A "Liberal" group that influenced President Reagan's economic policy.

In 1984, President Ronald Reagan had an epiphany. His Treasury Secretary informed him that Reagan’s former employer, General Electric, and dozens of other major American corporations did not “pay a penny in taxes to the United States government.” In fact, the Treasury Secretary added, “your secretary paid more federal taxes last year than all of those giant companies put together.”

That information, not to mention the exact phrasing, came straight from Citizens for Tax Justice. Upon hearing it, Reagan ordered his Treasury Secretary to “go full steam ahead” with what became the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That law repudiated Reagan’s earlier loophole-crazed tax policies and swept away most of the tax-shelter schemes and loopholes that cluttered the tax code.

CTJ's studies on corporate tax avoidance, including 130 Reasons Why We Need Tax Reform (1986), Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Freeloaders (1985) and Money for Nothing: The Failure of Corporate Tax Incentives, 1981-1984 (1986) have been widely cited for their key role in the enactment of this tax reform legislation in 1986. Indeed, The Washington Post called CTJ's reports a "key turning point" in the tax reform debate that "had the effect of touching a spark to kindling" and "helped to raise public ire against corporate tax evaders." The Wall Street Journal said that CTJ "helped propel the tax-overhaul effort," and the Associated Press reported that CTJ's studies "assured that something would be done . . . to make profitable companies pay their share." And in the wake of CTJ's agenda-setting role in the 1986 tax reform debate, the Washington Monthly ranked CTJ at the top of its list of America's "best public interest groups."

Stop listening to Rush, he's a fucking moron, and he's turning you into one, too.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Class warfare has been going on since before Obama was a twinkle in FLAKESnews eye.

It's FLAKES that made a meme of it.

Neither Gates, nor Buffet are active in the ways the Kochs are and have been since the 70s.

David co-founded the libe(R)tarian Party.

They are both extremely active politically.

[-] 2 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

How about squeezing blood out of a stone? Or a turnip?