250K no longer, now its 87K

Yes, or not. It's the simplest approach. Let the cuts expire. Then, try to pass bi-partisan ideas. Trying to modify now won't get anywhere. People will survive the hike for a short while.

Fruityfact said:

I would say if we could stave off raising rates on the middle class for a couple years that would be good..but yes, ultimately higher rates is our way to dig outta this self dug hole

Click to expand...

TurtleDude said:

stop lying. Under Reagan it was 28% what was it under Bush I? and before Wilson it was essentially non existent. Under Harding and Coolidge what was it


RIGHT NOW THE RICH PAY A HIGHER PORTION OF THE INCOME TAX than at any time in the last 7 decades. Obviously the problem is that the rest of the country is not paying enough

Click to expand...

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...al_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

I was actually inaccurate, the tax rate was 50% most of the time under Reagan. It went to 28% in 1988. I apologize for that, but the same principle holds true.

EDIT: It stayed 28% under Bush senior. Clinton raised it. And the income tax started in 1913, under Taft, who was a Republican president.

Also, do you ever actually listen to what I have to say, or does it just pass right over your head? The higher income pay more taxes because they've grown 95-280% in income over the past 30 years! The middle class has had an income increase of 23-35%! No crap they're paying more, it's because they have way more! You don't get it at all do you? The rich are growing too fast. They're growing up to 10x faster than the rest of the nation. They should be growing in line with the rest of the nation. When the middle class grow 30%, so should the rich. That doesn't make them not rich, that just makes it so that they're appropriately proportioned.

I think you literally have zero idea of what you're talking about.

frogloe said:

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...al_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf

I was actually inaccurate, the tax rate was 50% most of the time under Reagan. It went to 28% in 1988. I apologize for that, but the same principle holds true.

EDIT: It stayed 28% under Bush senior. Clinton raised it. And the income tax started in 1913, under Taft, who was a Republican president.

Also, do you ever actually listen to what I have to say, or does it just pass right over your head? The higher income pay more taxes because they've grown 95-280% in income over the past 30 years! The middle class has had an income increase of 23-35%! No crap they're paying more, it's because they have way more! You don't get it at all do you? The rich are growing too fast. They're growing up to 10x faster than the rest of the nation. They should be growing in line with the rest of the nation. When the middle class grow 30%, so should the rich. That doesn't make them not rich, that just makes it so that they're appropriately proportioned.

I think you literally have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

I don't buy the from each according to their ability because those who use the most continue to demand more and more. I want those who demand more government paying more and more until they stop demanding so much the Middle class decrease does not COME FROM NOT TAXING THE RICH "ENOUGH" it comes from the fact that the middle class is not staying ahead of the rest of the world

I don't know if you noticed, but that video, was completely screwed up.

a new 250k $ tax cut for millionaries. Well... what does this even mean? each millionaire gets 250k in tax cuts? Or is it 250k $ a year to all? I don't understand. It doesn't make sense. Its just stupid propaganda. And i mean, it is a stupid sentence to be said.

adding trillions to the deficit... ok.... and then obama said 4 tril deficit reduction. Are these stupid? I mean, the Obama campaign is doing this for 2 reasons:
a) they are f&cking stupid.
b) they are outright lying.

How can you have a 4 tril deficit reduction? And what, over all his term or just in an year. Because DEFICIT is the bugetary red zone for each year. Debt is the overall money owed which comes from having a deficit. I think this ad is lying to people by being vague. Either that or it is made by complete retards.

TurtleDude said:

Romney pays more income tax than 70 Million americans combined. that's pretty sad that so many people aren't paying their share

Click to expand...

As far all the money that has been spent and/or "lost" on maintaining globalism goes (in the trillions since in includes all military spending plus all the revenue lost from outsourcing domestic labor plus the stress on our welfare system), it works more for him than it does for the lower income brackets. Why shouldn't he pay for it?

TurtleDude said:

I don't buy the from each according to their ability because those who use the most continue to demand more and more. I want those who demand more government paying more and more until they stop demanding so much the Middle class decrease does not COME FROM NOT TAXING THE RICH "ENOUGH" it comes from the fact that the middle class is not staying ahead of the rest of the world

Click to expand...

I mean, the extra growth of the rich is almost directly related to a decrease in their marginal tax rate, but I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Clearly, this all must just be the middle class being lazy.

Also, it'd be a terrible idea to tax the rich more because we wouldn't want the government to use the extra money to invest in things such as education, which would help bring the middle class back from the dead. We would rather that money stay with the rich so that they can keep about half of it in a bank account overseas and never invest it in anything.

frogloe said:

I mean, the extra growth of the rich is almost directly related to a decrease in their marginal tax rate, but I'm sure you know what you're talking about. Clearly, this all must just be the middle class being lazy.

Also, it'd be a terrible idea to tax the rich more because we wouldn't want the government to use the extra money to invest in things such as education, which would help bring the middle class back from the dead. We would rather that money stay with the rich so that they can keep about half of it in a bank account overseas and never invest it in anything.

Click to expand...

I wanna see some proof of that. You also seem to be a big fan of the government wasting more of our money. Investing in all those failed pay offs to Obama's supporters is more like it.

Fruityfact said:

I would say if we could stave off raising rates on the middle class for a couple years that would be good..but yes, ultimately higher rates is our way to dig outta this self dug hole

Click to expand...

There is another school of thought that says, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

AliHajiSheik said:

There is another school of thought that says, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

Click to expand...

We dug our hole with unnecessary wars, and unneeded tax cuts-so the solution is----

Fruityfact said:

We dug our hole with unnecessary wars, and unneeded tax cuts-so the solution is----

Click to expand...

Cutting spending. Then once that stabilizes, then tax increases can be used to pay off the debt.

AliHajiSheik said:

Cutting spending. Then once that stabilizes, then tax increases can be used to pay off the debt.

Click to expand...

Sure, and we'll address immigration reform once the border is hermetically sealed, and we'll deal with health care reform as soon as there's a cure for cancer, and we'll tackle climate change once it's confirmed that hell has frozen over....

We should just set tax rates at 100%, have everyone send all their money into the feds, and have them dole it back out as they see fit. Clearly the feds are the only ones that know what to do

Samhain said:

We should just set tax rates at 100%, have everyone send all their money into the feds, and have them dole it back out as they see fit. Clearly the feds are the only ones that know what to do

Click to expand...

Nah, we should just cancel all taxes and disband the government, because we would clearly be better off ifthe corporations were running the show directly. Cut out the middle man.

AdamT said:

Sure, and we'll address immigration reform once the border is hermetically sealed, and we'll deal with health care reform as soon as there's a cure for cancer, and we'll tackle climate change once it's confirmed that hell has frozen over....

Click to expand...

I think you posted this on the wrong thread. This thread is discussing expenses and taxes.

TurtleDude said:

I wanna see some proof of that. You also seem to be a big fan of the government wasting more of our money. Investing in all those failed pay offs to Obama's supporters is more like it.

Click to expand...

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~jskinner/documents/DynanKEDotheRich.pdf

Look at the graph on page 430, that's a pretty easy to understand visual of the amount of savings different income earners have. In the text below the graph it states: "The slopes of the implicit
MPS segments are 3.0 percent (quintiles 1 and 2), 15.8 percent (quintiles 2 and 3), 13.9
percent (quintiles 3 and 4), and 42.9 percent (quintiles 4 and 5)." Quintiles 4 and 5 are the highest income earners in the country.

And trust me sir, it's better to have the government "wasting" the money than it is for the high earners to keep it completely idle. Believe it or not, the middle class isn't just going to come back on its own. It won't happen. The government needs to facilitate the growth of the middle class through investment. There is so much good that can be done, but you seem more interested in waiting and seeing if things resolve themselves. And yet here we are.

frogloe said:

And trust me sir, it's better to have the government "wasting" the money than it is for the high earners to keep it completely idle. Believe it or not, the middle class isn't just going to come back on its own. It won't happen. The government needs to facilitate the growth of the middle class through investment. There is so much good that can be done, but you seem more interested in waiting and seeing if things resolve themselves. And yet here we are.

Click to expand...

what complete idiocy.

1) its not the government's money its that of those who earned it

2) and no rich person I know keeps their money IDLE--only someone who has NO CLUE about the wealthy and investment would blather such nonsense

and why is it better to have the government WASTING MONEY than those who own it investing it?

because you are MAD you don't have it?

TurtleDude said:

what complete idiocy.

1) its not the government's money its that of those who earned it

2) and no rich person I know keeps their money IDLE--only someone who has NO CLUE about the wealthy and investment would blather such nonsense

and why is it better to have the government WASTING MONEY than those who own it investing it?

because you are MAD you don't have it?

Click to expand...

What? I just gave you a freaking extensive report on the savings of the highest income earners. Mother of god, it's like you ignore all the facts. 42%! 42% of their wealth! READ IT. READ ITTTTTTTT. You keep throwing out ideas as if their facts, and every time I swat you down with evidence otherwise, you bypass the evidence and insist that what you're saying is correct. It's not. Get it? You're wrong. You don't have anything to back you up. You're just hoping that I'll believe you if you repeat the same blatant lie over and over again.

frogloe said:

What? I just gave you a freaking extensive report on the savings of the highest income earners. Mother of god, it's like you ignore all the facts. 42%! 42% of their wealth! READ IT. READ ITTTTTTTT. You keep throwing out ideas as if their facts, and every time I swat you down with evidence otherwise, you bypass the evidence and insist that what you're saying is correct. It's not. Get it? You're wrong. You don't have anything to back you up. You're just hoping that I'll believe you if you repeat the same blatant lie over and over again.

Click to expand...

why should anyone have to pay more for the same government services?

what am I wrong about-that I don't buy into your socialist income redistribution idiocy?

YOU POSTED A VALUE BASED OPINION WHICH I REJECT-how can you PROVE THAT WASTING MONEY is better than those of us who earned it doing whatever we want with it

frogloe said:

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxf...al_rate_history_nominal&adjusted-20110909.pdf
I was actually inaccurate, the tax rate was 50% most of the time under Reagan. It went to 28% in 1988. I apologize for that, but the same principle holds true.

EDIT: It stayed 28% under Bush senior. Clinton raised it. And the income tax started in 1913, under Taft, who was a Republican president.

Also, do you ever actually listen to what I have to say, or does it just pass right over your head? The higher income pay more taxes because they've grown 95-280% in income over the past 30 years! The middle class has had an income increase of 23-35%! No crap they're paying more, it's because they have way more! You don't get it at all do you? The rich are growing too fast. They're growing up to 10x faster than the rest of the nation. They should be growing in line with the rest of the nation. When the middle class grow 30%, so should the rich. That doesn't make them not rich, that just makes it so that they're appropriately proportioned.
I think you literally have zero idea of what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

The irony here is people who are critical of wealth distribution completely ignore the fact that this has been going on for atleast the last 30+ years beginning in the Reagan era only in reverse. Reagan raised taxes on the middle-class in order to pay for expansion of the military industrial complex. Since then each subsequent tax cut has been geared toward the rich. As such, the rich have gotten richer even as the economy tanked, whereas everyone else have either gotten poorer or saw their incomes remain flat. Yet so many people will vote against their own self-interest believing that if you just change the tax code in favor of the so-called job creators that everything with our economy will magically begin to self-correct. Our history of tax policy over the years tells a completely different story, however. Unfortunately, folks brush it off as if what Pres. Obama is proposing is some Robin Hood effect - take from the rich, give to the poor - when the truth is he's only asking for a small tax increase to the wealthy primarily for two reasons:

1) so that we can start paying down our debt and reduce the deficit faster; and,
2) so that we can invest in areas where we can make the necessary investments in "nation building at home" which if done right will create jobs.

Now, I will be honest and say that IF Mitt Romney had shown more conviction and wasn't all over the map in his social or political convictions, he'd likely have my vote. But unlike many, I watched EVERY GOP debate, all three presidential debates and the VP debate, and I've read a vast majority of Romney's "Believe in America" plan and I have to say that IF it wasn't for the obvious support he's getting from "crony capitalism," and the fact that many captians of industry are sitting on piles of cash just waiting to see the tax code changed once again in their favor, there's no way under Romney's plan as outlined he could even conceive of "creating" those estimated 12 million new jobs he proposes AND reduce the deficit. Instead of fact checkers or the typical media sources to bring this point home, I bring your attention to:

The Final Word on Mitt Romney

Deduction Cap Means Romney's Math Adds Up (Don't let the title of the article fool you; read the contents)

Romney's tax plan really does favor the rich - CSMonitor.com

Study: Romney tax plan would result in cuts for rich, higher burden for others - The Washington Post

TPC Tax Topics | romney-plan (See Note below)

Note: Pay particular attention to footnote 3 which reads:

Footnote 3: Tax Policy Center (TPC) assumes that the full burden of corporate income taxes falls on owners of capital in proportion to their income from capital. Under alternative assumptions that allocate some of the burden to workers, tax changes from the Romney plan would be distributed differently. Tax units with the highest income would receive smaller tax cuts on average and low- and middle-income tax units would receive slightly smaller average tax increases or slightly larger average tax cuts than the distribution tables show. The results shown in the distribution tables would be little changed for the bottom 99 percent of tax units and the overall pattern of tax changes would be qualitatively the same—the largest tax cuts as a share of after-tax income would go to the highest income taxpayers.

Click to expand...