Patrick.net

51 Senators Vote to End Bush-Era Tax Cuts on Top 2%!

By jhall   Follow   Fri, 27 Jul 2012, 9:38am   3,556 views   45 comments
In Minneapolis MN 55410   Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Americans for Tax Fairness praised Senate Democrats for passing a bill to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 in household income and end the Bush tax breaks above that income level, which disproportionately benefit the richest 2 percent. The Senate voted to pass the bill, the Middle Class Tax Cuts Act (S. 3412), by a 51 to 48 vote.

http://wealthforcommongood.org/51-senators-vote-to-end-bush-era-tax-cuts-on-top-2/

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 6-45 of 45     Last »     See most liked comments

1. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   6   11:29am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   freak80 says People vote Republican because they don't like the Democrat stance on gays, guns, n' God. Like I keep saying, if the Democrats would moderate on social issues, far more average people would vot for them. I'm not holding my breath. Democrats moderated on guns. Big time. Obama signed a bill legalizing guns in national parks and he gets an F grade from gun control groups. His reward? The president of the NRA giving a speech telling everyone that Obama has secret plans to seize all the guns in his next term. Many if not most Republicans are not sane people. They lack basic critical thinking skills and simply spew out anything they feel regardless of how absurd or untrue it is. More Republicans are like Michele Bachmann than Mitt Romney, which makes the entire movement and indeed the entire party toxic and dangerous. NRA says Says Barack "Obama admits he’s coming for our guns, telling Sarah Brady, ‘We are working on (gun control), but under the radar.’ " http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/14/national-rifle-association/barack-obama-coming-after-guns-under-radar-nra-say/

2. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   7   11:35am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Ruki says Yes, he was a traitor to the cause. Thanks for validating my point while you attempted to segway this topic to Nowhereville like you usually do. LOL.....really???? Your point was that every president for the last 110 years has violated the equal protection clause of the constitution? Doesn't that make you anti-American? At least anti-American as far as anyone alive today is concerned? Ruki says Teddy was talking about something else...which was why in 1913 the Constitution was amended. Yeah except he wasn't, he was talking about progressive taxes which is the only thing your equal protection nonsense house of cards is built on.

3. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   8   11:37am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Ok, so 1 out of 3 ain't bad. But Obama has clearly given the homosexual pressure groups what they wanted: ending "don't ask don't tell." What was so terrible about that policy? It seemed sensible to keep one's private activities private in a military context.

4. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   9   11:38am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Many if not most Republicans are not sane people. They lack basic critical thinking skills and simply spew out anything they feel regardless of how absurd or untrue it is. More Republicans are like Michele Bachmann than Mitt Romney, which makes the entire movement and indeed the entire party toxic and dangerous. Agree with you there.

5. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   10   11:42am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   freak80 says Ok, so 1 out of 3 ain't bad. But Obama has clearly given the homosexual pressure groups what they wanted: ending "don't ask don't tell." What was so terrible about that policy? It seemed sensible to keep one's private activities private in a military context. I don't agree with homosexuality being part of the political dialog, however Obama is in a desperate fight to keep up with Romney's corporate donations and I can understand why he did it. Fortunately Obama is on the right side of history and public opinion is moving slowly in the direction of gays being defined as regular people. This will become less and less of an issue as time goes forward. The other two are insane. Obama was a Christian for 20 years and is probably the most pro-gun Democrat in decades. The propaganda jihad doesn't care, and Republicans are too lazy to check.

6. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   11   11:49am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Fortunately Obama is on the right side of history I hear this slogan a lot, but what does it really mean? The slogan seems to assert: "X is better than Y because we are doing X now and were doing Y in the past" Sure, X *might* be better than Y, but just because we're doing X now rather than Y doesn't make X better.

7. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

   12   11:54am Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Obama was a Christian for 20 years Obama was a member of the UCC, which is more of a civic club (like the Rotary Club) than a traditional Christian church. The UCC generally promotes left-wing social causes. That doesn't disqualify Obama from the presidency, but it's tough to say Obama was somehow deeply religious. Religious conservatives aren't going to vote for someone with such a background (rightly or wrongly).

8. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

   13   12:12pm Mon 30 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Ruki says Uh, no. He was talking about how SCOTUS had ruled income taxes unconstitutional because they violated the Apportionment Clause. Study your history. In 1913, the Constitution was amended to deal with that little problem. Jesus you're intentionally dense sometimes. Teddy Roosevelt says Nevertheless, a graduated income tax of the proper type would be a desirable feature of Federal taxation.... But hey......graduated taxes aren't the same as progressive taxes, right Shrek?

9. CaptainShuddup Follow Befriend (1) 246 threads 4,655 comments

   14   1:58pm Tue 31 Jul 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)   iwog says Anyone who casts a vote for a Republican should seek therapy.

10. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    15   3:24pm Thu 2 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike   Protected   Ruki says There's nothing twisted about my version. Either we are all treated equally under the law or we are not. Our tax code clearly is a case where we are not. Correct. Mitt Romney paid 13% in federal taxes and I paid a lot more. Not equal at all. Republicans want to reduce Romney's taxes to 0%. Yes 0%. No exaggeration at all so why are you voting for a candidate that wants to violate the equal protection clause of the constitution?

11. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    16   6:55pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says That bill is DOA in the House. Republicans are determined to raise taxes on 98% of Americans if they don't get tax cuts for the richest tax bracket. It's extortion, but they don't care. The kicker?? The punchline?? Republicans are the one that passed this tax legislation with a deadline. Republicans created this crisis because they wanted to force a tax showdown during the 2012 presidential election. Anyone who casts a vote for a Republican should seek therapy. We can turn this argument around and say that the democrats refuse to have tax cuts for all, thus placing the middle and lower tax brackets hostage for higher rates... The repubs want tax cuts across the board for EVERYONE... so if the democrats really want to help the middle and lower class, then they can just agree with the repubs and cut taxes for everyone. Another point to be madeis that as of 2010, if you made 375k you are in the top 2% of earners, therefore a tax on 250K or more isnt a tax on the 2%,...its more of a tax on the top 5%. So lets stop attacking the the 1%, the 2% or the 5%. Enough of the class warfare and lets treat everyone the same. If the concern is truly about making "the rich" pay their fair share in taxes, then the discussion should be about taxing capital gains, not taxing wages.

12. Nobody Follow Befriend 10 threads 272 comments San Jose, CA

    17   7:06pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Ruki, You are an idiot. Quit trying to pretend you know something.

13. Dan8267 Follow Befriend (16) 758 threads 7,650 comments Boca Raton, FL Premium

    18   7:18pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Actually the first president to violate your twisted version of the equal protection clause was Teddy Roosevelt......A republican. Who knew that Republicans had a 100 year history of pissing all over the constitution? To be fair, prior to 1960s the Republican Party and the Democrat Party were largely the opposites of what they are today. In the 1960s they switched. So pre-1960 republicans were really modern democrats and vice versa. Teddy Roosevelt and Ike would be democrats today. Think about it. Teddy was a trust buster and an environmentalist! No way the Republican Party of today would have him.

14. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    19   7:58pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says We can turn this argument around and say that the democrats refuse to have tax cuts for all, thus placing the middle and lower tax brackets hostage for higher rates... Actually you can't turn it around no matter how badly you twist it. The tax cuts are expiring because Republicans passed the Bush tax cuts with an expiration date. They wanted a campaign issue to bash the Democrats with come 2012 and here we are. Democrats aren't holding anything hostage, in fact everything that will happen automatically is entirely the fault of the Republican party. They designed it that way. Thus if nothing happens, REPUBLICANS shoot the hostage. If you can't understand this far, don't vote. You're not qualified. Now Democrats want tax cuts for Americans who need it most, while agreeing with Republicans that we need less debt. Therefore what Democrats are offering is a compromise. Tax anyone who makes over $250,000 per year at a higher tax bracket. I think it's 4% higher or the top rate we had under the Bill Clinton boom economy. Furthermore Democrats also want to compromise on capital gains and dividends, cutting them back to 20% but not as low as 15% as they were under Bush. Considering capital gains are set to revert to 28%, and dividends are set to revert to income, this is one hell of a compromise for rich people. AGAIN it is ONLY because Republicans sabotaged their tax bill that this is even an issue this year. Again if Democrats don't give in to all Republican demands, REPUBLICANS shoot the hostage. This is mind numbingly simple, even for brainwashed conservative Fox viewers. Democrats want to compromise on: - Capital gains, cutting them from 28% to 20% - Dividends, cutting them from income to 20% - Income tax cuts, cutting all tax brackets except the highest ones. (rich people will benefit from these cuts the same amount as everyone else) - The estate tax. Obama has already compromised on this once, and is ready to do so again. I don't know of any specifics. Republicans are willing to compromise on: - FUCKING NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now you silly little children who think you're making a point here, please read this post carefully several times until you understand the real issues. I haven't even touched on the criminal abomination of the Ryan act or Romney's tax plan, but this is enough for now.

15. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    20   8:42pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   IWOG: angry much? you sound like a babbling idiot. I appreciate you making this so clear for us all. You feel that anyone with opposing views is unfit to vote, like the typical liberal you are. You are right, everyone else is wrong...correct? My 7 year old nephew thinks just like you... hopefully he will grow out of it. I suppose I would be a fool like to argue with someone such as yourself., but I do want to think about what you said in your previous comment. iwog says Democrats want to compromise on: - Capital gains, cutting them from 28% to 20% - Dividends, cutting them from income to 20% - Income tax cuts, cutting all tax brackets except the highest ones. (rich people will benefit from these cuts the same amount as everyone else) If democrats really want to help middle class, then their focus should be on lowering income taxes for everyone. Only the really wealthy make significant earnings from capital gains and dividends, therefore these so called "compromises" do very little to help the middle class. Even most of the 250K and over crowd, which you would probably consider "rich" do not profit much from capital gains and dividends. These "compromises" only really helps the ULTRA-rich, who earn the majority of their wealth from dividends/taxes and earn almost nothing from wage income. Thus the argument used to increase wage income tax on the "wealthy" doesn't make sense. I anxiously await your childish response.... (hopefully you got the sarcasm) in reality I really wont be wasting my time awaiting a response...

16. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    21   8:45pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   IWOG: I forgot to link something. Take a look at the total tax liability of different wage earners from your own zip code and tell me if the wealthier people dont pay their fair share already.... http://realestate.patrick.net/housing/irs_data.php?zip=94549

17. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    22   11:59pm Fri 3 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says I anxiously await your childish response.... (hopefully you got the sarcasm) in reality I really wont be wasting my time awaiting a response... You didn't reply to anything. I listed ways in which Dems want to compromise. No reply. I asserted that Pubes refuse to compromise. No reply. I explained that Republicans sabotaged their own tax law for political purposes, so it is THEY who are threatening to kill the hostage. No reply. I pointed out that the Democrats want to cut taxes for everyone since even the rich pay the lower tax brackets too. No reply. After totally ignoring every point I made, out of fear I guess, you THEN listed the following talking points to which I will comment on directly: (like you didn't) 1. Dems should lower taxes for everyone. (they are) 2. Only the wealthy make significant earnings from capital gains and dividends. (Dems want to compromise at 20% to keep Republicans from lowering them to 0%. Not holding the line at 28% is why it's a compromise) 3. Thus the argument used to increase wage income tax on the "wealthy" doesn't make sense. (your conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with your premise. "cap gains and dividends soooooo.......don't raise taxes on people making over 250k) Huh?" Meccos says Take a look at the total tax liability of different wage earners from your own zip code and tell me if the wealthier people dont pay their fair share already.... Wealthier people don't pay their fair share already. Linking raw data and then saying "SEE?!?" is not how you construct an argument.

18. American in Japan Follow Befriend (28) 149 threads 1,398 comments

    23   2:47am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Are there any polls showing what percent of Americans want this bill to pass? I would guess at least 85% if they really understood it...but what do I know .

19. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    24   7:51am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says You didn't reply to anything. You think that I didnt reply to anything because you dont want to hear anything i say. iwog says I listed ways in which Dems want to compromise. This "compromise" by the democrats which you are referring to do not help the middle class, but in fact only help the ULTRA RICH. How does a compromise to lower dividend and capital gains help the middle and lower classes???? Unfortunately the talking point used by the democrats is that they want to help the middle and low income class, yet they are focusing on income tax wages instead of keep firm on dividends and capital gains. iwog says I asserted that Pubes refuse to compromise. No reply. I explained that Republicans sabotaged their own tax law for political purposes, so it is THEY who are threatening to kill the hostage. No reply. Do I need to even reply to such psychobabble? iwog says I pointed out that the Democrats want to cut taxes for everyone since even the rich pay the lower tax brackets too. No reply. This is not true, since the whole argument here is based on whether income over 250k is going to be taxed. If demo truly wanted tax cuts for everyone, then they would just go along with the republicans on earned income taxes and there would be no argument here... iwog says After totally ignoring every point I made, out of fear I guess, you THEN listed the following talking points to which I will comment on directly: (like you didn't) I know that if i dont agree with you, you think I didnt "reply". But I hope that by breaking down each comment you will finally realize that I made a reply. i iwog says 1. Dems should lower taxes for everyone. (they are) yes, they should... but they propose to cap it 200k/250k, thus its not truly lower taxes for everyone, since the effective tax rates will go up for the above 200/250k group. iwog says 2. Only the wealthy make significant earnings from capital gains and dividends. (Dems want to compromise at 20% to keep Republicans from lowering them to 0%. Not holding the line at 28% is why it's a compromise) DId you even read what I wrote? THis was my main point on the earlier post. SO why do the democrats want to 'COMPROMISE" and promote this? THe demos keep using talking points about helping the middle class/poor and yet they are willing to "COMPROMISE" on this and help ONLY the REALLY REALLY wealthy? As I mentioned before, there are many wage earners who make more than 250k as a couple and dont make much profit from dividends and capital gains. For the most part only the REALLY REALLY wealthy benefit from this. Seeing that you are from layfette, CA you probably know that 200k/250k in california does not take you very far due to high cost of living in california. making 200/250k a year doesnt exactly make you VERY rich, although it certainly is comfortable and no one should be starving with that income. HOwever it is clearly different from what people are lead to believe. people making 200/250k a year in california are not driving aroundin Bentleys, living in 2 million dollar mansions (which in california actually doesnt get you something that spectacular) and wiping their asses with 100 bills. So why push income taxes which WOULD affect these people, but give breaks to the REALLY REALLY wealthy like Buffet and his chronies who make all of their millions and billions off of dividends and capital gains? LIke i said in my previous post, if democrats were serious about helping the middle class, their focus should be solely on capital gains and dividend, since in reality taxing income taxes only really hurt the middle class, whether it is on income 200/250 over. iwog says 3. Thus the argument used to increase wage income tax on the "wealthy" doesn't make sense. (your conclusion has nothing whatsoever to do with your premise. "cap gains and dividends soooooo.......don't raise taxes on people making over 250k) Huh?" Eh? I guess saying that something doesnt make any sense and leaving it at that makes sense tho... Hit me up IWOG...

20. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    25   8:07am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says This "compromise" by the democrats which you are referring to do not help the middle class, but in fact only help the ULTRA RICH. I can't believe you're really this dense. Republicans want to lower capital gains and dividend taxes to 0%. It's in the Ryan bill and Romney says it's part of his tax plan. Democrats want to hold the line at 20%, and you think DEMOCRATS are helping the ultra rich? Unbelievable. Meccos says yes, they should... but they propose to cap it 200k/250k, thus its not truly lower taxes for everyone, since the effective tax rates will go up for the above 200/250k group. It's clear you don't know how tax brackets work.

21. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    26   8:35am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Meccos says This "compromise" by the democrats which you are referring to do not help the middle class, but in fact only help the ULTRA RICH. I can't believe you're really this dense. Republicans want to lower capital gains and dividend taxes to 0%. It's in the Ryan bill and Romney says it's part of his tax plan. Democrats want to hold the line at 20%, and you think DEMOCRATS are helping the ultra rich? Unbelievable. Meccos says yes, they should... but they propose to cap it 200k/250k, thus its not truly lower taxes for everyone, since the effective tax rates will go up for the above 200/250k group. It's clear you don't know how tax brackets work. I see you have been waiting for me to respond... but name calling is rather childish, no? I suppose i shouldnt be surprise.. iwog says Republicans want to lower capital gains and dividend taxes to 0%. It's in the Ryan bill and Romney says it's part of his tax plan. WOW such lies you post. I dont know about Ryan's plan, but you are actually telling lies about Romneys tax plan for dividends and capital gains. He proposed to ELIMINATE the taxes on dividends and capital gains on the middle class, while keeping them the same for people making over 200k. Obama on the other hand wants to raise these taxes on EVERYONE. I just want to add that it appears that all you want to do is argue with me cuz you probably think i am a repub, making this really about repubs vs demos. I really wish you liberals would stop being so partisan. You remind of my co-worker who states that she loves Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer because they are "liberals". HOWEVER couldnt give me one single thing other than them being liberals that she liked about them! btw, i like neither romney or obama... i just dislike obama more...

22. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    27   8:36am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Meccos says yes, they should... but they propose to cap it 200k/250k, thus its not truly lower taxes for everyone, since the effective tax rates will go up for the above 200/250k group. It's clear you don't know how tax brackets work. Oh how does it work?, I guess i should know how since I pay so much of it. Unfortunately I am not as wealthy as the people who scream "the wealthy should pay their fair share" think...

23. Buster Follow Befriend (7) 22 threads 325 comments

    28   9:50am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   freak80 says iwog says Anyone who casts a vote for a Republican should seek therapy. People vote Republican because they don't like the Democrat stance on gays, guns, n' God. Like I keep saying, if the Democrats would moderate on social issues, far more average people would vote for them. I'm not holding my breath. You seem to have gone off the rails to right wing nether land. It USED to be a 'conservative' value to do what is right thing to do and to be moderate and fair with public policy that embraced the good of the country. The GOP is no longer conservative. It is radical. Totally the opposite of what 'conservative' used to mean. Hell, even Ronald Reagan would not be elected today by the GOP as pointed out by 'conservative' Jeb Bush and the Financial Times. Both of which are now considered 'radical lefties' by the current GOP. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/06/15/Why-Ronald-Reagan-Would-Not-Lead-Todays-GOP.aspx#page1

24. Buster Follow Befriend (7) 22 threads 325 comments

    29   9:58am Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   To further illustrate my point made above. I recently lived in Canada for several years. What astonished me is that in the current America, I am considered by most to be a 'radical lefty liberal'. When I moved to 'Conservative' Canada, led by Conservative Stephen Harper, I was by most objective standards considered moderate right wing all the while not having changed my opinion on anything. In other words, far left wing in the US = moderate right wing in Canada. Moderate Republican in the US = Off the rails right wing anarchist in Canada.

25. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    30   3:58pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Buster says In other words, far left wing in the US = moderate right wing in Canada. Moderate Republican in the US = Off the rails right wing anarchist in Canada. I actually don't give a shit about political theory anymore. The only successful sustainable economy involves a bi-directional flow of wealth through all classes. Since Reagan, wealth has only flowed in one direction, which is why it's so hard to start a business right now and why people are willing to accept 0% on their money market accounts. Meccos says Oh how does it work?, I guess i should know how since I pay so much of it. Unfortunately I am not as wealthy as the people who scream "the wealthy should pay their fair share" think... The way it works is that tax cuts to the bottom tax bracket are applied to everyone. Tax cuts to the next tax bracket are applied to everyone except the bottom, and so on. You said the Democratic tax plan doesn't lower taxes for everyone. You were wrong.

26. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    31   5:42pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Since Reagan, wealth has only flowed in one direction, which is why it's so hard to start a business right now and why people are willing to accept 0% on their money market accounts. Can someone count the number of billionaires who went from close-to-nothing to really-a-lot during or after the Reagan years? People are willing to accept 0% on their accounts because people prefer nihilistic safety over greatness. This is a separate issue.

27. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    32   7:01pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Peter P says People are willing to accept 0% on their accounts because people prefer nihilistic safety over greatness. This is a separate issue. No, interest rates on government bonds are the BEST measurement possible on how much opportunity is available in the business sector and how much demand there is for new products and services. No one accepts 0% on their money unless there are no better options available. The reason rates are near 0% is the public has so little money left for discretionary spending that forming a company involves more risk of losing money than of making money.

28. Peter P Follow Befriend (4) 117 threads 17,655 comments Premium

    33   7:32pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Perhaps the rest of the world really has a lot of faith in the US government? They can say all they want about the decline of America... where do they go during a risk-off run?

29. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    34   10:42pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says The way it works is that tax cuts to the bottom tax bracket are applied to everyone. Tax cuts to the next tax bracket are applied to everyone except the bottom, and so on. ROFL, funny that you actually responded. You clearly do not understand sarcasm. Oh btw, why no reply to me calling you out on the LIES you wrote about the Romney tax plan??? Are you going to admit you wrote lies?

30. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    35   10:45pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says ROFL, funny that you actually responded. You clearly do not understand sarcasm. Oh btw, why no reply to me calling you out on the LIES you wrote about the Romney tax plan??? Are you going to admit you wrote lies? I didn't know about Romney's 200k cap. It doesn't really matter however because the only tax plan Romney is going to have the opportunity to sign into law is the Ryan plan. Anyway Romney does call for the abolishment of the estate tax and the AMT so your assertion about Democrats favoring the rich is still absurd. Of course Romney is going to lose in November so it's all a moot point. Meccos says ROFL, funny that you actually responded. You clearly do not understand sarcasm. Makes sense, so your original explanation was sarcasm too? That pretty much wipes out your only point doesn't it?

31. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    36   11:05pm Sat 4 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says I didn't know about Romney's 200k cap. It doesn't really matter however because the only tax plan Romney is going to have the opportunity to sign into law is the Ryan plan. That is right.. you didnt know but yet you still wrote it as a fact. So you should just admit that you lied about this to make your point. This just shows you how far you are willing to go to make an argument. SO the fact that Romney wants to ELIMINATE dividends and capital gains for middle class but increase these taxes on over 200K doesnt go well with your original point tho huh? iwog says It doesn't really matter however because the only tax plan Romney is going to have the opportunity to sign into law is the Ryan plan. Well... you dont really know about this either and yet you write it as fact again.... Give me facts, not lies or your opinions.

32. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    37   7:07am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says That is right.. you didnt know but yet you still wrote it as a fact. So you should just admit that you lied about this to make your point. This just shows you how far you are willing to go to make an argument. No, it means I misread the article. One of the most vile things about internet conversations is assholes who take a small point of misunderstanding and blows it up into YOU LIAR!!! ADMIT YOU LIED!! DO IT!!!! Integrity is very important to me which is why I have no problem admitting I didn't realize about that provision in Romney's plan. Meccos says SO the fact that Romney wants to ELIMINATE dividends and capital gains for middle class but increase these taxes on over 200K doesnt go well with your original point tho huh? My original point is Romney is toxic to American tax policy, wants to eliminate the AMT, wants to eliminate the estate tax, and will cut many tax benefits to the lower and middle class. So no, it doesn't change my point whatsoever. Meccos says Well... you dont really know about this either and yet you write it as fact again.... Give me facts, not lies or your opinions. Right......because Congress which is full of psychopaths is going to abandon the Ryan act which the House already passed and do what Romney wants instead.

33. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    38   8:59am Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)   iwog says No, it means I misread the article. What article did you misread? Can you link please? In the past you have claimed other people get bad information from Fox news iwog says This is mind numbingly simple, even for brainwashed conservative Fox viewers. Where did you get this false information from? MSNBC? iwog says One of the most vile things about internet conversations is assholes who take a small point of misunderstanding and blows it up into YOU LIAR Unfortunately I am an A-Hole cuz I called you out on a lie...oh im sorry a "mistake" Unfortunately your lie, or "mistake", was no small point since it was the original basis for your argument. If it truly was a mistake, then I would have expected you to say, "oh, i was wrong then" and then we would be done. And yet you still cant admit that Romney's plan for dividends and capital gains actually BENEFITS the middle class and taxes the Rich. Instead you divert the attention to another issue. iwog says Integrity is very important to me which is why I have no problem admitting I didn't realize about that provision in Romney's plan. If integrity was very important to you, should have admitted your mistake straight up, instead of saying that you simply misread an article and dismissing it as a small point. By the way, I wouldnt belittle this issue even further by saying you didnt realize "that provision" in Romneys plan. You didnt realize the entire stance on dividends and capital gains, not just a little provision. You also "didnt realize" or you misread or didnt care to comment on Obama's stance on dividends and capital gains... probably because he wants to raise them on everyone. iwog says My original point is Romney is toxic to American tax policy, NOt really but i wont argue iwog says wants to eliminate the AMT, wants to eliminate the estate tax, What wrong with getting rid of AMT? So certain people cant write off stuff but if you make less you can? Shouldnt a write off be a write off? Estate taxes are double taxation since this money has been taxed already. Sure only some will have to deal with estate taxes but why do we even have these tax provision in place which only affects some people and not the rest? Why is there such a strong aversion to letting people who earned and saved their wealth keep it? A different matter, but thought Id comment since u brought it up. iwog says and will cut many tax benefits to the lower and middle class. Which taxes? Go ahead and do your research on this so you can reply back cuz I know you simply made this statement without really knowing what you are talking about. You have a history of this with me already. iwog says Meccos says Well... you dont really know about this either and yet you write it as fact again.... Give me facts, not lies or your opinions. Right......because Congress which is full of psychopaths is going to abandon the Ryan act which the House already passed and do what Romney wants instead. So now you clearly state that Ryan's act and Romneys plans are different.

34. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    39   3:23pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   There really isn't any substance to the above rant. It's mostly childish personal attacks that have no relevance at all to tax policy or Romney. Meccos says Which taxes? Go ahead and do your research on this so you can reply back cuz I know you simply made this statement without really knowing what you are talking about. You have a history of this with me already. See what I mean? Every paragraph is simply more trolling, even when he wants to ask a question. I have a feeling this is yet another incarnation of Shrek/Ruki. The style is similar although this alt seems to want to be called a liberal. Fascinating.

35. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    40   5:32pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says There really isn't any substance to the above rant. It's mostly childish personal attacks that have no relevance at all to tax policy or Romney. Meccos says Which taxes? Go ahead and do your research on this so you can reply back cuz I know you simply made this statement without really knowing what you are talking about. You have a history of this with me already. See what I mean? Every paragraph is simply more trolling, even when he wants to ask a question. I have a feeling this is yet another incarnation of Shrek/Ruki. The style is similar although this alt seems to want to be called a liberal. Fascinating. so which tax was it you that were talking about? BTW saying that I am making personal attacks and ranting is not a rebuttal. Im still waiting to hear what you have to say about Obamas and Romney's plan for capital gains and dividends since this was the main topic on hand and clearly the truth and evidence shows that you were speaking out of your @ss.

36. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    41   8:23pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says so which tax was it you that were talking about? Ask Romney. According to his math, he'll have to eliminate 65% of all tax loopholes and deductions. The only ones large enough are things like the mortgage interest deduction and child tax credit. Or was Romney lying? Here's a good analysis. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/

37. Meccos Follow Befriend (2) 2 threads 463 comments

    42   8:36pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   iwog says Meccos says so which tax was it you that were talking about? Ask Romney. According to his math, he'll have to eliminate 65% of all tax loopholes and deductions. The only ones large enough are things like the mortgage interest deduction and child tax credit. Or was Romney lying? Here's a good analysis. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/how-romneys-tax-plan-could-raise-middle-class-taxes/ Finally was wondering how long it was gonna take for you to research this. But yes, they are basically tax loopholes and deductions. These however affect EVERYONE, not just the middle class. Are we done with this conversation now, especially since you have yet to comment on the capital gains and dividends?

38. iwog Follow Befriend (48) 272 threads 12,438 comments 47 male Lafayette, CA Premium

    43   10:05pm Sun 5 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   Meccos says Finally was wondering how long it was gonna take for you to research this. But yes, they are basically tax loopholes and deductions. These however affect EVERYONE, not just the middle class. Gotta love your logic. a. Can't just cut taxes for the lower classes, gotta cut taxes for everyone. b. Eliminating loopholes and deductions affects everyone. Thanks for the laugh. Seriously man, this has got to be a joke. You've got a different set of rules for everything and you don't even realize what you did there. Meccos says Are we done with this conversation now, especially since you have yet to comment on the capital gains and dividends? Okay I'll comment on capital gains and dividends. Republicans are brain dead when it comes to tax policy on capital gains and dividends. If they ever take power, they'll drive this country straight to hell. Obama is doing the right thing although he should have forced this showdown years ago.

39. david1 Follow Befriend (2) 8 threads 755 comments 33 male Fort Mill, SC

    44   6:43am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Romney's Plan: 1. Lower tax RATES for everyone by 20%. 2. Eliminate the estate tax 3. Zero out investment income for anyone earning less than 200k. 4. Be Revenue neutral by eliminating loopholes and deductions. Lets go one by one. 1. Everyone benefits, but as Republicans so often like to mention, the wealthy benefit more because they pay more in taxes. After all, 47% of Americans pay no income taxes at all! 2. The exclusion for a married couple is $10 million. $5 million each. As such, only estates more than 5/10 million would benefit. This is roughly .5% of estates. So, the top .5% benefit. 3. Obviously only benefits those making less than 200k, though it remains to be seen if the FIRST 200k of investment income is excluded. As an example, someone making $201k would pay investment taxes on their full investment income while someone making 199k wouldn't? Probably not - I see the 200k as an exemption so this benefits everyone with investment income. Again, since on only the wealthy approach and exceed 200k in income, they benefit most. (Only upon reaching 200k in income does one maximize the benefit) 4. Here's where it gets sticky. If this is going to be revenue neutral, where does the money come from? This is classic "expand the base" logic. The ABC article states there are not enough credits and loopholes for the wealthy to make up for the benefit they will see from the reduction in rates, but I haven't done that analysis so I can't stay the same. It is important to note, however, that if what the ABC article says is true, then taxes on everyone else below 200k MUST go up in order for Romney's plan to be revenue neutral. This is simple arithmetic. If c = total revenue and it is constant, x = taxes collected by those making more than 200k and y = taxes collected from those making less than 200k, then x+y = c. For this to hold and x decreases, y must increase by the same amount. So lets do a little math. Lets just say Romeny figures out that the $500 child tax credit is one on the chopping block. The current phase out for this starts are $100k, and is maxed out at 20k per child. So if you have two children, you have no credit at 110k + 2*20k = 150k. Obviously unless you have 5 or more children, this is not affecting you. So this is in effect a tax INCREASE on the middle class and lower class. Lets look at the mortgage interest deduction. Lets assume that regardless of income somone will pay no more than 20% of their taxable income in mortgage interest. So for someone making 50k, they pay 10k in interest. 50k is in the 15% bracket for a married couple. Net effect on taxes is as follows Current: .1 * 17400 = $1740 .15 * (40000-17400) = $3390, Total Taxes = 5130. Romney: .08 * 17400 = $1392. .12 * (50000-17400) = $3912, total taxes = 5304. Difference = $174 higher taxes. (.3% higher average tax rate) Now for a rich guy making $1 million. Current: .1 * 17400 = 1740 .15 * (70700-17400) = 7995 .25 * (142700 - 70700) = 18000 .28 * (217450-142700) = 20930 .33* (388350-217450) = 56397 .35 * (1000000-50000-388350) = 196577.5, total taxes = 301639.5. Romney: .08 * 17400 = 1392 .12 * (70700-17400) = .22 * (142700 - 70700) = 14400 .224 * (217450-142700) = 16744 .264* (388350-217450) = 45118 .28 * (1000000-388350) = 171262, total taxes = 255659.6 Net decrease in taxes = $46000, decrease in tax rate of roughly 4.6%! Of course, you must note that under current tax law, only interest on the first 1 million in debt is deductable. So I used 50k interest deduction in the current calculation... All of this is just to say for it to be revenue neutral, more taxes must be collected from somewhere, and if the plan for this is to eliminate deductions, credits, and loopholes, that is coming out of the middle and lower class.

40. freak80 Follow Befriend (4) 52 threads 4,416 comments Corning, NY Premium

    45   8:57am Mon 6 Aug 2012   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Protected   iwog says Republicans are brain dead when it comes to tax policy on capital gains and dividends. If they ever take power, they'll drive this country straight to hell. Whoa whoa whoa wait....! The country hasn't alredy been driven straight to hell??

« First     « Previous comments