Page 129 of 205 FirstFirst ... 2979119127128129130131139179 ... LastLast
Results 1,281 to 1,290 of 2044

Thread: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

  1. #1281
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,273

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Here is a fact you side step the facts every chance you get, I continue to write a check to the government every time I get paid. You either do not want to admit that Wall Street effects every single American or you refuse to admit it, poor people do not have the money to invest but the poor decisions Wall Street CEO's make effects every one rich or poor, the unregulated practices of Wall Street allow those "with" to steal from those "without" even though those "without" are not invested in Wall Street. Wall Street is a scam artist's paradise filled with speculators, hedge funds, predatory lending practices, direviatives, selling short ect ect ect . Wall Street and the rich now run our country by controlling the economy and the conservative republican party

    2012
    You write a check to the govt? What does that have to do with Wall Street and what does that have to do with your SS income? Keep ignoring how liberalism and your govt. is screwing you, not Wall Street. You have a choice whether or not to invest in Wall Street, not so in paying taxes

  2. #1282
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    Given a choice I would rather see my money going to government employees then to the failed Wall Street CEO,s who have shown their inability to manage. What group was responsible for the recession public employees or Wall Street CEO'S and their employess


    Great! Next time you see a postal worker hand them $20.

  3. #1283
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    11-13-11 @ 01:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    What is funny is you don't know how to use the site. You can go to that site, home page and put whatever year you want and get the data. Suggest you do better research
    ...? You cited to a link. I looked indepth at the information from the link. Maybe if you didn't make me do your job of presenting the numbers you want to use in your argument, then maybe you should start bearing the onus of presenting numbers for your arguments.

    Numbers are what they are and that seems to be the problem with liberals who want to change the numbers. We have a 14.6 trillion dollar debt and when you go to the Treasury site you will see SS and Medicare ON BUDGET
    Remember the conservative diatribe line? It's back again. It's always the liberals, gotta be the liberals. Changing the numbers, causing the debts, raping our teenage daughters. You're also not arguing anything, you're just stating (an opinion and then) a fact without a source. Should I respond by telling you that the horns on a unicorn can vary anywhere from 2-3 1/2 feet?

    The issue remains, why do we need a 3.7 trillion dollar budget? What is different is that SS and Medicare shouldn't be on budget and then the rest of those items are funded by FIT.
    You really need to be able to hit home on your argument. So, what you're arguing is that SS and Medicare should be paid only from payments received from them and not included in the general budget?

    I suggest better research on CBO, their role and where they get their data.
    I suggest the same to you. I've studied government accounting, screw reading through that.

    Military spending as part of total spending constitutes about 20% of the budget thus the question as to the role of the Federal Govt. vs the role of the state govt.
    That wasn't my point. I suggest better reading of what I elegantly type out to you.

    Does that really make sense to you, defense budget is 700 plus billion out of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget and you really believe that is the only part of that budget with waste, fraud, and abuse?
    If I say yes, will you promise to spank me until I learn my lesson and spit on me like the dirty, little hippie liberal I am?

    Where do I say anywhere that it is the ONLY part of the budget with waste? They all have waste, military included (which makes up 20% of the budget, yes, a significant portion).

    So, let's see, your Federal Taxes go up, what does that do to state revenue and what does that do to your take home pay? You telling me that if FIT goes up you aren't going to find a way to reduce state taxes? Best way to do that is to move to a state with no State income taxes. Businesses and people are doing that all the time. Research TX.
    You're still doing it. Tax is one variable in the whole equation that equals me (and others) moving. To break it down simply for you:

    Taxes + a + b + c + d + e + f + g + hundreds/thousands of other variables = why people are moving.

    Besides, you don't think some businesses stand to turn better profit in NY even with high taxes as compared to if they moved to TX? That's just wishful thinking until you would like to source something that says clearly otherwise.

    It isn't diatribe when actual non partisan data is posted.
    He didn't source anything he said. Again, typing what you think has no relevance to any debate when you try to make a point, especially where you're trying to prove a causal relationship.
    Last edited by muRda; 10-04-11 at 05:17 PM.
    No matter your political affiliation or spiritual inclination, this article is for you: The Backfire Effect

  4. #1284
    Professor

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    04-26-13 @ 03:23 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,404
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You write a check to the govt? What does that have to do with Wall Street and what does that have to do with your SS income? Keep ignoring how liberalism and your govt. is screwing you, not Wall Street. You have a choice whether or not to invest in Wall Street, not so in paying taxes
    I am going to continue to take you back until you address the fact that Wall Street has had and continues to have a major negative impact on the middle class,the poor and the elderly in our country. It would be bad enough if the rich only took from the rich but they don't, speculation for instance effects every American citizen, some like the rich prosper because of it while the middle class, the poor and the elderly are helpless to stop the price increases of life essential needs ie: gasoline,heating oil, food, clothing.

  5. #1285
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,273

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    muRda;1059847324]...? You cited to a link. I looked indepth at the information from the link. Maybe if you didn't make me do your job of presenting the numbers you want to use in your argument, then maybe you should start bearing the onus of presenting numbers for your arguments.
    I gave you a link, there is a home page, sorry that was 2009 numbers but if you go to the home page it will list all budgets including 2010 and all previous budgets. I really don't care whether you buy my numbers or not. It is your choice to buy what you are told from the leftwing media and not do your own research.

    Remember the conservative diatribe line? It's back again. It's always the liberals, gotta be the liberals. Changing the numbers, causing the debts, raping our teenage daughters. You're also not arguing anything, you're just stating (an opinion and then) a fact without a source. Should I respond by telling you that the horns on a unicorn can vary anywhere from 2-3 1/2 feet?
    Of course it is all about liberals. Conservatives don't care how much money you make and are more than willing to let you achieve your share of the growing pie. Liberals would prefer to keep you dependent and always talk about more revenue to the govt. Why? Think that more revenue means less of a deficit? Think again.

    You really need to be able to hit home on your argument. So, what you're arguing is that SS and Medicare should be paid only from payments received from them and not included in the general budget?
    That is the way it was created and sold. It has no business on budget and LBJ put it there to use any surplus to pay for the Vietnam War. It has been kept there since the 1960's and that surplus in the 70's is gone. Instead of putting it aside for future responsibilities they spent it and now want more revenue to cover those IOU's. Must be liberal math

    I suggest the same to you. I've studied government accounting, screw reading through that
    .

    Govt. accounting? LOL, if any business ran like the govt. they would have been bankrupt years ago. Baseline budgeting? Think about it.

    Where do I say anywhere that it is the ONLY part of the budget with waste? They all have waste, military included (which makes up 20% of the budget, yes, a significant portion).
    So 20% of the budget is more significant than the 80% remainder. How much of that 700 billion defense budget is waste and apply that to the debt. Want to talk about an insignificant amount?

    You're still doing it. Tax is one variable in the whole equation that equals me (and others) moving. To break it down simply for you:

    Taxes + a + b + c + d + e + f + g + hundreds/thousands of other variables = why people are moving.
    Whatever the variable more people are moving out of California, NY, Illinois and other liberal states. When you start your own business let me know if you can make more money in NY than in TX. Taxes are a bottomline expense

  6. #1286
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,273

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by EarlzP View Post
    I am going to continue to take you back until you address the fact that Wall Street has had and continues to have a major negative impact on the middle class,the poor and the elderly in our country. It would be bad enough if the rich only took from the rich but they don't, speculation for instance effects every American citizen, some like the rich prosper because of it while the middle class, the poor and the elderly are helpless to stop the price increases of life essential needs ie: gasoline,heating oil, food, clothing.
    And I am going to continue to focus on the 14.6 TRILLION dollar budget debt created by a govt. who has higher poverty today in spite of all the spending on the Great Society War on Poverty. You need to go down to Wall Street and protest with the other misinformed individuals there. You don't have a clue.

    Still waiting for how Wall Street affects my SS and Medicare. Keep dodging and running.

  7. #1287
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,212

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    From the Budget of the United States at the link I gave you. Further the 2009 Budget was passed without Republican support thus passed due to Obama and the Democrats. Obama voted for that budget then put the Department heads in place to spend the money. Fiscal year of the U.S.Runs from October to September. October 2008 to January 20, 2009 Bush was in charge but the rest of the year it was Obama. Not sure where you got the 3.09 budget for 2010 but that isn't what the Treasury Dept shows.
    I was wrong about the 3.09 budget for 2010 it was estimated. your numbers are right.

    As for the passage of the 2009 FFY budget, either the President owns the budget or he doesn't. Also, it doesn't matter who Obama puts as heads of departments...they can't spend over the budget without additional spending authorized by Congress. I would like to point out that unlike Bush...Obama actually included the spending of the wars on the budget so that would mean in part his budgets by default even with the same spending everywhere else would be the same.

    Bush owns the 2009 budget plain and simple...just like Reagan owned his budgets. I mean, under your view the Reagan tax cuts were not Reagans but Congress since they passed them...

    There is no long term in relationship to the budget as budgets are yearly. GDP is made up of four components and the govt. component is 20% on a yearly basis. Who pays for that govt. expense?
    There is long term and short term, unless you hold the view that when the government runs a deficit everybody automatically decreases spending by an amount equal to future taxation. There is a short term beneficial effect to the GDP when running a deficit. In the long term, with the deficit amount being paid off, that where their is a net zero effect.
    Stop buying the liberal rhetoric. Congress appropriates the money and also spends money. Democrats controlled Congress from 2007-2011 with overwhelming numbers in 2009-2010
    What does this have to do anything, Medicare Part D was passed by a fully Republican Congress signed into law by a Republican President. How exactly is this liberal rhetoric to point out the Dems had no power beyond a filibuster to stop Medicar Part D.
    I have seen no evidence that yo uknow the four components of GDP and the percentage each contributes
    Be specific. You'll have to point out what exactly you're talking about here instead of some vague pretending I don't have knowledge discussed in any Macro Econ 101 class.

    Targeted tax cuts from Obama were short term and once gone are gone. You are still receiving the Bush tax cuts thus more take home pay
    .
    This doesn't make the Bush tax cuts more efficient in boosting the economy. It just means they haven't lapsed yet.
    Regardless of where those evil rich people put their money it helps the economy unless they bury it in the backyard.
    I never called rich people evil I have no idea where you get that. As for does it help the economy.....not necessarily. If you give a multi-millionaire a tax break, they invest that in the stock market (secondary market) that has no effect on the GDP. If a country decides to expand (based on consumption) then the added money in the secondary market drives up stock prices thereby making their treasury stock more valuable and it's easier to raise money. Once again, our problem is consumption, that's what is causing this recession not lack of capital. As of now there is unused capacity, not lack of capacity.

    Tax cuts for all individuals means more take home pay, period. Rich putting it into a bank means more money available for lending.
    I apologize but once again, why is a company going out and getting a loan from a bank if they are sitting on tons of cash and they have unused capacity currently.

    Bush took over an economy with a GDP of 9.9 trillion and left it at 14.4 trillion, that is good economic growth.
    Bush growth rates in comparison to other Presidents.
    Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P. - NYTimes.com
    I'm not sure about your figures, are they not adjusted? BEA BEA National Economic Accounts Has 11 trillion in Q1 2000 and 12.8 Q4 2008. It's actually not very good economic growth.
    So Goldman Sachs knows how you spend your money? Don't care what Goldman Sachs says, only know what people do with more spendable income.
    Ok...I'll go ahead and take your word for it.

  8. #1288
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    11-13-11 @ 01:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I gave you a link, there is a home page, sorry that was 2009 numbers but if you go to the home page it will list all budgets including 2010 and all previous budgets. I really don't care whether you buy my numbers or not. It is your choice to buy what you are told from the leftwing media and not do your own research.
    You didn't give me numbers. See above, below, the post you made, and/or the post I quoted you in:
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I gave you a link
    Of course it is all about liberals. Conservatives don't care how much money you make and are more than willing to let you achieve your share of the growing pie. Liberals would prefer to keep you dependent and always talk about more revenue to the govt. Why? Think that more revenue means less of a deficit? Think again.
    Normally more revenue would equal less of a deficit, but whatever, I'm neither wholly liberal nor wholly conservative.

    The whole "willing to let you achieve" thing is where you oversimplify a tremendous problem tho. The rabbit can't get the carrot if it's in a cage that was built around it.

    That is the way it was created and sold. It has no business on budget and LBJ put it there to use any surplus to pay for the Vietnam War. It has been kept there since the 1960's and that surplus in the 70's is gone. Instead of putting it aside for future responsibilities they spent it and now want more revenue to cover those IOU's. Must be liberal math
    If it's true, sure. I have no idea.

    Govt. accounting? LOL, if any business ran like the govt. they would have been bankrupt years ago. Baseline budgeting? Think about it.
    That was my point about your source?

    So 20% of the budget is more significant than the 80% remainder. How much of that 700 billion defense budget is waste and apply that to the debt. Want to talk about an insignificant amount?
    Like, I'm running out of ways to explain this to you:

    ALL THE MAJOR SECTORS OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING HAVE WASTE. THE 20% FOR MILITARY AND THE REMAINING 80%.

    I simply said that waste could be cut from the military portion and you've done nothing but read into that that I said the rest of government spending doesn't have waste.

    Whatever the variable more people are moving out of California, NY, Illinois and other liberal states. When you start your own business let me know if you can make more money in NY than in TX. Taxes are a bottomline expense
    Yea, man, whatever the variable. Doesn't even matter if it's taxes like you've been harping on for the past few pages. Thanks for the discussion, tho.

    Oh, man, you'll probably be so dumbfounded when I move to CA from NY.

    And thanks for the heads up, pretty sure I'll need to know that when I take REG in January.
    No matter your political affiliation or spiritual inclination, this article is for you: The Backfire Effect

  9. #1289
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,273

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    iliveonramen;1059847354]I was wrong about the 3.09 budget for 2010 it was estimated. your numbers are right.
    Thank you

    As for the passage of the 2009 FFY budget, either the President owns the budget or he doesn't. Also, it doesn't matter who Obama puts as heads of departments...they can't spend over the budget without additional spending authorized by Congress. I would like to point out that unlike Bush...Obama actually included the spending of the wars on the budget so that would mean in part his budgets by default even with the same spending everywhere else would be the same.

    Bush owns the 2009 budget plain and simple...just like Reagan owned his budgets. I mean, under your view the Reagan tax cuts were not Reagans but Congress since they passed them...
    Yes he owns the budget along with Congress but Obama has responsibility for spending the money. Obama was in office 8 months of fiscal year 2009 and Obama's Department heads spent the money. Just because there is a budget doesn't mean you have to spend the money. No matter how you spint it, Obama voted for the 2009 budget, Democrats passed the 2009 budget, and Obama then spent the 2009 budget. Included in that 2009 spending was TARP which Bush spent 350 billion dollars of the 700 billion and Bush had nothing to do with the 842 billion dollar stimulus plan that Obama passed some of which was spent in 2009.

    You see, spending matters, not the budget amount and regardless of what is on the budget the spending is included in the deficits

    There is long term and short term, unless you hold the view that when the government runs a deficit everybody automatically decreases spending by an amount equal to future taxation. There is a short term beneficial effect to the GDP when running a deficit. In the long term, with the deficit amount being paid off, that where their is a net zero effect.
    The problem with budgeting is that it is baseline budgeting which guarantees that the budget will go up each year off the baseline. There is no reason for this rate of spending and sending more money to D.C. encourages more spending. Why is there such passion for increasing taxes?

    What does this have to do anything, Medicare Part D was passed by a fully Republican Congress signed into law by a Republican President. How exactly is this liberal rhetoric to point out the Dems had no power beyond a filibuster to stop Medicar Part D.
    Yes, and the Democrat alternative was much higher. Congress passed the Medicare Part D which by the way has cut medicare expenses. Democrats wanted more and settled for less.

    Be specific. You'll have to point out what exactly you're talking about here instead of some vague pretending I don't have knowledge discussed in any Macro Econ 101 class.
    There are four components of GDP and each contribute a percentage. Find out those components and what they contribute. You will find Govt. spending is a small percentage and you will realize how tax hikes hurt the economy.

    This doesn't make the Bush tax cuts more efficient in boosting the economy. It just means they haven't lapsed yet.
    Sure it does as you will find out when you find out the four components of GDP

    I never called rich people evil I have no idea where you get that. As for does it help the economy.....not necessarily. If you give a multi-millionaire a tax break, they invest that in the stock market (secondary market) that has no effect on the GDP. If a country decides to expand (based on consumption) then the added money in the secondary market drives up stock prices thereby making their treasury stock more valuable and it's easier to raise money. Once again, our problem is consumption, that's what is causing this recession not lack of capital. As of now there is unused capacity, not lack of capacity.
    Many here believe the rich got rich off the backs of the poor and that is evil. It does appear that your understanding of the economy is very limited. Do some better research

    I apologize but once again, why is a company going out and getting a loan from a bank if they are sitting on tons of cash and they have unused capacity currently.
    It isn't only businesses that borrow money but expansion requires capital and most businesses aren't those mega corporations


    Bush growth rates in comparison to other Presidents.
    Ranking the Presidents by G.D.P. - NYTimes.com
    I'm not sure about your figures, are they not adjusted? BEA BEA National Economic Accounts Has 11 trillion in Q1 2000 and 12.8 Q4 2008. It's actually not very good economic growth.
    There you go again, percentage change, means nothing as real dollars generate tax revenue not percentage change.Bush GDP growth was 4.5 TRILLION dollars which is going to be a lower percentage change off the 9.9 trillion he inherited that the Clinton GDP growth off a much lower base but only 3.5 trillion increase. Which is better 4.5 trillion or 3.5 trillion?

  10. #1290
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,212

    Re: White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

    There are four components of GDP and each contribute a percentage. Find out those components and what they contribute. You will find Govt. spending is a small percentage and you will realize how tax hikes hurt the economy.
    They don't contribute different weighted amounts...everything is 1v1. 100 bucks is spent on a govt salary...that contributes 100 dollars. If 100 dollars is spent to build a bridge that's 100 dollars. The only thing you can be pointing out...which has nothing do with any sort of weighted contributions, is that SS and unemployment are transfers which is not countred towards GDP. Once again...what are you talking about. The government purchasing 100 dollars in goods or a private citizen spending 100 dollars are both 100 dollars in consumption counted towards GDP!
    Sure it does as you will find out when you find out the four components of GDP
    GDP=C+I+G+(X-m). If private consumption goes down 100 dollars (C) due to taxes and government spending goes up 100 dollars (G) that creats no net effect! This is where the Bush tax cuts are inefficient. When a wealthy person gets a tax break, they don't normally use most of that tax break to consume goods (C). They normally invest that money in the secondary markets or in a bank with is considered "Savings" which is not parts of the equation for GDP. Quit pretending this deeper knowledge unless you want to be specific. Do I think it's possible you have some insight to add that I'm not aware of? Sure! Have you demostrated that? No.
    Many here believe the rich got rich off the backs of the poor and that is evil. It does appear that your understanding of the economy is very limited. Do some better research
    Once again, this vague pretending of superior knowledge you haven't written anything except a basic view "rich people put money in a bank, the bank lends out money". Please be specific. I'm always open to learning new things.
    It isn't only businesses that borrow money but expansion requires capital and most businesses aren't those mega corporations
    They also require customers which most small businesses are not getting a sufficient amount of.

    There you go again, percentage change, means nothing as real dollars generate tax revenue not percentage change.Bush GDP growth was 4.5 TRILLION dollars which is going to be a lower percentage change off the 9.9 trillion he inherited that the Clinton GDP growth off a much lower base but only 3.5 trillion increase. Which is better 4.5 trillion or 3.5 trillion?
    I know of no one that uses real values to compared GDP growth rates over a period of time. We'll have to agree to just disagree. I would like to point out the US great 4.5 trillion and at the same time China grew 3 trillion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •