White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Catawba · Oct 10, 2011

Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

"I think the message is obvious," said Jesse Lagreca, 38. "The wealthiest one percent is taking advantage of working class people. They've been selling us faulty financial products, they've been taking huge bonuses while depending on society to bail them out."

CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the 2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work."

Moneywatch: Shrinking Incomes Fuel Protester Anger

"Ninety-nine percent of the people need to be prospering, not just the top one percent," said Michael Mulgrew, president of New York City's United Federation of Teachers.

"Every community knows they're hurting, what's going on is wrong, and it's time to stop this and make a difference, and do things that allow all people to prosper."

Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News

TurtleDude · Oct 10, 2011

It appears to be a collection of losers who convince each other that being a loser is not their own fault but the fault of others

In other words its a support group for failures

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Catawba said:
Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

"I think the message is obvious," said Jesse Lagreca, 38. "The wealthiest one percent is taking advantage of working class people. They've been selling us faulty financial products, they've been taking huge bonuses while depending on society to bail them out."

CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the 2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work."

Moneywatch: Shrinking Incomes Fuel Protester Anger

"Ninety-nine percent of the people need to be prospering, not just the top one percent," said Michael Mulgrew, president of New York City's United Federation of Teachers.

"Every community knows they're hurting, what's going on is wrong, and it's time to stop this and make a difference, and do things that allow all people to prosper."

Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News

And what are those protests going to do to solve the problem? Obama has been in charge for over 2 1/2 years and the results today are worse than when he took office as I have posted. Your total lack of understanding of how business works just fuels these idiots. Didn't see one employer on the streets seeking job applicants, did you?

You really have misguided anger. We have a 3.7 trillion dollar Federal Govt. and a 14.6 trillion dollar debt. You do realize that those evil rich people pay higher taxes when their income goes up, don't you? So tell me how the 14.6 trillion dollar debt and massive expansion of the govt. will solve the economic problems we have today?

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

TurtleDude said:
It appears to be a collection of losers who convince each other that being a loser is not their own fault but the fault of others

In other words its a support group for failures

As usual you nailed it but that will go right over the head of those here that support the class warfare and attack on private industry for in their world it is always someone else's fault for their own personal failures.

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
What you fail to recognize is that we are over 2 1/2 years into the Obama Presidency who with OVERWHELMING numbers in the Congress generated the results I have posted and you have ignored. You can claim the economy was a wreck when he took office but you ignore his influence and the Congress influence on that economy blaming everything on GW Bush. All that does is divert from reality today and the 38% JAR of Obama. Only a true liberal believer ignores results and believes that more liberalism which created the problem is better to solve the problem. I doubt seriously that you know how the private sector works which makes you part of the 38% that continues to support Obama.

Again, I'm not ignoring it. But unlike you, I'm not ignoring that the economy lost 8 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession. 12 million lost to underemployment. No human on Earth could fix that in 2½ years. Never since the Great Depression has a president dumped an economy losing 12 million jobs to underemployment on his successor.

The funniest part about your rants is on one hand, you complain endlessly how Obama isn't creating enough jobs while in the other hand, you claim the government can't create jobs.

Conservative said:
What I see from people like you is total ignorance about human behavior and what affects individual economics. Inflation affects individual buying power, High interest rates affect credit cards, home mortgages, auto loans, and high unemployment affects personal income. All those were high or rising when Reagan took office. Unemployment was rising when Obama took office but interest rates and inflation were low making the 81-82 individual more damaging to the individual.

That is BS -- please stop lying.

When Reagan became president, inflation was dropping, not rising...

Historical Inflation Rates

When Reagan became president, interest rates were dropping, not rising...

Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data

When Reagan became president, the unemployment rate was flat, not rising...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Conservative said:
The issue though is not 2009, the issue is today and the results today show that "your" President is a disaster. 38% still believe and drink the kool-aid, guess we know where you stand.

There are many issues being discussed, most of which, you participate in. You said the 1981-82 recession was worse than the 2008-09 recession. Well like it or not, the onus is on you to prove it. You're citing inflation as one of the factors that made the earlier recession worse but inflation is not an indicator of the economy. You have accepted this as true by twice avoiding my question which I highlighted in red, so you know it, yet you spout otherwise anyway. Meanwhile, you ignore GDP which is the strongest indicator of the economy and the reason you ignore it is because it proves Bush's Great Recession was worse.

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

Thunder said:
then WTF should we be giving them special tax-rates and rights of personhood?

if corporations are not going to even attempt to work towards the greater good of our society ALONG with making money, then **** them.

Is there some requirement that business is beholden to the "Greater good of society" when they attain their status of 'Inc.', or 'Corp'.... And can you point this out in writing please?

j-mac

Catawba · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Is there some requirement that business is beholden to the "Greater good of society" when they attain their status of 'Inc.', or 'Corp'.... And can you point this out in writing please?

j-mac

The theory behind our 30 year failed experiment with trickle down economics was that the tax breaks given to the rich would create jobs. The realization being made that without the commitment to create jobs, there is no justification to continue their tax breaks.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti;1059860385]Again, I'm not ignoring it. But unlike you, I'm not ignoring that the economy lost 8 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession. 12 million lost to underemployment. No human on Earth could fix that in 2½ years. Never since the Great Depression has a president dumped an economy losing 12 million jobs to underemployment on his successor.

As has been pointed out the recession wasn't created by Bush alone and Obama was part of that Congress. In addition the 2009 budget was passed almost entirely with Democrat votes including Obama's. Then Obama put the Department heads in place to spend the money and make the economic policies that have generated the results we have today. You continue to give him a pass while blaming everything on Bush. That shows just how partisan and biased you really are.

The funniest part about your rants is on one hand, you complain endlessly how Obama isn't creating enough jobs while in the other hand, you claim the government can't create jobs.

By your own standards then how did Bush lose all those jobs. If the govt. cannot create them the President cannot lose them? The fact is you are wrong, Govt. sets the policy that affects job creation by the private sector. You don't have a clue how the private sector works and have been brainwashed by an ideology that is a failure. All you do is divert from the failures of this Administration to continue to focus on the past.

That is BS -- please stop lying.

You love using that term when liberalism is totally based upon lies and distortions.

When Reagan became president, inflation was dropping, not rising...

Historical Inflation Rates

When Reagan became president, interest rates were dropping, not rising...

Mortgage (ARM) Indexes: Prime Rate: Historical Data

When Reagan became president, the unemployment rate was flat, not rising...

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Obama economic results in 2011, .4% GDP and 1.3% GDP growth in 2011, 25+ million unemployed or under employed Americans in 2011, 4 trillion added to the debt in less than 3 years, and a downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Rising Misery index 7.83 to 12.67. 38-41% JAR and well over 50-55% disapproval ratings.

There are many issues being discussed, most of which, you participate in. You said the 1981-82 recession was worse than the 2008-09 recession. Well like it or not, the onus is on you to prove it. You're citing inflation as one of the factors that made the earlier recession worse but inflation is not an indicator of the economy. You have accepted this as true by twice avoiding my question which I highlighted in red, so you know it, yet you spout otherwise anyway. Meanwhile, you ignore GDP which is the strongest indicator of the economy and the reason you ignore it is because it proves Bush's Great Recession was worse.

I stand by my statement and the numbers back me up, high inflation, rising unemployment, and high interest rates.

Why do you continue to support this empty suit in the WH and since you weren't around in the 81-82 recession you have no basis for comparision. I lived and worked during both.

KevinKohler · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Is there some requirement that business is beholden to the "Greater good of society" when they attain their status of 'Inc.', or 'Corp'.... And can you point this out in writing please?

j-mac

When those corporations are allowed special rights and privileges that other citizens do not have. I don't think there is any contract stating that once a company goes from sole ownership, or dual partnership, to corporate, they owe a debt to society, no. My problem is, why allow a business that has gone corporate to be limited liability? It's absurd. Corporations, in addition to having minimized liability for their products, actions, and services, also pay vastly reduced tax rates on payroll, unemployment, and insurance. Now, you can make the claim of "buying bulk", but I can make the same claim of "buying bulk" with health insurance, ala obama care. Legal liability is not something you buy in bulk, for reductions. Taxes are not something you should pay less of, just because you have a higher tax liability. You talk about fare and equal treatment when it's the wealthy who are threatened with higher taxes and such, well, here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Fare and equal means for EVERYONE. Including businesses of a certain size. If you want to learn more about the legal differences between sole owner, partner, or corporate, I implore you do so, then you can have a much better understanding of what some people are crying foul about.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Catawba said:
The theory behind our 30 year failed experiment with trickle down economics was that the tax breaks given to the rich would create jobs. The realization being made that without the commitment to create jobs, there is no justification to continue their tax breaks.

I hope you are sending your tax cuts back to the Federal Govt. since that is where you believe all the problems are solved.

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

Catawba said:
The theory behind our 30 year failed experiment with trickle down economics was that the tax breaks given to the rich would create jobs. The realization being made that without the commitment to create jobs, there is no justification to continue their tax breaks.

Can you answer the question?

j-mac

TurtleDude · Oct 10, 2011

Catawba said:
The theory behind our 30 year failed experiment with trickle down economics was that the tax breaks given to the rich would create jobs. The realization being made that without the commitment to create jobs, there is no justification to continue their tax breaks.

and the 50 years of welfare handouts and the war on poverty was to eliminate poverty. all it did was create multigenerational entitlement addicts

We didn't have income taxes for more than half our history. we did fine without them

Catawba · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Can you answer the question?

j-mac

I just did.

KevinKohler · Oct 10, 2011

j-mac said:
Can you answer the question?

j-mac

I know you're not talking to me, but...
When those corporations are allowed special rights and privileges that other citizens do not have. I don't think there is any contract stating that once a company goes from sole ownership, or dual partnership, to corporate, they owe a debt to society, no. My problem is, why allow a business that has gone corporate to be limited liability? It's absurd. Corporations, in addition to having minimized liability for their products, actions, and services, also pay vastly reduced tax rates on payroll, unemployment, and insurance. Now, you can make the claim of "buying bulk", but I can make the same claim of "buying bulk" with health insurance, ala obama care. Legal liability is not something you buy in bulk, for reductions. Taxes are not something you should pay less of, just because you have a higher tax liability. You talk about fare and equal treatment when it's the wealthy who are threatened with higher taxes and such, well, here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Fare and equal means for EVERYONE. Including businesses of a certain size. If you want to learn more about the legal differences between sole owner, partner, or corporate, I implore you do so, then you can have a much better understanding of what some people are crying foul about.

Catawba · Oct 10, 2011

TurtleDude said:
and the 50 years of welfare handouts and the war on poverty was to eliminate poverty. all it did was create multigenerational entitlement addicts

Click to expand...

Wrong, a lack of adequate paying jobs is what has created more welfare.

The entitlement mentality is among the rich that have received tax cuts for so long now, they believe they are entitled to them.

We didn't have income taxes for more than half our history. we did fine without them

Click to expand...

Only the libertarians and the fringe nuts like Cain are proposing no income taxes and they received 0.4% of the vote in the last election, so best of luck there in your dream of going backwards in time.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

KevinKohler said:
I know you're not talking to me, but...
When those corporations are allowed special rights and privileges that other citizens do not have. I don't think there is any contract stating that once a company goes from sole ownership, or dual partnership, to corporate, they owe a debt to society, no. My problem is, why allow a business that has gone corporate to be limited liability? It's absurd. Corporations, in addition to having minimized liability for their products, actions, and services, also pay vastly reduced tax rates on payroll, unemployment, and insurance. Now, you can make the claim of "buying bulk", but I can make the same claim of "buying bulk" with health insurance, ala obama care. Legal liability is not something you buy in bulk, for reductions. Taxes are not something you should pay less of, just because you have a higher tax liability. You talk about fare and equal treatment when it's the wealthy who are threatened with higher taxes and such, well, here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Fare and equal means for EVERYONE. Including businesses of a certain size. If you want to learn more about the legal differences between sole owner, partner, or corporate, I implore you do so, then you can have a much better understanding of what some people are crying foul about.

Sorry, but you have a very misguided view of corporations as they do not have special rights and priviledges that individuals don't have as any one that incorporates has those same rights. What is a corporation other than a legal entity? How many times do you want to tax a corporation? Corporations can be sued and are sued almost daily so not sure where you get the idea that they aren't

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Sorry, but you have a very misguided view of corporations as they do not have special rights and priviledges that individuals don't have as any one that incorporates has those same rights. What is a corporation other than a legal entity? How many times do you want to tax a corporation? Corporations can be sued and are sued almost daily so not sure where you get the idea that they aren't

Well I wouldn't call it rights or privileges, but they definitely do have regulatory laws which stop them from ruining our world.

Sheik Yerbuti · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
As has been pointed out the recession wasn't created by Bush alone and Obama was part of that Congress. In addition the 2009 budget was passed almost entirely with Democrat votes including Obama's. Then Obama put the Department heads in place to spend the money and make the economic policies that have generated the results we have today. You continue to give him a pass while blaming everything on Bush. That shows just how partisan and biased you really are.

The recession was caused by mostly Republican policies and was the result of those policies from years prior to 2007. Nothing the Democrats did or didn't do in 2007-2008 caused it. The economy collapsed froom the multitude of toxic loans written years earlier. That was the time to do something about it. By 2007, the damage was done, the housing market had already begun collapsing the year prior while Republicans were still in charge.

Conservative said:
By your own standards then how did Bush lose all those jobs. If the govt. cannot create them the President cannot lose them?

Dayam, Conservative, talk about spin ... that is your standard, not mine. I believe the government can create jobs. How the hell do you ascribe your standards onto me and then tell me I'm the one who's wrong??

:naughty:

Conservative said:
The fact is you are wrong, Govt. sets the policy that affects job creation by the private sector. You don't have a clue how the private sector works and have been brainwashed by an ideology that is a failure. All you do is divert from the failures of this Administration to continue to focus on the past.

Yet more BS? I have shown you how every term for every Republican president except for Reagan since Hoover saw the unemployment rate rise; compared to every term for every Democrat president where the unemployment rate never rose. That you think Conservatives know how to drive the economy better than Liberals only speaks to you devotion to your ideology.

Conservative said:
You love using that term when liberalism is totally based upon lies and distortions.

That too is BS. Whenever I claim you are lying about something, I back up my accusation with facts. That's usually the point when you retreat to your talking points. That is not an allegation I make lightly and there is no one else on the forum I have said that about. You, on the other hand, are pathological and it's been well documented on here.

pbrauer · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
I hope you are sending your tax cuts back to the Federal Govt. since that is where you believe all the problems are solved.

Why would anyone pay more taxes than are required, that's just plain stupid?

(Get you whacks in early since this thread is so close to the 2K mark. Redress is likely to put this thread out of it's misery when she logs into DP today. :mrgreen:}

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

BTW, if Obama's campaign slogan was "Change", WTF was he wanting to change?

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
Well I wouldn't call it rights or privileges, but they definitely do have regulatory laws which stop them from ruining our world.

So what? where is your outrage over the govt. running wild and ruining our country? Govt has done more harm over the past 30 years than any corporation but they are easy targets and a great diversion for liberals.

Conservative · Oct 10, 2011

Jryan said:
BTW, if Obama's campaign slogan was "Change", WTF was he wanting to change?

Tone in Washington, no lobbyists, transparency. He lied.

Ockham · Oct 10, 2011

pbrauer said:
Why would anyone pay more taxes than are required, that's just plain stupid?

Why is it stupid? If people have more than they need it seems perfectly acceptable for them to voluntarily pay more. Noblesse Oblige.

j-mac · Oct 10, 2011

KevinKohler said:
When those corporations are allowed special rights and privileges that other citizens do not have. I don't think there is any contract stating that once a company goes from sole ownership, or dual partnership, to corporate, they owe a debt to society, no.

However, Thunder, which you may, or may not agree with used the language, "if corporations are not going to even attempt to work towards the greater good of our society ALONG with making money, then **** them." I was asking what obligation corporations have in this regard....It makes me wonder if people railing against corporations today even know what a corporation is.

My problem is, why allow a business that has gone corporate to be limited liability? It's absurd.

One reason could very well be that in the shift from an industrial manufacturing base, to a service based economy, in a country that levy's one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, there needs to be incentive for these businesses to remain in the US.

Corporations, in addition to having minimized liability for their products, actions, and services, also pay vastly reduced tax rates on payroll, unemployment, and insurance.

Can you draw a comparison between say a corporation doing business in the US say, and one in Canada doing similar business and their total tax liability?

Now, you can make the claim of "buying bulk", but I can make the same claim of "buying bulk" with health insurance, ala obama care.

As far as Obamacare goes, all you have to date is speculation. No one knows exactly how this will effect business, however, most businesses are finding that it will be negative, that is the reason for so many waivers.

Legal liability is not something you buy in bulk, for reductions.

Huh? what does that even mean?

Taxes are not something you should pay less of, just because you have a higher tax liability.

Again, this dichotomy makes no sense...Ofcourse, anyone, business, or personal, why should anyone not try and reduce their tax bill if they do it in a legal way?

You talk about fare and equal treatment when it's the wealthy who are threatened with higher taxes and such, well, here's a chance to put your money where your mouth is. Fare and equal means for EVERYONE. Including businesses of a certain size.

Fair, not 'fare' I assume is what you meant...However, What do you consider "Fair" when we have 47% in this country paying nothing?

If you want to learn more about the legal differences between sole owner, partner, or corporate, I implore you do so, then you can have a much better understanding of what some people are crying foul about.

Are you in business? Do you have a degree in business? I am not questioning your bona fides, why are you questioning mine? Is it that two people can not have a conversation without being MBA's?

j-mac

Jryan · Oct 10, 2011

Conservative said:
Tone in Washington, no lobbyists, transparency. He lied.

Lobbyist can be good. The ones that are bad are the ones that are payed millions of dollars by big corporations. The intention of lobbyist was used and is abused by our current system.

White House Tax Plan Would Ask More of Millionaires

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Conservative

Conservative

Sheik Yerbuti

j-mac

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

KevinKohler

Conservative

j-mac

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

KevinKohler

Catawba

Disappointed Evolutionist

Conservative

Jryan

Sheik Yerbuti

pbrauer

Jryan

Conservative

Conservative

Ockham

Noblesse oblige

j-mac

Jryan