-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;504918]You don't freakin GET it do you.....I invest in the market..and I PAY short term and LONG TERM gains......
I'm not a freakin billionaire......I will lose 20% of my retirement income with one swoop of the pin.......
YEA....THANKS.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
Since my stock portfolio is only 20% or so of my retirement income, I should have said I will lose 20% of THAT particular instrument, which in reality is not that much, but that is besides the point.......
Later,
geo
-
To me, it's not about how it affects me personally as much as it is our government's inability to EVER lower its own budget and cut spending. I want to see it make meaningful cuts on its own before ANY new taxes on anyone are even mildly acceptable.
-
The Senate has passed a bill 89-8. That's not the Democrats ramming something through; that took bipartisan support. Now it goes to the House, which is controlled by the Republicans. All it needs is a simple majority to pass there. If it doesn't, how can you possibly blame Obama, or the Democrats?
[URL="http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/01/politics/fiscal-cliff/index.html"]Senate passes package to avert fiscal cliff; House votes next - CNN.com[/URL]
I'll tell you this much. Even though you Republicans make up the majority of posters on this board, all your rationalization doesn't change the fact more Americans blame the Republican party for this mess than blame Democrats, although it seems that most people properly blame "all of the above."
[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/27/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE8BQ0J620121227"]Americans blame Republicans more than Democrats for fiscal cliff: Reuters/Ipsos poll | Reuters[/URL]
Yeah, I know, polls are like opinions, and opinions are like...
But the fact is that the Republicans have been so afraid of breaking the Great Grover Norquist Pledge that they've been willing to watch the economy go to hell rather than compromise and vote for anything that allows the slightest tax increase, anywhere. Which would be fine if they held majorities in the House and Senate, because then they could still pass legislation and get things done, but since they don't, all they can do is block everything, and become the Party of No, which is exactly what they've done, and is one of the biggest reasons why there is such gridlock and polarization in Congress today.
Sorry Geo, you want to lay this squarely at Obama's feet and say it's 100% his fault, and that's just WRONG. I'm not going to say he's blameless, but at the same time, YOU need to own the part that the Republicans play in this, which up to now you've refused to do.
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;504891]This is the hope and change ******** you voted for.
All of Obama's plans need to be paid for, and the republicans are standing fast on taxes and tax cuts.
While I hate the fact that my taxes are going up, I can afford them........Unfortunately many, many cannot.
When your are bringing 100-200 less home per month, don't you DARE try to blame republicans......DON'T DARE. This is all about Democrats and their spending.
I hope you like what you're getting. Obamacare costs money. Unemployment for 36 months costs money. Health care mandates cost money. No pre existing conditions cost money. Keeping kids on insurance until 26 costs money.
Nothing is free my friends.....and you MADE the choice, so EAT IT.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
I read synopsis of the deal reached to avert the automatic tax hikes reached last night. The highest tax rate will increase from 35% to 36.5% for those making over 450,000.
Our Sen. from KY voted no, the same old same old "no" mentality that has polorized congress for the past 4 years. I guess his solution is a collapse of government to the point only programs that are important to a few continue. We all have our priorities and they may not all be the same. Do we cut all spending except for defense? Do we stop all Social Security and Medicare benifits, stop all spending for the FBI, ATF? We could get out of debt in a short year or so but I don't think you would like what you saw after.
I think the president made a good effort to compromise and that he has made legitimate points on the issues.
In WWII we rationed every thing from shoes to bread to gasoline to pay for and win WWII. We are paying for two wars that have significantly added to the national debt and deficits.
My newest suggestion is that we sell war bonds with a payable interest of .005%, earmarked for the costs of Afganistan and Iraq. This would save us most of the interest costs on these wars and keep China out of out pockets. Publish the sale of the bonds locally. We would then see who the true patriots are.
-
[QUOTE=GeoFisher;504918]You don't freakin GET it do you.....I invest in the market..and I PAY short term and LONG TERM gains......
I'm not a freakin billionaire......I will lose 20% of my retirement income with one swoop of the pin.......
YEA....THANKS.
Later,
Geo[/QUOTE]
If your earned interest is over $450,000.00 a year I do feel sorry for you and your having to pay an additioal 1.5% on that income. That just *****.
Of course capital gains are a fixed rate of 15% so I don't think you will be affected.
Here is a little food for thought in Financial news today:
According to the [URL="http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=203102,00.html"]IRS[/URL], which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages.
The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary didn't even double. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. So how do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments.
So we (I) pay over 24% on my Fed tax from wages and Warren Buffet pays 15% on his capitol gains. Thats fair?
-
[QUOTE=kydonky;504948]If your earned interest is over $450,000.00 a year I do feel sorry for you and your having to pay an additioal 1.5% on that income. That just *****.
Of course capital gains are a fixed rate of 15% so I don't think you will be affected.
Here is a little food for thought in Financial news today:
According to the [URL="http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=203102,00.html"]IRS[/URL], which recently released 2009 data from the 400 richest individual income tax returns, the real runaway growth in wealth has come from capital gains. In the last years of the bubble, the "Fortunate 400" made nearly half their income from capital gains (a.k.a.: profit from the rising value of an investment, such as stocks or property) and less than 10% of their income from old-fashioned wages.
The average income of a top-400 earner grew by 650% between 1992 and 2007 to a whopping $344 million. Over that time, the average salary didn't even double. But the average capital gains haul increased by 1,200%. So how do the richest get richer? Not from their wages. From their investments.
So we (I) pay over 24% on my Fed tax from wages and Warren Buffet pays 15% on his capitol gains. Thats fair?[/QUOTE]
It is not fair..........but the caps that you "wish" were on gains income don't exist.
AGAIN, you fail to see the point.........
There are millions of folks that are NOT millionaires who live off of dividend income in retirement. EDUCATE yourself. Again, LEARN SOMETHING......
I typed a very large and detailed post, outlining the taxes, the ramifications and links to some data, but you know what......I'm TIRED of arguing with you and everyone else about it.
And we're not talking about warren buffett and the top 400 fortune 500 income earners...ARE WE....
Later,
Geo
-
Just asking opinions here:
Would a flat tax rate applied across the board no matter what the source of the income or the income amount make this more eqitable? No matter if the income came from capital gains, salary, rent, retail ops, business or personal income, estates. Straight computation of total income for the year, minus total valid deductible expenses = net income, times a single flat rate. Result would be the tax owed, than a few simple tax dedcutions for things we as a nation honor such as seniors and the disabled.
I think that would also dramatically simplify the tax code, and as a result, allow the nation to take more of the money we pay to operate the IRS lawyers, and regulators, and spend that money insuring compliance, i.e. tax return compliance and tax evasion prosecution.
And yes, I plead guilty for changing the subject. Guilty....tax me. :-)
-
[QUOTE=HURRICANEBOB;504955]Just asking opinions here:
Would a flat tax rate applied across the board no matter what the source of the income or the income amount make this more eqitable? No matter if the income came from capital gains, salary, rent, retail ops, business or personal income, estates. Straight computation of total income for the year, minus total valid deductible expenses = net income, times a single flat rate. Result would be the tax owed, than a few simple tax dedcutions for things we as a nation honor such as seniors and the disabled.
I think that would also dramatically simplify the tax code, and as a result, allow the nation to take more of the money we pay to operate the IRS lawyers, and regulators, and spend that money insuring compliance, i.e. tax return compliance and tax evasion prosecution.
And yes, I plead guilty for changing the subject. Guilty....tax me. :-)[/QUOTE]
--
Am wondering how that might work for the 47% or whatever it is that don't pay any federal taxes under the present system... I do agree the tax system we have now is very cumbersome and expensive but I'm not sure how you tax folks who get help from social programs such as food stamps and other programs... If you are giving those folks more in aid than they are paying in taxes it seems to serve no purpose to spend the money it takes to collect taxes from them... Other than just dumping these folks and telling them to survive if you can, it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place.
-
flat tax
Too simple. what would happen to thousands of lawyers, CPAs, and IRS employees? VAT is another thought.Taxes,like texas are not going to go away.Even if this "stop gap" cliff avoidence bull **** passes, here comes debt cieling crap. Solution,nobahma justs raises it, and lets the court and congress change the aftermath. Would he be impeached? certainly, would he be removed from office NO.[ceiling]
-
[QUOTE=Hlleonard;504958]--
Am wondering how that might work for the 47% or whatever it is that don't pay any federal taxes under the present system... I do agree the tax system we have now is very cumbersome and expensive but I'm not sure how you tax folks who get help from social programs such as food stamps and other programs... If you are giving those folks more in aid than they are paying in taxes it seems to serve no purpose to spend the money it takes to collect taxes from them... Other than just dumping these folks and telling them to survive if you can, it seems we are caught between a rock and a hard place.[/QUOTE]
We are between a rock and a hard place?? Think maybe the politicians who jump at every chance to give money away for social programs have some blame here?? This is what I cannot understand about some of you. You see there is a problem with gubment spending but yet when some group needlessly needs money you start playing the harp and singing woe is me. We as a country are skrewed because of this attitude and all politicians are to blame...especially the Libs and especially Obama. When do some of you Libs realize that the more you loosen the rules, regulations or conditions on getting money from us the harder it is to stop? It's ridiculous. This attitude has to stop. Until we stop this endless spending spree and welfare attitude things WILL NOT change.
-
[QUOTE=HURRICANEBOB;504955]Just asking opinions here:
Would a flat tax rate applied across the board no matter what the source of the income or the income amount make this more eqitable? No matter if the income came from capital gains, salary, rent, retail ops, business or personal income, estates. Straight computation of total income for the year, minus total valid deductible expenses = net income, times a single flat rate. Result would be the tax owed, than a few simple tax dedcutions for things we as a nation honor such as seniors and the disabled.
I think that would also dramatically simplify the tax code, and as a result, allow the nation to take more of the money we pay to operate the IRS lawyers, and regulators, and spend that money insuring compliance, i.e. tax return compliance and tax evasion prosecution.
And yes, I plead guilty for changing the subject. Guilty....tax me. :-)[/QUOTE]
Progressive flat tax, and ZERO deductions.
No housing deduction.
No kid deduction
No earned income credit
No college deduction
NONE.
Anyone making under 20k NO taxes
Anyone making 20k - 40k 10% taxes
Anyone making 40k - 100k 20%taxes
Anyone making 100k - 500k 25% taxes
Anyone making 500k and above 30% taxes.....
And then maybe a 10% consumption tax on all goods except for food.........
NO TAX on anything else......PERIOD.
Later,
Geo
-
dj
when and where does welfare start and stop? Are you saying that only poor folks get welfare? Wake up
