[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The reality is that BOTH parties are counting on a future that doesn’t include large blocks of Americans.
Neither party has a lot to be proud about.
Mufasa[/quote]
I disagree. I think the republics generally believe their plan is best for all Americans (even if incorrectly). Obama has explicitly stated he is against the rich and is in favor of punishing people for being wealthy.
"Q: You favor an increase in the capital gains tax, saying, â??I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28%.â?? Itâ??s now 15%. Thatâ??s almost a doubling if you went to 28%. Bill Clinton dropped the capital gains tax to 20%, then George Bush has taken it down to 15%. And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28%, the revenues went down.
A: What Iâ??ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. The top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year–$29 billion for 50 individuals. Those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. Thatâ??s not fair.
Q: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
A: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on whatâ??s happening on Wall Street and how business is going."
Think about this. If the republicans are the party of the rich, then they gain power by keeping the rich rich, and making as many people rich as possible. Conversely if the Dems are the party of the poor, they stay in power by keeping the poor poor and making as many people poor as possible. Even if the dems are the party of the “middle class” they gain power by hurting the rich. That is what it means to not include blocks of Americans.[/quote]
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.[/quote]
He considers success a punishable offense. Call it whatever you want.
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.[/quote]
Exactly, he quotes “fairness” as a reason for raising taxes. That implies that those who have succeeded financially are not paying their fair share. And he has also said that before as well. As if the top 10% paying 70% of all income tax is not fair enough.
Obama definitely has socialist tendency’s. We saw what he did his first two years when both the house and senate were democrat, he instituted the largest government take over of 1/6th the economy with Obamacare. If he were to be given free reign he would not doubt turn us into a european style socialist country.
Does he “hate” the rich? I don’t think it matters which emotion that he puts behind his socialistic policies. The fact is he’s bad…really BAD for America.
You know I also believe that too many are dependent on the GOV. but they include Farming corporations , Oil companies, Military Contractors . I personally would like to see them totally revamp welfare .
You can not just want to change the name of Social Security Insurance to Social Security Tax and do away with the implied promise and ignore all the other issues and say “I AM CONSERVATIVE”
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.[/quote]
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement. Also if you reinvest the money you defer the accruement
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.[/quote]
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement. Also if you reinvest the money you defer the accruement
[/quote]
They are already taxed at a much higher rate. The guy pays taxes when the company earns it, then again when he gets it out of the company. If you taxed it the same as everything else, you’d be cutting taxes.
The President no more “hates” the rich than Romney “hates” the poor.
Historically EACH party has pandered to particular groups, leading often to historical changes in both parties focus; platforms; and voter make-up. If you guys don’t see that, then I am clearly missing your point in saying that one party panders and the other doesn’t.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Did you read his quote? He literally wanted to penalize rich people for making money even if it hurt everyone in the end. Maybe you and I have different definitions of hate. That is hate in my book. I haven’t ever see anything similar from republicans that I can think of.
[/quote]
I agree with you on this–I’m against raising the capital gains tax, certainly against setting it back at 28%.
But the guy is talking about raising a tax “for the purpose of fairness”–his words. Wrongheaded? Yes. But come on, hate is a ridiculously hyperbolic word to be tossing around here, and your using it does nothing but undermine your own (otherwise valid) argument.[/quote]
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement. Also if you reinvest the money you defer the accruement
[/quote]
They are already taxed at a much higher rate. The guy pays taxes when the company earns it, then again when he gets it out of the company. If you taxed it the same as everything else, you’d be cutting taxes.[/quote]
I personally would eliminate Corporate taxes and individuals would pay a higher percentage . I would also change some things about what a Corporation is .
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
Yeah, you’d be playing with fire.[/quote]
I know phantom economics [/quote]
Lol, anyone who thinking taxing long term capital gains at ordinary rates is a good idea, doesn’t “know” shit.
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
Yeah, you’d be playing with fire.[/quote]
I know phantom economics [/quote]
Lol, anyone who thinking taxing long term capital gains at ordinary rates is a good idea, doesn’t “know” shit.[/quote]
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
Yeah, you’d be playing with fire.[/quote]
I know phantom economics [/quote]
Lol, anyone who thinking taxing long term capital gains at ordinary rates is a good idea, doesn’t “know” shit.[/quote]
[/quote]
How dare I have an opinion that is not sanctioned by the Beancounter. IMO income is income once you convert your asset to money the gain is called income
IMO capital gains should be taxed at the normal rate with exceptions to with Ma and Pa selling their house for retirement.
[/quote]
This serves as a dis-incentive to investing in the market.
If that is what you are looking for, fine, but understand that will put a few companies out fo business. GM for example. Based on what we know, they would go under having to fund everything through operations. But, best case you are looking at a very large shift in how companies operate. I would expect a drop in payroll expense when they have to fund so much more through operations rather than market capital.
Thing is, I don’t see bonds doing any better either. Interest is already taxed at OI rates, so…
Yeah, you’d be playing with fire.[/quote]
I think profit is enough incentive . As you say bonds are paying so low almost no one will invest in them . Corporations are making record profits