What’s Obama thinking with tax hikes on the rich?

In my opinion, they’ll come up with some kind of “feel good compromise”, so they can kick the can to the new Congress. Then there will be much hand wringing and teeth gnashing until they come up with another “compromise”, likely based on all too rosy economic projections (and have little or no basis in reality) that will stall things until the mid term election cycle starts. I think we’ll just keep sailing along as a rudderless ship. Sooner or later, we’ll run aground but to paraphrase Scarlett O’Hara, “they can’t think about that right now. … they’ll think about that tomorrow. …..”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly D is correct.

Therefore, the fiscal cliff would be preferable to what we’re likely to get.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interesting thought but easily overcome…just exclude state and local taxes from the calculation and make the limit say $25,000. I would love to see a combination of raising tax rates to Clinton era levels, upping Capital Gains to 25% or so, eliminating carried interest and a deduction limit. Combine that with the current rates of spending increase plus a tweak or two to SS and Medicare eligibility and indexing and we will be back to pre-Duhbya levels in 5 to 8 years.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Please define their “fair share.””

When the likes of Rmoney pay a lesser effective rate than me, I’d call that unfair.

• Link
• Report this comment

Typical libs…you guys whine like hell about someone paying their fair share, but can’t define it. I think it’s unfair that Romney’s house is bigger than mine. I think it’s unfair that Obama has a basketball court in his back yard, etc.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fair share of taxes come with fair share of income, if you are getting more than you deserve you pay more. Figure it out.

• Link
• Report this comment

guest, fair share?

Simple, Mitt Romney and the other 1%ers need to be paying a much higher effective tax rate than you and me. On their MUCH greater wealth.

No more hiding money overseas, no more endless tax loopholes, dodges and shelters, available ONLY to the wealthy.

You sure as hell are not getting ANY of them.

Nor should they.

It is very simple in a non-plutocracy – heavily tax wealth instead of heavily taxing labor like we do now.

Trickle down is destructive and stupid…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Compromise, statesmanship and moderation – these are swear words to our Republican extremists.”

Those are words totally alien to the democrat party.

• Link
• Report this comment

“SBinF, obviously you didn’t get that I was using stupid examples. You guys are still not defining fair share. All I see is this oh, crap, they make more therefore they should pay more. Give me numbers of what their fair share is. If not, then STFU.”

You only admit your examples are stupid after I point out why they are stupid. Keep trying though, perhaps you’ll make a valid point soon.

I never said anyone should pay more, I simply highlight the fact that Romney pays a lower effective rate than many middle class people. At the very least, he should pay the same percentage of his income to the federal government than i do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, your article illustrates some of the ideas that are worthy of discussion. While, as you have probably discerned, I am no big fan of Saxby or Graham, I applaud their pragmatic and patriotic approach to compromise. I even think a majority of Georgians would approve. However, I don’t know if it will sell to the voters in a Georgia Republican Primary election.

• Link
• Report this comment

Keep telling yourself that, cc.

How many more electoral beat downs will it take before you right wing reactionaries and hyper-extremists start singing a moderate song of compromise?

Because apparently three out of the last four ain’t enough!

And apparently the demented Grover Norquist still leads your band…

The Dawgs will Roll the Tide Saturday…

Yep, and Romney in a landslide!

• Link
• Report this comment

“Dude, seriously? You couldn’t tell my examples were intentionally stupid. Good grief. No wonder this country is going to hell.

So, are you saying everyone should pay, what is it, 14% of their income to the feds?”

Rmoney should be paying rates like I do. The tax code has changed in the last generation to tax labor instead of wealth. Far more of us labor than are wealthy, so it doesn’t seem to make much sense. The huge debt and deficit were created in large part because of the Bush tax cuts. Let them expire, then go from there.

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s Obama thinking with tax hikes on the rich?

Same thing he’s always thought…the rich are the ‘enemy’ and deserve to be ‘punished’. (Then he can ‘reward’ his supporters with the money taken from ‘the enemy’.)

• Link
• Report this comment

I just love it when a con presumes to speak for the liberals,and how in the process they totally turn facts on their head. The east and west coast urban centers are supposedly taxed higher according to mankiw and dutifully repeated by wingfield, (naturally since he never met a right wing distortion that wasn’t fit to print) because of their ‘liberal agendas.’ mankiw and wingfield blithely ignore facts that are hardly secret to a thinking person. East and West coast urban centers are the financial and commercial hubs of the nation and the costs (taxes) to provide the infrastructure to support these activities have nothing to do with a ‘liberal agenda,’ and in fact have everything to do with a conservative agenda, providing the means for millionaires to import, export, ship, and count the money arising from their businesses. When Bark, Ark or Hick Miss. become major financial and commercial centers on par with Boston, NY, SF, Seattle or LA, then they too will see higher tax rates with or without a ‘liberal agenda.’ What a pitiful attempt to dupe the gullible.

• Link
• Report this comment

“…the committed liberal his critics contend he is, and the pragmatic moderate his supporters believe him to be.”

I’m nowhere near a BHO fan but I’ve never perceived that he is the liberal zealot that the right would have us believe. I believe the guy’s making an effort to govern from the middle, much like Clinton did, and the R’s need to recognize and work with that.

• Link
• Report this comment

RE: “According to the Tax Policy Center, if we cap itemized deductions at $50,000 and keep tax rates as they are today, we’d raise $749 billion in tax revenue over 10 years. And 96.2 percent of the extra revenue would come from the top fifth of taxpayers, with 79.9 percent from the top 1 percent.”

I can assure Kyle (and Greg Mankiw) that the debate described above is not a debate that President Obama is having with himself. Recall that he has promised to raise taxes on the top TWO percent of households and, simultaneously, not to raise taxes on anybody else. The proposal that Mankiw describes would raise taxes on people that were to be shielded from such tax increases.

In other words, rather than raising some from the middle class and 96.2 percent from the top five percent, President Obama promised to raise 100 percent of revenues from the top two percent by allowing the top rates to expire (this would raise approximately $800 billion over ten years). Democrats everywhere ran on that, it’s fair, and there’s no reason to back off of it.

If Republicans refuse to extend the tax cuts for the middle class in order to hold tax cuts for the rich hostage, then people should hold them accountable in 2014.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fair share=the same rate we pay.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rates and rates on cap gains need to return to historical successful rates, they can carry their own water and will be fine butt kissers.

• Link
• Report this comment

A recent poll revealed that most people believe the lie that high income taxpayers pay a lower tax rate than low and middle income taxpayers. Is our electorate now so dumb that they don’t understand the difference between ordinary income and capital gains and the reason they’re taxed differently? I guess not. Plus it feeds their desperate need to hate people wealthier than they are: Here’s one link:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/incometaxandtheirs/a/taxtrump.htm

• Link
• Report this comment

“Once you have your deduction then you “effective tax rate” is not above 15%. If it is then you are in the top 1% or really need to hire an accountant to do your taxes.”

Have you seen my W-2’s? Of course not. As a middle class, single, childless renter, I surely get the least benefit from tax deductions as anyone in the country.

• Link
• Report this comment

“They already pay same exact rate as all of us if not more, the 15% tax rate that Romney paid comes from capital gains taxes not income tax.”

This is precisely what’s wrong with the tax code. I’m hardly a simpleton, but I’m confused as to why capital gains are considered less income than income derived from labor. And yes, the tax code is complicated so that folks like Romney can get away with paying less than the rest of us, you know, because it’s legal!

• Link
• Report this comment

It’s amazing how thr Republicans turned so bitterly on romney with in 12 hours after the election.

• Link
• Report this comment

That is to encourage investments and dont forget your 401k would be taxed at 30% as well instead of current 15%. Do we want everyone to have a 15% tax hike on their retirement income?

• Link
• Report this comment

“SBinF, if you had investments and gains then you would be paying the same 15% rate as “the rich”…isnt that fair?”

And what percentage of people derive most of their income from investments versus those who derive most income from labor?

Your argument is completely fallacious, and you are (correct use of the term) begging the question. Income is taxed at X, capital gains are taxed at Y. It is the same rate for everyone. Well yes, but if 95% of people get their income from labor and 5% of people get their income from capital gains, the picture of fairness becomes a bit hazy.

• Link
• Report this comment

SBinF

November 26th, 2012
2:15 pm

“SBinF, if you had investments and gains then you would be paying the same 15% rate as “the rich”…isnt that fair?”

And what percentage of people derive most of their income from investments versus those who derive most income from labor?

Everyone that is retired and is living off their 401K and SS. Just like Romney is retired.

• Link
• Report this comment

“This is precisely what’s wrong with the tax code. I’m hardly a simpleton, but I’m confused as to why capital gains are considered less income than income derived from labor.”

Don’t sell yourself short; maybe you are a simpleton after all. Capital gains are made with money that has already been taxed and is produced when someone takes a risk with a particular business model which frequently becomes a benefit to the economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Fair” is just a code word for socialism, my family comes from Soviet Union and that’s how they started that over there, it was not “fair” that the landowners were rich and the peasants were poor…80 years and 40 million deaths later we saw that was a mistake. Life is not fair, those who are smarter, faster and work more get more, this was the case for 1000s of years and will be for 1000s more…everything else is a ruse to get simpletons to rallys and polls.

• Link
• Report this comment

What is he thinking? More money means more golf trips and family vacations to exotic locations on his Air Force 1.

• Link
• Report this comment

John @2:12. You’re misinformed.

First, withdrawals from 401(k)s are taxed at earned income rates, not at capital gains rates.

Also, in 2013, the highest rate on capital gains (which does not apply to 401(k)s) would be 20 percent if the Bush tax cuts expire, not 30 percent, as you falsely assert.

I suggest that you get your facts straight before calling people who disagree with you “simpletons.”

• Link
• Report this comment

“Don’t sell yourself short; maybe you are a simpleton after all. Capital gains are made with money that has already been taxed and is produced when someone takes a risk with a particular business model which frequently becomes a benefit to the economy.”

I take your hackneyed point, but it’s still income. By your logic, if the money has already been taxed, why not set the capital gains tax rate at 0%?

• Link
• Report this comment

Weren’t the Bush tax cuts enacted to give back the Clinton surplus to the taxpayers?

Since that tax cut succeded beyond Bush’s wildest dream, maybe it’s time to go back to that program that gave us a surplus.

• Link
• Report this comment

Washington will continue to steal your wealth.
The Centralized Government of the USSR proved that it’s fake authority was able to confiscate 95% of all individual wealth………Considering the American tax slave/worker…….the moochers still have about 25% more to loot.
Barney Frank, Saxby Chambliss, and their state-sponsored Kyle Wingfelds will NOT go down as easily as one thinks.
.
They will continue to seize more of your wealth,
as long as you let them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interested Observer, perhaps an afternoon on investopedia will do you some good. 401k withdrawals are taxed as income if you take out prior to turning 65. Additionally there are two cap gains rates (15 and 20), one is for long term tax lots and another for short term. I was not saying they are 30%, but people here saying “fair share blah blah blah” their suggestion is to match income tax rates which essentially means that if you invest in the market then your money would be taxed twice, once when you earn it from paycheck and then again when you invest.

• Link
• Report this comment

RE: “Capital gains are made with money that has already been taxed…”

True. Also, earned income (income from work) is made with money that has already been taxed. The sources of our paychecks are investments and/or sales, and investors and customers ostensibly paid taxes on that money before they invested or purchased our goods and services.

So tell me again why capital gains should receive special tax treatment.

• Link
• Report this comment

Grownups crying like babes is all I see here.

• Link
• Report this comment

SBinF

November 26th, 2012
2:20 pm

If you are “firmly” middleclass and do not have a house, not married and have no children, then you have disposable income or are really wasting a great deal of money. So sad.

• Link
• Report this comment

And correct me if I’m wrong…I usually fall asleep during the yearly benefits seminar, but aren’t 401k withdrawals taxed as ordinary income, and not capital gains?

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, as someone has already pointed out, by that definition of ‘double taxation’, all income has been taxed before. How do we reconcile this fact? If capital gains is untouchable, the top rates are untouchable, what’s left?

• Link
• Report this comment

“presided over a .COM boom which did not happen due to his policies. he was simply lucky…”

Ive tried to maked exactly that point to a friend of mine yet she refuses to acknowledge same. I guess she is to dumb or to drunk to understand….lol.

• Link
• Report this comment

…sticking it to the working man…

Yep, igs.

Like I’ve said since early 2008, he is just another Republican-lite.

Long Live the American Plutocracy.

• Link
• Report this comment

.Kyle Wingfield
November 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
Auntie @ 1:28: If all these urban centers, which all happen to vote overwhelmingly for liberals, are all running up these costs (and the taxes to pay for them) for the reasons you suggest, why do you insist on calling it a “conservative agenda”? Why are all these liberals enacting this conservative agenda?

You and mankiw imply that the higher tax rates in the highly urban/blue states is a result of a ‘liberal agenda.’ My point was to show how you are distorting facts. The higher taxes are a result of providing a more amenable business climate, a major objective of the conservative agenda, not the result of a ‘liberal agenda.’ If ‘liberals’ like Christy and Bloomberg share this viewpoint, then we welcome their participation. Paying for the improvements does not cause liberals apoplexy as it does the cons. We recognize that a functioning society/government must be paid for, and idiotic pledges to eschew paying for it are destructive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a gullible dupe

• Link
• Report this comment

Most of the “1%” earn their “income” primarily through capital gains. The quotes are because capital gains are not treated as income. Capital gains are exempt from payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). The effective tax rate for long-term capital gains is 15%.

The equivalent 15% tax (sans payroll taxes) is paid on incomes from $8,701 to $35,350. When you include payroll taxes, that becomes roughly 23%.

Think about that.

A wealthy investor sitting around collecting cash pays a lower tax rate than someone making $35,000 per year BEFORE DEDUCTIONS.

And republicans actually want to lower the capital gains rate.

It’s funny, because they assume the only solution to a slow economy is lower tax rates (despite historical evidence definitively proving that lowering rates doesn’t improve economic conditions, but I digress). This shows a complete misunderstanding of what makes our economy so strong to begin with: our demand.

If we put corporate tax rates back at 90%, wealthy people would still come here to invest. Why? Because they can’t pass up the amount of demand we have, no matter how small the margin they’re making on it is. Can they move manufacturing overseas? Sure. But they can’t put a dent in our wealth like that, nor can they make use of the most skilled labor force the world has ever seen. These are important attributes because of the scared voice in the head of the investory: “If I don’t do it, someone else will, and they’ll be richer for it”

• Link
• Report this comment

@jconservative …1:11

I agree with and support every word of that!

• Link
• Report this comment

How about taxing all the money the 1% have hidden in the Caymans? How hard is that? It will only increase if the 1% get a tax hike. That’s why W was down there Nov. 2 doing a top secret $4,000 a person speech on how to avoid taxes and regulation by investing in the Caymans. I suggest Obama hire Romney and W to figure out how to keep the 1% from hiding money offshore, shipping jobs overseas and not using their investments to create jobs. Maybe they could also figure out how to get more veterans hired. I am sure Bill Clinton would love to have them invest a few million in his global initiative for that purpose. They would work well together and improve the sorry image of the GOP. Get Grover on board too!

• Link
• Report this comment

With regard to taxes, it doesnt matter what they do because everyone except the Lazy is gonna get a good screwing.

• Link
• Report this comment

This is what Obama is thinking.

My adm. added $1.7 T to the natl. debt in the fiscal year that ended 9/10, another $1.2 T to the one that ended 9/11 & another $1.4 T that ended 9/12. Heck, we added $93.2 B just in one day, on 10/1/12, the highest amt. in history, more than was added between 7/4/1776 & 10/31/1942! This $75 B in tax revenues are nothing more than a drop in the ocean. It has nothing to do with the budget deficit, let alone the natl. debt We haven’t even passed a budget in 3 years. Mine was voted down in the Senate 99-0 & in the House 414-0.

I said that raising taxes would hurt the economy & the economy is worse now than when I said that, but we gotta be FAIR. We gotta target small businesses & folks that invest in the economy, just to be FAIR. We gotta get voters confused between income, which is taxed, & wealth, which is not taxed. We gotta get voters convinced that families who earn $250 K always have a higher net worth than families who earn $100K, regardless of where they live, & that high earners are just plain evil.

We gotta get rid of loopholes, formerly called deductions, to further impede the housing recovery & to prevent charitable deductions.

We gotta make folks forget that the Bush tax cuts caused the unemployment rates to plummet, the economy to soar & the tax revenues to skyrocket.

Piece of cake!

• Link
• Report this comment

Having read “Linda”’s nonsense @ 3.16:

I am not one of those people who worries about a “debt crisis”.

When you can get people to lend you trillions of dollars for essentially zero percent interest (ok, it goes alllll the way up to about 1 percent if you leave it in Tbills for seven years), you’re not in a flippin’ “debt crisis.”

• Link
• Report this comment

@SFD…but, but, but GREECE ARGUGGGHHHH…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Citizen A CHOOSES to drop out of school (already paid by the taxpayers) and proceeds to make 20k a year……his fair share according to the left is $0…….”

His fair share is $0 because 100% of his income is going to support his livelihood. There’s no saving money on $20k per year in this day and age. Personally, I pay $12,000 per year in rent alone, and I’m not exactly living in the best apartment. If I was only making $20,000 per year, most of my income would consumed by rent, and the rest would be divided between gas and food… whichever I chose that week.

“Citizen B CHOOSES to get a graduate degree, incur the cost of same, and gets a job making 300k…….his fair share? As freakin much as the guy that chose to pay the $0 can get from him…….”
His fair share at the current tax rate is 28%, or $28,000 per $100,000, or $84,000. That leaves him with $216,000. (note: he would actually pay less than this, because the top rate only applies to the earned income ABOVE $200,000, meaning only $100,000 of his salary is actually eligible for the 28% rate, but let’s make this a worst-case-scenario)

Suppose he owned a $1,000,000 home on a 30 year mortgage with TERRIBLE credit (7% apr) and only paid a 5% down-payment. What would his monthly payment be? $7,362. 0% down payment? $7,694. Let’s call it $8,000. $216,000 – $8,000 = $204,000.

Do you see the difference?

Citizen A is paying a 0% rate, but at least 50% of his after-tax income is dedicated to the roof over his head, and the rest to the other elements of survival (food, water, essential transportation).

Citizen B is paying a 28% rate, but only 4% of his after-tax income is dedicated to the roof over his head. Less than 10% ($20,000) is probably dedicated to the other elements of survival (food, water, essential transportation (so no, does not include his second or third sports cars)). The remaining 86% of his after-tax income is for whatever he wants.

So pardon if I’m not scared by the “horror” stories of upper-middle-class Americans paying over 50% of their income in taxes. Excuse me if I’m not sympathetic to Citizen B’s complaints about not being able to afford his yacht until NEXT YEAR because I want to make sure Citizen A has food for his or her family.

Please, by all means complain that Citizen A made the wrong choices. You’re right about that. I just don’t accept your solution of letting his family suffer for it.

Oh, and by the way, most of the people working those $20k-per-year jobs aren’t there because they chose to be. Most of those people are there because they had no other options. But please feel free to demonize the have-nots, because if that’s your position then I’m eagerly awaiting the day the chips hit the floor for you, and you’ve got no other choice but to take a crummy job that doesn’t cover your mortgage, your car payment, or your health care.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, I’m all ears!

Was closing tax loopholes a great idea back then, but not now?

• Link
• Report this comment

Furthermore, there’s nothing wrong with taxing dividends twice.

Dividend payouts occur when the company chooses to pay its excess cash to its owners (shareholders) instead of reinvesting that money. I don’t see anything wrong about making it more cost-effective to reinvest money rather than pay it out to shareholders.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, did I not write that he lowered the marginal rates?

My point is that his reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, such that high-income tax filers who had previously paid very little, if anything, ended up with bigger tax bills.

I asked why it was a good idea then, but not now.

I ask again.

• Link
• Report this comment

Interested Observer @3:24 you hit the nail on the head, paycheck taxation is double only that the employer is not taxed again, but rather the employee gets taxes since he just received the check. Hence this is NOT double taxation because there are two different parties here. Income gains are double taxation because its the same individual who just paid taxes on his paycheck and is buying IBM stock with his NET cash.

• Link
• Report this comment

fauxsoup @3:28, so you think Citizen B who spend a lot of time and money educating himself so he can better provide for himself and his family OWES something to Citizen A who did not bother with any of it?

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet: Was closing tax loopholes a great idea back then, but not now?

Then…

JamVet; My point is that his reform bill eliminated or reduced many tax breaks and shelters, such that high-income tax filers who had previously paid very little, if anything, ended up with bigger tax bills.

I ask again.

Then…

KW: JamVet: No, that’s not what you asked.

Can someone help me out here?!

• Link
• Report this comment

something to Citizen A who did not bother with any of it?

I do so love the presumption that people who wind up working for crummy sub-par salaries not only “deserve” it because of their “bad choices,” but also that these people working these jobs are somehow “leeches” because 47% or whatever.

Did it ever occur to any-a’-yuz that maybe that 20K/year guy is earning 20K/year in that particular gig because our country allows artificial downward pressure on wages by deliberately maintaining high unemployment rates in the name of “austerity?”

(yeah, I know, crazy talk.)

/drive-by

• Link
• Report this comment

stands for decibels, please dont waste our time with these sob stories. My family came here from Soviet Union 20 years ago with no English, no relatives and $1500 in our pockets. Now we are living the American dream so these sob stories about people stuck in 20k jobs are falling on deaf ears. If that person was not on the street corner in the 80s with a boombox instead of going to school then just maybe they can have a decent job too. If you have no skills and dont know how to do anything then you should not complain that 20k is your salary ceiling.

• Link
• Report this comment

@SFD…Yes I did laugh at Mittens on Greece…I also got a real kick out of a supposedly serious Presidential Candidate that went abroad and got the Brits in a snit…how hard can it be to go to London and not step in it?

• Link
• Report this comment

I will go with Buffett on this one.

They don’t need your help cons.

They will be fine.

• Link
• Report this comment

We are focusing on the middle class instead of the wealthy.

The American people did that.

• Link
• Report this comment

And

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/warren-buffett-taxes-berkshire-hathaway_n_941099.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Raise the tax RATES and loopholes on the wealthiest, and leave the middle class tax deductions alone.
As far as those “moochers” in blue states that wouldn’t want to surrender their local/state tax deduction, who are the real “moochers” when it comes to contributing to the Federal government? It’s the red states that take the $$$ from the feds, not the blue states. That’s why this whole succession fiasco is so hilarious! Red states can’t afford a dog catcher for their state without help from the Federal government.

• Link
• Report this comment

RE: “The distinction is with the corporate tax treatment of labor vs. dividends.”

Kyle @3:52,

I understand your argument completely. Frankly, I think that you’re confusing yourself.

Anyway, as I tried to explain above, the distinction that you’re making is a distinction without a difference. If one believes that double taxation is bad, then the only form of taxation that one can support is a federal retail sales tax for new goods and/or services only, no income taxes allowed (of course, the sales tax would have to be extraordinarily high in order to be revenue neutral). The income tax structure, on the other hand, double taxes everybody (workers, corporations, heirs, investors,…) since income, generally, is taxed as it passes from one entity to the next.

I’m not opposed to an income tax structure or the double taxation on my paycheck, investment income, or inheritances (I’ve received income from all three sources). That’s how, regardless of income source, we all spread and share the burden of taxation. The alternative that conservatives propose is to give people who benefit mostly from investments and inheritances a free ride and, instead, place most or all of the burden on people whose primary source of income is labor.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Please, by all means complain that Citizen A made the wrong choices. You’re right about that. I just don’t accept your solution of letting his family suffer for it.

Oh, and by the way, most of the people working those $20k-per-year jobs aren’t there because they chose to be. Most of those people are there because they had no other options. But please feel free to demonize the have-nots, because if that’s your position then I’m eagerly awaiting the day the chips hit the floor for you, and you’ve got no other choice but to take a crummy job that doesn’t cover your mortgage, your car payment, or your health care.”

For starters, I WAS there, and it was I that had to make the choices to get out of the situation, no one else.

As for me allowing him to suffer, again WRONG……HE is allowing himself to suffer by CHOOSING to opt out of the opportunity program ALREADY provided. But your attempt at playing the guilt card as an excuse for his choices doesn’t faze me……..you are more than welcome to feel guilty for his choices if you so choose though.

The POINT, is choices DO play a part in the equation, so to use some arbitrary definition of “fair” based on one solitary component is a bunch of bs……….

• Link
• Report this comment

Obama and the libs are eating the seed corn necessary for the economy to recover. But that’s OK with them since their foremost objective is to plunge our economy and way of life into something from which it will never recover. Only when the economic destruction of the country is assured will these godless miscreants rest.

• Link
• Report this comment

Its not what you pay, its what you have left. Rates need to increase on top income and cap gains. Wake up and pay the bills.

• Link
• Report this comment

Only when the economic destruction of the country is assured will these godless miscreants rest.

RBG – you are one disturbed, but entertaining, dude

• Link
• Report this comment

The economy needs to improve to create jobs to produce more tax revenues, but Obama & the Democrats have already spent the tax revenues from the new jobs that they said would be created by stimulating the economy, but which new jobs were never created because Obama & the Democrats increased the federal debt by $6 T which caused the economy to further weaken.

Oh, well.

Step two is to produce more tax revenues from the old tax payers, i.e. those who still have jobs, specifically those who actually create the most jobs in the US, the small business owners, i.e. the employers. What could possibly go wrong?

• Link
• Report this comment

Our President won so yes they are going to raise taxes on your precious wealthy that does not need any help and he wants another tax cut for the middle class that could use a break.

It is up to congress to do their job and pass our President’s plan.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If Obama and unions were the cause of Hostess’ demise, why are companies looking to buy it?”

Several reasons, the brand is already well known hence the cost savings of building the brand and they evidently plan to make them in a cost friendly environment.

If it costs $2 to make a $1 twinkie, it won’t much matter who makes them as they won’t be in business very long.

• Link
• Report this comment

OH my goodness, another bunch of blog tax experts and Kyle ( who should be writing business columns). They are going to set us all straight! I might as well add to the fun.

#1-The fiscal cliff looms before us . Happy New Year! No parachutes available.
#2-You can raise everybody’s taxes and SantaUSA will hardly know the difference. “Cuts” work better .Letting me spend most of my money is even better.True for me & lil’ buisiness man..
#3-Taxing the rich 4x more than others is wrong. You might as well use a gun for the hold-up.. Either way you are robbing them. The president is rich, too, in case you haven’ t noticed.
#4-The government is not your mama or your papa. Find out what independence and self reliance mean.
#5- Any body who says “Bush did it!” or “Rich Romney aint paid enuf taxes.”should be taxed at 100% for being stupid.

Happy Fiscal Fear!!

• Link
• Report this comment

curious@2:25, The only “surplus” under Clinton was on pieces of paper called “budgets,” submitted many months in advance of the beginning of each fiscal year. There were “oops” that resulted in budget deficits each & every year, which in turn resulted in the natl. debt increasing each & every year under Clinton. The “surplus” were mere projections in the ’90s & fairy tales in 2012.

@4:57, When you sell a house, you usually keep your stuff. The Hostess brands & recipes are being purchased for the cream in the fillings, not the clutter in the attic. There could also be a little problem with shipping 18,000 union workers to Mexico.

• Link
• Report this comment

Linda,

You mean TWINKIES will soon be Si-Winkies for amigos and gringos? Awwwww….

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

Hostess management was overcome by stalemates that killled the twinkie from the efforts of unions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle – let’s be serious. When your headline asks “What’s Obama thinking with tax hikes on the rich?” …. the answer was originally simple – VOTES. Now its a bit more complicated. He’s president for the next four years. That motivation is a done deal. Only motivation left is to save face. Let’s not kid ourselves and believe he is thinking what’s best for the country and citizens here. Rational thinking leads one to conclude that if he was, he would be leaning toward a moderate position. But ….. how far can he lean back toward the middle and still save that face that is so important to him.

• Link
• Report this comment

dusty,

Greed and incompetence.

The unions agreed to the deal but management chose bankruptcy so they get a two million bonus.

• Link
• Report this comment

getalife

The unions waited too long after they had killed the business. You can’t get a dead horse to move.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The unions agreed to the deal but management chose bankruptcy so they get a two million bonus.”

Actually, some of the unions agreed to a deal, but one did not…..and that lead to the shutdown. The larger teamsters union had reached agreement, but the smaller Bakers union said no…..needless to say the Teamsters honored the picket line……

Another group demands all or nothing and loses the gamble…..

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty, I will feed anything that visits on our deck, except racoons. I learned the hard way. You are feeding with your attention those who are not worthy of your time nor your talents.

• Link
• Report this comment

mike: If we cut Social Security and Medicare to zero it will not reduce the deficit or debt one red cent.
——————————–

False. Social Security now spends more than it takes in. It is a “pay as you go” program. The bonds they hold that represent previous years’ excess contributions have to be redeemed for cash from the Treasury to cover the SS deficit.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

• Link
• Report this comment

What dose Obama understand he’s cutting out military stuff the man has never fight for this country I know men that need long term care that protect this United States and women too and now everything coming out of their pocket

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Barry: would you be willing to take a pay cut to $25,000/yr (assuming that you even work)? BTW, be careful you don’t get a “time-out” with the name calling.

• Link
• Report this comment

How do you pay for 2 wars?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cobb Mom of 4: How do you pay for 2 wars?
——————

The same way you pay for a $800 billion “stimulus”. Put it on the credit card.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil’ Bar: ” Not according to FactCheck. They completely smacked down your Democrat talking point.”

Careful, there, Lil’ Bar, you’re gonna hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. If they were to dip into their surplus, it still wouldn’t increase our budget deficit or debt. Do you get this? Or is there something about this that eludes you?

• Link
• Report this comment

“Don’t forget, Lil’ Bar, that the “Stimulus” was Bush’s doing. Obama inherited it.”

Yeah, ’cause don’t forget Obama was strongly against the stimulus, and campaigned and voted against it – wait . . . .

Never mind

• Link
• Report this comment

“would you be willing to take a pay cut to $25,000/yr (assuming that you even work)?”

Absolutely……I’d much rather have something coming in while looking for another job vs nothing…..and don’t think employers aren’t skeptical of folks that are applying for jobs while on unemployment insurance……they are.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Care to speculate where we would be today with the stimulus.”

Over $800 billion LESS in debt, mike.

No speculation needed.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Now Greg Mankiw, a Harvard economist and former adviser to both George W. Bush and Mitt Romney”

I just don’t think that’s something I’d post on my resume….if I actually wanted to get a job or be taken even remotely seriously.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

November 26th, 2012
7:16 pm

The real irony is that the home of the Boston Tea party now has some of the highest taxes in the country……..
———————————————————————————
.
And the largest number of Federal boot-lickers.
although Georgia has too many to.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe: “the middle class would get a tax bill around $3,000-$5,000 more per year.”

Rafe: it’s like I’ve said over and over again, if the American public had to actually pay for wars, the wars would stop in a hurry! DUH! But even that would only close our $1 trillion deficit by one quarter. You’re living in a fantasy world, Rafe.

Like I said in an earlier post, approximately one-half of all tax revenues are spent on current or past military spending or the interest thereon.

• Link
• Report this comment

mike(with a little m)@6:12, So, how many days will $268 B fund the fed. gov.? 8 days?
SS & Medicare are self-funding? How come the actuaries of these funds disagree?
Where are these surpluses? Are they nothing more than chits? How come the debt clock says SS, Medicare & the prescription drug program are $121.6 T unfunded?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

How come the fed. govt. requires banks to have “reserves,” i.e. money left over after loans, but the fed. govt. can spend every penny in both the SS & Medicare funds with no “reserves” what-so-ever?

I feel so sorry for you. I feel certain that I am much older than you, but even when I was younger, I questioned everything. Critical thinking is no longer the norm for the masses replacing the Greatest Generation.

• Link
• Report this comment

Linda: Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Well, heck, Linda, I know I sure am worried. Aren’t you? BTW, the interest referred to is interest on the Treasury Bills the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds hold.

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe: “The problem is spending. You can rattle on, as all the left does about the “two wars on the credit card”, but that is history. The stupid stimulus cost as much as the two wars.”

Rafe: if you can post something that substantiates that the “stimulus” cost as much as the two wars, I would be glad to see it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Lil BB, quoting Pravda, are we?

Wow.

Desperate times, desperate measures, huh?

• Link
• Report this comment

Nah, just thought it was funny, JDW. Pravda! Didn’t even know they still existed.

Obozo’s voters didn’t pull the lever for him because they’re illiterate, they did it out of greed for other people’s property. Leeches. Parasites. Moochers.

• Link
• Report this comment

“US War Costs Reach $3.7 Trillion
Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Have Cost Americans $3.7 Trillion, $12,000 Per Person

A study conducted by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies found that over the past 10 years the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost United States taxpayers a total $2.3 to 2.7 trillion, with a final tally being at least $3.7 trillion, an average of $12,000 per American citizen. According to the study, titled, “Costs of War” (www.costsofwar.org) in 2011 the United States Congress has given $1.3 trillion to the Department of Defense for war spending. Projected costs do not include care for wounded US veterans and interest on the war debt.”

http://www.mediafreedominternational.org/2012/01/25/iraq-and-afghanistan-wars-have-cost-americans-3-7-trillion-12000-per-person/

I believe this number is significantly understated.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius: “CNN estimated that all the stimulus spending Obama racked up was in excess of $3 trillion dollars.”

All I could find was one “blog post” that stated anything near what you are talking about.

http://scottystarnes.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/cnn-obamas-787-billionstimulus-only-created-300000-jobs-at-a-cost-of-262333-per-job/

Could you please post the link to the CNN claim?

• Link
• Report this comment

Here’s the biggest problem you on the Right face: almost everything you believe is a propaganda lie implanted in your brains by Fox News and various Right-wing sources. Invariably, when you expose them here on the blog, the wilt when exposed to the truth. From unions to deficits and everything in between, everything you hold true is nothing but propaganda lies. You still don’t get it, do you?

• Link
• Report this comment

mike(with a little m)@8:39, Here’s where you can go 24/7 to find the cost of the 2 wars, without getting hung out to dry by the corrupt mainstream alphabet media.

http://costofwar.com/

The total is less than $1.4T as of today.

If you compare the site you quoted (costofwar.org) vs the cite I quoted (costofwar.com), maybe you will see that you are promoting propaganda.

• Link
• Report this comment

mike(with a little m)@8:50, There are NO social security & Medicare Trust Funds! There are no lock boxes! The fed. govt. spent the funds. There is nothing left but chits, IOUs, hanging chads. The money is gone! There is no plan as to who gets paid first, second, third, etc. when the fed. govt. defaults. Will it be the poor, the vets, the elderly, the orphans, the widows, etc. Who will decide? Magic Mirror on the Wall?
@8:56, You accuse conservatives of being deceived by the media, when conservatives accuse liberals of being deceived by the media.

Hint: Conservatives are more likely to cite sites than liberals on blogs. Conservatives know better than to quote conservative sites (such as FOX) & liberals do not know better than to quote liberal sites (such as the corrupt mainstream alphabet media). Conservatives quote govt. websites more often than liberals to prove points.

Conclusion: Liberals are more brainwashed than conservatives. Period.

• Link
• Report this comment

Fair share of taxes come with fair share of income, if you are getting more than you deserve you pay more. Figure it out.

Excuse me, but just how do you figure out ‘if you’re getting more than you deserve?’ Are you thinking that someone who has worked their way through college, put in the long hours at work and now find themselves reaping the rewards of that work are now ‘getting more than they deserve?’

• Link
• Report this comment

The lies are thick in here tonight…

• Link
• Report this comment

Hypocrite: A member of a couple who draws from Social Security monthly, enjoys 2 digit monthly insurance rates but comes on a blog and spouts half-truths, facts out of context, revisionist history, conspiracy theory regarding government defaults and complains about brainwashing — all the while referring to herself as the greatest generation. Priceless.

Social Security and Medicare are not government funds. These entities are funded by the public for the benefit of the public with public funds directed specifically to those entities for allocation for specific purposes. They are not part of the federal general fund nor part of the federal budget and are not funded by citizen income tax dollars.

Every worker receiving a pay check since 1937 has contributed to Social Security with an equal amount coming from his/her employer. As a worker (since the age of 12) AND a business owner I have done both — gladly.

Social Security is not an entitlement it is the publics’ money. It does not belong to the government.

Every pay check and every Social Security check issued since 1966 has included a deduction to fund Medicare. Public contribution to a designated entity for a designated purpose for distribution back to the public as determined by the publics’ need at a later date. The funds therefore are not part of the general fund or the federal budget. They are not federal income tax dollars paid to the government. Therefore they are not entitlements.

Why is this so hard to comprehend ?

As soon as the R’s and D’s get this through their thick heads perhaps they can move on to finding practical, implementable and legal solutions to the budget and debt issues. Just because they have spent the money just like it was part of the general fund does not make it so.

First of all, it must be understood that Social Security has never increased the federal deficit by a single dime. “Unfunded obligations” are a sleight-of-hand in federal accounting. Social Security has always, every year since its inception, taken in more money than it paid out. The problem that arose was what to do with this surplus of money. The answer has been to “buy” U.S. Treasury bonds – which are, in essence, government IOUs that pay interest. In the meantime, the real excess dollars go into the general fund and the politicians spend the real money, leaving the Social Security program with the bonds – the so-called unfunded obligations.

Intelligent people realize that politicians (on both sides of the aisle) have spent the excess Social Security money in the general fund on all sorts of things — a list too long to go int here. Now SS is hamstringing business? Growth?

Please.

Now, the Congress have seized on this accounting sleight-of-hand to try and renege on paying back the money to Social Security and end the whole program, as we know it, in one fell swoop, leaving America’s working people holding an empty bag in their old age.

To continue to insist that Social Security is increasing the federal deficit and bankrupting the country is extremely naive in the least, and an outright lie at worst. It should be corrected, not perpetuated, by the press — Fourth Estate my a@# — on opinion pages, blogs and slanted news networks.

The oldest form of warfare is divide and conquer. Quit thumping your chest for one party or the other and figure out who is conquering you and other mindless dilettantes here.

• Link
• Report this comment

Willard Romney said it best. If you are in debt, ask your relatives for help. Hey Uncle Koch Brothers, if you can drop $200 million a year trying to defeat Obama, you can pay at least that much to help America. We know you weren’t using it to create good paying jobs over the past four years.

• Link
• Report this comment

Now, the Congress have seized on this accounting sleight-of-hand to try and renege on paying back the money to Social Security

Not just the Congress! I believe it was the first black President, William Jefferson Clinton, that used the SocSec surplus in his budget documents. The so called “surplus” Clinton left us with, was accounting sleight of hand, where he counted the social security surplus as an asset. So, to be consistent, you have to include SocSec in any discussion of the debt and deficit, because the funds have been co-mingled for quite a long time.

• Link
• Report this comment

Attack Dog
We know you weren’t using it to create good paying jobs over the past four years.

Spreading falsehoods again, AD, 70,000 of their employees would take exception with the above statement. I guess in your mind, they should not have quit and gone to work for Solyndra and Abound Solar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries

• Link
• Report this comment

The Tax Justice Network estimates that between $21 and $32 trillion is hidden offshore, untaxed. With Americans making up 40% of the world’s Ultra High Net Worth Individuals, that’s $8 to $12 trillion stashed outside the US.

Based on a historical stock market return of 6%, up to $750 billion of income is lost to the U.S. every year, resulting in a tax loss of about $260 billion.

American Exceptionalism

• Link
• Report this comment

From yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor about that 1% haven in the Caymans:

“”"”"”"”"”The three-island British territory tucked just south of Cuba in the Caribbean Sea has more than 92,000 registered companies, according to the government, most of which do the majority of their business elsewhere.

A check around the Caribbean reveals similar stories. The islands have long been attractive because they collect little or no taxes. They’ve built economies around financial services, which has proven a more reliable source of income than tourism in recent years. And over time they’ve helped foreign companies and well-heeled individuals reduce their tax bills. Among them is the hedge fund Bain Capital, of Mitt Romney fame, which became a lightning rod for criticism during the presidential campaign.

But something happened on the way to tax haven status: Caribbean governments have accumulated massive debts they are struggling to repay. Without the taxes most governments use to pay for the costs of running public works projects or social programs, the bills have added up. With little in the way of economic expansion – The United Nations forecasts 1.6 percent growth this year for the Caribbean – governments are turning to other means.”"”"”"”"”"

Kinda like those Southern Red States the GOP adores that have low taxes and regulations but take more than their share in Federal Benefits and keep votoing the party line.
I am sure these concerns about the local economy were part of W’s speech in the Caymans but then everyone was sworn to secrecy.Praise the 1% – they sure know ho to find the loopholes and we just help them along the way and cover up their tracks particularly if you are a Republican.
“We gave you people all the information you need” That’s the attitude.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Bush economy was a PONZI scheme; bound to collapse and it did.

• Link
• Report this comment

In the new ‘Red Dawn’ movie, US invaded by North Korea to set up a central Communist government, but finds Obama beat them to it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Loves Me Some Obama Kool-Aid

November 27th, 2012
9:45 am

LOL

• Link
• Report this comment

@Linda…”The only “surplus” under Clinton was on pieces of paper called “budgets,” submitted many months in advance of the beginning of each fiscal year. There were “oops” that resulted in budget deficits each & every year, which in turn resulted in the natl. debt increasing each & every year under Clinton. The “surplus” were mere projections in the ’90s & fairy tales in 2012.”

Apparently you live in an alternative universe…from the ACTUAL spending/revenue numbers, in millions inculding BOTH on and off budgets numbers….

FY98 surplus…$69,270
FY99 surplus…$125,610
FY00 surplus…$236,241
FY01 surplus…$128,236

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

• Link
• Report this comment

My family is in the evil 1% and we don’t know a damn thing about hiding money in the Caymans. We also don’t know a damn thing about “giving back”, but we know a whole lot about GIVING. Finally, I will know all are doing their “fair share” when I see those getting help from the government out cleaning the streets or doing some other necessary job in their community.

• Link
• Report this comment

Real Athens, just for you, the one too impaired to do his own research.

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn’t count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can’t think of any reason to exclude it.

It should be noted that even without the Social Security money the deficit did go down most years and came within $18 billion of being a completely balanced budget (down from $430 billion under Bush Sr). The expenditures most years increased only modestly as compared with Bush Sr and especially George W Bush. So for this Clinton and Congress during that time period should be commended. However, I see no way to call a $18 billion deficit a “surplus”.

http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck.html

• Link
• Report this comment

Taxes on the rich? Please. We have worst problems in Georgia. Under GOP rule our education system is only graduating 67% of our students….worst than Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana. Our biggest recent “accomplishment” is solid support for the loser Mitt.

• Link
• Report this comment

@md…SS Trust Fund assets are Treasury Bonds secured by the “full faith and credit” of the US Government…just like any other bonds.

• Link
• Report this comment

“SS Trust Fund assets are Treasury Bonds secured by the “full faith and credit” of the US Government…just like any other bonds.”

You mean the Treasury that is currently in the hole 16 trillion? That Treasury?

You do realize that Greek bonds were once upon a time backed by the “full faith and credit” of the Greek Government too…..right?

And the same with the USSR…….it’s all on paper, it means nothing if the money is not there……can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip……….

• Link
• Report this comment

Rafe:

Thank you for your diligence. I was not familiar with that site and have now bookmarked it. My original argument was about Social Security. You attached it to “Clinton’s Surplus”.

I did find this tidbit from the page you referenced amusing, though.

“UPDATE: With great horror I’ve noticed that many republicans are linking to this article to defend their idiotic points. Please understand that this is not a republican support page. While Clinton did not have a surplus, under his watch the growth of the debt slowed quite a bit. …”

• Link
• Report this comment

@md…

“You mean the Treasury that is currently in the hole 16 trillion? That Treasury?”

Yep that’s the one…the one with the power to print the world’s reserve currency and tax the largest economy in the world. See the key issue with debt is the ability to pay it back which we clearly have.

“You do realize that Greek bonds were once upon a time backed by the “full faith and credit” of the Greek Government too…..right?”

Indeed, but the problem with Greece was no one would buy their paper. Here they line up to bid for the right to buy ours at a return of around 1% per annum every week. BTW anyone that mentions Greece and the US in the same argument trying to draw parallels is demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the issue.

“And the same with the USSR…….it’s all on paper, it means nothing if the money is not there……can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip……….”

Now you are tilting at monsters coming out of your closet…sounds like the discussion I have with my kids…there are now monsters. As for “blood our of a turnip” a $15 trillion economy is not a turnip and the portion of the debt held by the public is about $9.7 trillion, the rest is held by SS, Medicare and the Fed. To pay $9.7 Trillion COMPLETELY off at current rates assuming economic growth of 2.5.% would take about 12 years with a simple 5% VAT tax should we so choose…

• Link
• Report this comment

Democrats have been lying about raising taxes on millionaires & billionaires for years, which deems them serial liars.
It’s unconstitutional & therefore illegal. Taxes may be levied only on income, not wealth or net worth.
If Democrats want to raise taxes on income earners of over a million dollars, have at it. There were 268,000 of them in ‘10 & they are disappearing, down 40%. Some of them are relocating, giving up their citizenship.
Billionaire earners don’t exist in this country.
I don’t personally know any millionaire earners, but I would venture to say that most of them work around Hollywood. The state of CA has new taxes that will hit them hard, so go after what they have left. Don’t just raise their marginal rates, but limit their loopholes including those they take for eating supper with Mr. Cool.
You can easily identify liberals who are serial liars participating in class envy. They have long noses & are as green as Martians.

• Link
• Report this comment

Georgia minus Atlanta equals UTAH, a state full of uneducated, bible thumping, imbred, gap tooth goobers on welfare….Proceed Governor…

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yep that’s the one…the one with the power to print the world’s reserve currency and tax the largest economy in the world. See the key issue with debt is the ability to pay it back which we clearly have.”

Yes, all fine and dandy until China makes it’s move to push it’s own reserve currency (read up on the gold China has been gobbling up to backstop their attempt), to which Russia would back them up………then we are printing worthless paper.

It is a mistake to think we are on sound footing if we continue down this road.

And one that refuses to think we can not end up like Greece is the one with a closed mind…..once upon a time GREECE didn’t think they could be like Greece.

• Link
• Report this comment

JDW@11:48, If I am “too ignorant,” why bother trying to educate me?
It doesn’t matter if the US owes China or the senior citizen, it’s still debt. I’m not so ignorant to understand that the real debt & guarantees of the US govt. exceed so many mega TRILLIONS of dollars that the country is in imminent bankruptcy.
Go peddle your propaganda to the minions.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yes, Kyle. And a paycheck is a “distribution of post-tax income.” That’s why taxing earned income is also double taxation. ”

Uh, no. The corporation takes a deduction for the wages paid to its employees. So it is only taxed once.

• Link
• Report this comment

With regard to your previous point, Kyle, you made a distinction between post-tax distribution of corporate income and post-tax distribution of individual income. I’m not sure why that should matter since double taxation is double taxation. Anyway, that argument is very convenient in the context of this discussion, but quickly abandoned when conservatives use the same double taxation argument to justify eliminating inheritance taxes.

“In fact, all taxable income is double taxed, and Republicans are simply making that argument, as needed, to eliminate taxes that they don’t like–taxes on income categories that primarily benefit the wealthiest among us.”

Boy when you get it wrong, you get it wrong. All taxable income is not double taxed. Dividends are double taxed. Wages are not.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Kyle: A paycheck is post federal tax. Any further taxes applied are state and/or local taxes, and useless to account for when discussing federal deficit (except as they apply to federal tax deductions).

But nice attempt at changing the subject.”

How dense can one idiot be?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I’m not opposed to an income tax structure or the double taxation on my paycheck, investment income, or inheritances (I’ve received income from all three sources). That’s how, regardless of income source, we all spread and share the burden of taxation. The alternative that conservatives propose is to give people who benefit mostly from investments and inheritances a free ride and, instead, place most or all of the burden on people whose primary source of income is labor.”

Please define what you think the first tax on wages was? Corporations do not get a tax deduction for dividends paid to investors. They do get a tax deduction for wages paid to employees. No wonder the democrats voted for Obama. They are clueless.

• Link
• Report this comment

@LBB…”The number that matters is the amount the government has to pay back to anyone who holds our debt. The debt went up every year of Clinton’s regime. There was no surplus.”

I will tell you like I told Rafe…you don’t like the rules…change them…until them live with them.

• Link
• Report this comment

“if you are getting more than you deserve you pay more. Figure it out.”

And in this one comment, Patty proves everything that is wrong with the thinking on the left these days.

Since when does any entity, personal or governmental, get to decide what you “deserve”.

• Link
• Report this comment

“O’ dear another gold standard discussion…psssst there is not enough gold in the WORLD to back a currency. That is why no one does it. China on the other hand is most certainly investing in gold via production not a bad strategy if one needs to hoard hard currency because they have a controlled one.”

You might want to read up a wee bit more…….take that gold, combine it with the soon to be world’s number one economy (as soon as 2018?), back it up with a very vengeful Russia, and see how it turns out.

One is fooling oneself if they think the world’s new #1 won’t want all the perks that come with it……we sure do/did.

• Link
• Report this comment