• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Seeks to End Tax Breaks to Pay for Jobs Plan

. In fact, those who make the most benefit the most.

So how can we get that measure across and accepted by those who don't want to believe it?

Is the idea that "Those who make the most benefit the most" a rather new idea to Leftists?

I've actually been aware of this since my childhood and therefore assumed it was common knowledge.

Who are these people who don't want to believe such a thing? Are the public schools withholding this information?
 
Is the idea that "Those who make the most benefit the most" a rather new idea to Leftists?

I've actually been aware of this since my childhood and therefore assumed it was common knowledge.

Who are these people who don't want to believe such a thing? Are the public schools withholding this information?

I can't speak for the left. I can only speak for myself, and I have been quite aware of this.

But as you understand it, you should not object to the wealthy paying more. Unless of course you don't really understand what is being said. :coffeepap
 
I erased most of your opinions and crystal ball gazens, hope you don’t mind. :2wave:

What is wrong with asking someone that makes TEN TIMES THEIR salary in so-called bonus/stock options, whatever you call it, to pay more than the 15% capitol gains tax?

For instance; In 2010 Average CEO Pay at S&P 500 Companies . Salary= $1,093,989 paying the same tax rate as you and I on it.


Bonus/ stock options/whatever they could worm in and tax at the capitol gains rate of 15%…. $11,358,445.

If the poor rich dude paid the full The full Monty of SS,s $106000 and change ,it would be paid in full in around one day and six hours.But of course he pays nothing on it as he has already paid it on his…coff,coff,salary.

Mind if I ask where you got this info that bonuses are taxed at a 15% rate. Not sure if you ever got a bonus or are in a bracket higher than 15%. If you were you would know that bonuses are considered ordinary income and are taxed at whatever marginal rate you are in. As far as options go, unless you buy the stock at the option price and hold it for longer than a year then again any profit on these stock options are taxed at the ordinary rate.
 
Not sure how this is a response to what I said, but no. Companies are leaving because they can get cheap labor elsewhere, don't have to worry about providing health insurance, and pay no penality for moving jobs away. You could get rid of all taxes and they still would be moving off shore. Not building the fence is just a way to keep them here as they can use cheap illegal labor.

There has always been cheaper labor elsewhere than in the United States. In fact, in historical terms, salaries have been rising throughout the world and poverty has become less widespread.

Like the Russians and East Germans before you, you can build a fence in order to try and keep people in or cry that they are all unpatriotic. Or perhaps you can investigate a little further to determine why companies are leaving the United States rather than grasping at the first option without thinking it through.

But it''s certainly not just cheap labor that's driving them away, that's for certain.
 
Now that you are not so young and more experienced, why not offer up some evidence to support the idea that those who disagree with your points of view are "brainwashed"? That's what adults do.

It was posted as my opinion, as per the question mark at the end, which in your zeal to get in a dig failed to notice.

But i on the other-hand noticed that your statement that "It's always easy for third parties to determine what's 'fair' when it involves other people's money "has nary a question mark in it.

See. others can post lame ass post as well.Toodles.:2wave:
 
There has always been cheaper labor elsewhere than in the United States. In fact, in historical terms, salaries have been rising throughout the world and poverty has become less widespread.

Like the Russians and East Germans before you, you can build a fence in order to try and keep people in or cry that they are all unpatriotic. Or perhaps you can investigate a little further to determine why companies are leaving the United States rather than grasping at the first option without thinking it through.

But it''s certainly not just cheap labor that's driving them away, that's for certain.

Yes, we can better take advantage of it now. It is not that it wasn't there before, it is that we now have the means to use and abuse it.

Cheap labor and health care have much larger impact than taxes, by a wide margin. And you can also abuse the people and envirnoment in other countries. There are serious oil spill around the world, for example, killing much, with little outrage. Great for business, but bad for people.
 
I can't speak for the left. I can only speak for myself, and I have been quite aware of this.

But as you understand it, you should not object to the wealthy paying more. Unless of course you don't really understand what is being said. :coffeepap

Why should they pay more? Did they cheat anyone? Earn their money dishonestly?

Why should they support social programs they never voted for or pork barrel wastes like the 'stimulus' craziness? No intelligent person would want to give their hard earned money to this insane outfit in Washington.

A wiser alternative would be to draw up a budget and follow it, but that wacky crew in DC can't even do that. Barrack Obama is obviously using the Grecian Formula.
 
Why should they pay more? Did they cheat anyone? Earn their money dishonestly?

Why should they support social programs they never voted for or pork barrel wastes like the 'stimulus' craziness? No intelligent person would want to give their hard earned money to this insane outfit in Washington.

A wiser alternative would be to draw up a budget and follow it, but that wacky crew in DC can't even do that. Barrack Obama is obviously using the Grecian Formula.

Nope, they benefit more. I thought you said you understood that. They benefit more from government.

And you can be wise, frugal, and prudent, and still have people pay their fair share.
 
Mind if I ask where you got this info that bonuses are taxed at a 15% rate. Not sure if you ever got a bonus or are in a bracket higher than 15%. If you were you would know that bonuses are considered ordinary income and are taxed at whatever marginal rate you are in. As far as options go, unless you buy the stock at the option price and hold it for longer than a year then again any profit on these stock options are taxed at the ordinary rate.


What is the tax on the dividends that stock bonus pay out when they are held for four years?
 
Last edited:
Yes, we can better take advantage of it now. It is not that it wasn't there before, it is that we now have the means to use and abuse it.

Cheap labor and health care have much larger impact than taxes, by a wide margin. And you can also abuse the people and envirnoment in other countries. There are serious oil spill around the world, for example, killing much, with little outrage. Great for business, but bad for people.

I actually spend a great deal of time in the third world, or did until very recently, and they are becoming very aware on the environment also. If not there are plenty of foreigners who will be quick to point out any sins of omission or commission. No company can operate in a vacuum anymore, anywhere.

The idea that these American companies (or companies from any country) can just come in and ride rough shod over the locals is simply not true. In fact local people will stand in line for days to try and get work for a foreign owned company because they know that, far more often than not, they'll be treated far more fairly, with better working conditions and benefits than any local company will ever provide. You're just repeating a common fallacy.

And the US has become so concerned about possible oil spills, despite the high technology in place to prevent and contain such events, that they are refusing an oil pipeline from Canada which would mean over 20,000 permanent jobs and a guarantees for the future.

Seeking third world status and living conditions might be a Leftists dream but why should those with money in their pockets, at least for the moment, contribute to it? And you ask why companies and people are leaving?
 
I actually spend a great deal of time in the third world, or did until very recently, and they are becoming very aware on the environment also. If not there are plenty of foreigners who will be quick to point out any sins of omission or commission. No company can operate in a vacuum anymore, anywhere.

The idea that these American companies (or companies from any country) can just come in and ride rough shod over the locals is simply not true. In fact local people will stand in line for days to try and get work for a foreign owned company because they know that, far more often than not, they'll be treated far more fairly, with better working conditions and benefits than any local company will ever provide. You're just repeating a common fallacy.

And the US has become so concerned about possible oil spills, despite the high technology in place to prevent and contain such events, that they are refusing an oil pipeline from Canada which would mean over 20,000 permanent jobs and a guarantees for the future.

Seeking third world status and living conditions might be a Leftists dream but why should those with money in their pockets, at least for the moment, contribute to it? And you ask why companies and people are leaving?

They may be, but it is a fact that we are paying less attention ourselves eslewhere and business is going to where they can be less careful. And roughshod is your word, not mine. You don't have to runroughshod over a willing partner. The fact is, we are doing damage and don't have to worry as much about it as they would here. You know this is true.
 
Nope, they benefit more. I thought you said you understood that. They benefit more from government.

And you can be wise, frugal, and prudent, and still have people pay their fair share.

Please explain how they are benefiting from government moreso than anyone else.
 
What is the tax on the dividends that stock bonus pay out when they are held for a couple of years?

If you buy the stock and then hold it for more than a year then you would be correct that people pay 15%. But remember that the clock starts when you actually lay out the cash for the stock. So most execs just exercise and sell in the same motion ( same day), ordinary income. Also remember that if you exercise, buy the stock and the stock then goes down, not only do you lose money but as you know taxes are paid on all gains ( different rates long or short term) but you can only take a tax deduction of up to $3K in any one year for any losses you incur.

I am not saying that execs are not highly and in many cases overpaid. Just that there are more complicated facts around the tax treatment than I think many people understand.
 
If you buy the stock and then hold it for more than a year then you would be correct that people pay 15%. But remember that the clock starts when you actually lay out the cash for the stock. So most execs just exercise and sell in the same motion ( same day), ordinary income. Also remember that if you exercise, buy the stock and the stock then goes down, not only do you lose money but as you know taxes are paid on all gains ( different rates long or short term) but you can only take a tax deduction of up to $3K in any one year for any losses you incur.

I am not saying that execs are not highly and in many cases overpaid. Just that there are more complicated facts around the tax treatment than I think many people understand.

it's not just execs who have cap gains. i'll bet most of the very wealthy do as well.
 
It was posted as my opinion, as per the question mark at the end, which in your zeal to get in a dig failed to notice.

The question mark followed "eh".

When I was young and naïve I wondered how/why someone could become brainwashed. Fox News and the rightwing sound machines sure showed it could be done on a massive scale eh?

Now, to make it clear, are you saying that "Fox News and the rightwing sound machines" are showing that brainwashing can be done on a massive scale, or are you just inquiring whether such a thing is possible? Would you be making the same inquiry re NPR, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc, or is your curiosity limited to just Fox News and sound machines?
But i on the other-hand noticed that your statement that "It's always easy for third parties to determine what's 'fair' when it involves other people's money "has nary a question mark in it.

Isn't a third party, aka, Barrack Obama, claiming that he knows what "fair" is? As well, many of his supporters will make the same claim, though they are actually quite fuzzy on what those percentages might be.
 
Please explain how they are benefiting from government moreso than anyone else.

it's been shown before. let me give you some links to read, though you could do your own search.

4 Ways Government Policy Favors the Rich and Keeps the Rest of Us Poor
While most Americans struggle in the face of the recession, the rich are enjoying the benefits of policies that redistribute wealth upward--and crying class war if we complain.

4 Ways Government Policy Favors the Rich and Keeps the Rest of Us Poor | | AlterNet

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study

Wealthy benefit most from tax subsidies: study | Reuters

The rich rely on the governments to provide a major share (C) of both these - physical and social/economic - infrastructure. The rely on private provisioning only where governments fail. In contrast, the poor rely mostly on private provisioning of all infrastructure (A) and have a limited uptake of public infrastructure (B). The intensity of government provisioning of both types of infrastructure is much more in cities than villages, where most of the poor live. Even in case of the urban poor, they work mostly in the un-organized sector and transact in the parallel un-regulated economy.

So, despite the very evident benefits that the rich derive from the role of governments, why are they and the middle class the most vocal critics of governments? Why do they want to down-size the very agency whose activities underpin their own success? There are obviously many reasons, ideological and non-ideological. However, I have three fundamental explanations that come to mind

Urbanomics: How the rich and poor benefit from government

9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
9 Things The Rich Don't Want You To Know About Taxes
 
If you buy the stock and then hold it for more than a year then you would be correct that people pay 15%. But remember that the clock starts when you actually lay out the cash for the stock. So most execs just exercise and sell in the same motion ( same day), ordinary income. Also remember that if you exercise, buy the stock and the stock then goes down, not only do you lose money but as you know taxes are paid on all gains ( different rates long or short term) but you can only take a tax deduction of up to $3K in any one year for any losses you incur.

I am not saying that execs are not highly and in many cases overpaid. Just that there are more complicated facts around the tax treatment than I think many people understand.



True, but the top executives of the S and P averaged over $ ten mill in bonuses in 2010; its not like they would have to take the stock out for their children’s braces.And if they started dumping the stock the day after they got it…:(
 
it's not just execs who have cap gains. i'll bet most of the very wealthy do as well.

If you had read what I was responding to you would see it was about exec compensation. When you start talking about "wealthy" that becomes an interesting term. Is someone who is retired and has a million dollars in the bank because they sold a house in California before the crash "wealthy". Someone who is retired, living off social security and has a million in the bank that he/she puts into 10 year treasuries will earn about $20K on that. Add that to $20-25K from social security and you call that wealthy?
 
True, but the top executives of the S and P averaged over $ ten mill in bonuses in 2010; its not like they would have to take the stock out for their children’s braces.And if they started dumping the stock the day after they got it…:(

Look, I am not asking to take up a collection for CEOs. Just trying to point out that the bonus income is taxed at the highest marginal rate, not the long term capital gains rate that you presumed. Sorry if the facts do not fit a partisan position. I thought you just had the facts wrong, thus my response. If you just want a political argument rather than deal in fact I probably should not have responded in the first place.
 
If you had read what I was responding to you would see it was about exec compensation. When you start talking about "wealthy" that becomes an interesting term. Is someone who is retired and has a million dollars in the bank because they sold a house in California before the crash "wealthy". Someone who is retired, living off social security and has a million in the bank that he/she puts into 10 year treasuries will earn about $20K on that. Add that to $20-25K from social security and you call that wealthy?

my apologies. no, not wealthy, but certainly not poor. but their taxes won't go up either.
 
Isn't a third party, aka, Barrack Obama, claiming that he knows what "fair" is?

As do fox news pundits.

As well, many of his supporters will make the same claim, though they are actually quite fuzzy on what those percentages might be.

Is this an opinion, or do you have facts to back up your statement?See how lame that kinda off top post can be?:2wave:
 
LOL, ok, you gave countries, now what makes them successful and what are your standards? You want China's labor rates and pollution? You want European economic growth and unemployment. How about European tax rates? The grass is always greener some place else until you get there.

Actually, you are the who asked for successful socialist countries. What are your standards and what makes them successful in your eyes?
 
They may be, but it is a fact that we are paying less attention ourselves eslewhere and business is going to where they can be less careful. And roughshod is your word, not mine. You don't have to runroughshod over a willing partner. The fact is, we are doing damage and don't have to worry as much about it as they would here. You know this is true.

Worrying "about it as much as they would here" is very unlikely as the US has become paranoid to the extreme. We all want clean water, etc. but the lengths the US has gone to puts people out of work and does no real good in the long run. When the possibility of a bird's nest being disturbed causes an entire shut down, or regulations become so stifling that human interaction is made difficult, then you know that that a bridge has been crossed which makes business, and life in general, just too difficult.
 
it's been shown before. let me give you some links to read, though you could do your own search.

You know, I really do tend to read links which tend to support a position taken but they should be serious and unbiased. Such is not the case with the link you sent. When snarky comments are included with whatever points they are trying to make then it should be disqualified for serious consideration.
 
Worrying "about it as much as they would here" is very unlikely as the US has become paranoid to the extreme. We all want clean water, etc. but the lengths the US has gone to puts people out of work and does no real good in the long run. When the possibility of a bird's nest being disturbed causes an entire shut down, or regulations become so stifling that human interaction is made difficult, then you know that that a bridge has been crossed which makes business, and life in general, just too difficult.

By all means feel free to show this in significant numbers. Would you like to see some of the destruction around the world? hows that clean water thing doing everywhere?
 
Back
Top Bottom