[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why did government just take over 1/6th of the US economy with the national health care bill? When a free market solution was never even tried.
Ha.[/quote]
we have tried the free market solution since the Medical Insurance Industry swayed from Nonprofit in the 80s
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why did Obama just pass the largest tax increase in the history of the US in order to pay for health care?
Ha.[/quote]
Eye Roll , says FAUX NEWS
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why is Obama threatening to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which would raise taxes an additional 5% on every working American. And no doubt send the economy into another recession.
Ha.[/quote]
because the middle class says that the altra wealthy paying less than %15 and the middle class paying %30 is called inequity
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why did government just take over 1/6th of the US economy with the national health care bill? When a free market solution was never even tried.
Ha.[/quote]
we have tried the free market solution since the Medical Insurance Industry swayed from Nonprofit in the 80s
[/quote]
You think there is a free health insurance market in the US?
Cool beans.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why is Obama threatening to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which would raise taxes an additional 5% on every working American. And no doubt send the economy into another recession.
Ha.[/quote]
because the middle class says that the altra wealthy paying less than %15 and the middle class paying %30 is called inequity
[/quote]
Yeah, they say a lot of stupid things.
Thats why they should be glad to even be in the middle class, even that is often undeserved.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak what is fair for you ,.
[/quote]
You want to know what I think is unfair?
110 million people on welfare, out of 314 million in the US…
That means I have to labor 50% harder to carry my “fair share” of these 110. Are you going to tell me that every single one is beyond the point of improving their life? 30% of Americans honestly can’t provide for themselves?
If that is true, more tax a) isn’t going to come anywhere near to solving our problem, b) everyone focused on Obama’s attack ads and not this graphic are morons that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Think about this:
A 12% increase in AGI will bring in more tax revenue for the treasury than a 5% increase in tax. A 12% increase is AGI is 4 years worth of cost of living raises. 4 Years of 3% raises, ignoring compounding interest for sake of brevity.
So, if we focus on increasing everyone’s earnings, we get more tax revenue, more economic activity, growth, less welfare, happy people that aren’t starting another fucking war that will never end, and the government doesn’t have to steal from tax payer to give it to his buddies.
You know how we start to raise wages? Take away government’s power. Once government has power, businesses will have fear of the market, and have to stop taking so many risks. If they know the Fed isn’t there printing money and the government won’t steal from us to prop up their bad choices, they will have to operate better. And once government loses it’s power they won’t bother trying to influence them, they can’t do shit but pave a road or two.
The Romney tax issue isn’t going to go away. Brand new ad:
But this is the first I’ve heard of the “son of BOSS” scandal (I had to look it up… basically, it appears to be a technique for cheating on deductions). Romney could end all the speculation tomorrow, by releasing his taxes (they’re all set to go, since he’s submitted 20 years worth to the McCain campaign.) It’s not like it would take a huge effort. At this point, he’s put more effort into NOT releasing his taxes.
If Romney is going to win, he needs to be gaining ground now. But he’s not, he’s losing ground. The other day, his spokeswoman recommended Romneycare as a solution for people who lost their health insurance (everybody, just move to Massachusetts). So, Obamacare is off the table as a campaign issue now (like I said it would be). When Romney says he’s going to repeal it, now everybody knows he’s just pandering to the Republican base. His handlers don’t believe Romneycare is bad.
But this tax thing will continue to be an issue. It’s certainly going to be a topic of conversation during the debates. Right now, Romney is ducking the media (he only goes on shows where they throw softballs). He’s hiding from the press. You really think the media will just forget all about this?
If Romney was smart, he would have released all his tax info right after he locked up the primary. That way, it would have been old news by election time. Too late now!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
-Why did government just take over 1/6th of the US economy with the national health care bill? When a free market solution was never even tried.
Ha.[/quote]
we have tried the free market solution since the Medical Insurance Industry swayed from Nonprofit in the 80s
[/quote]
You think there is a free health insurance market in the US?
Cool beans.
[/quote]
There’s no such thing as a “Free Market”. Every market has some controls and is subject to manipulation. That’s one of the reasons that Libertarianism is a joke. It’s a bunch of hypothetical utopian bullshit with no practical application. That’s why nobody takes it seriously.
But if you want to name one economy in the history of the world that had a true “Free Market” I’d be glad to check it out. How did it turn out?
[quote]K2000 wrote:
(I had to look it up… basically, it appears to be a technique for cheating on deductions). [/quote]
You don’t understand the very tax code you pay into every year.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
But this tax thing will continue to be an issue. [/quote]
It is an “issue” because the vast majority of the public are fiscal morons, let alone completely clueless about tax.
He is in VC, he doesn’t need to make up complex tax schemes to generate losses. ANd guess what, zero people in the world will be able to find that “son of boss” bullshit on his tax return, zero.
Hey beans have you noticed that most on this board are cluelss as to how much the wealthy actually pay in taxes?
It would be funny if it were not so dangerous.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak what is fair for you ,.
[/quote]
You want to know what I think is unfair?
110 million people on welfare, out of 314 million in the US…
That means I have to labor 50% harder to carry my “fair share” of these 110. Are you going to tell me that every single one is beyond the point of improving their life? 30% of Americans honestly can’t provide for themselves?
If that is true, more tax a) isn’t going to come anywhere near to solving our problem, b) everyone focused on Obama’s attack ads and not this graphic are morons that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Think about this:
A 12% increase in AGI will bring in more tax revenue for the treasury than a 5% increase in tax. A 12% increase is AGI is 4 years worth of cost of living raises. 4 Years of 3% raises, ignoring compounding interest for sake of brevity.
So, if we focus on increasing everyone’s earnings, we get more tax revenue, more economic activity, growth, less welfare, happy people that aren’t starting another fucking war that will never end, and the government doesn’t have to steal from tax payer to give it to his buddies.
You know how we start to raise wages? Take away government’s power. Once government has power, businesses will have fear of the market, and have to stop taking so many risks. If they know the Fed isn’t there printing money and the government won’t steal from us to prop up their bad choices, they will have to operate better. And once government loses it’s power they won’t bother trying to influence them, they can’t do shit but pave a road or two.
[/quote]
Commenting on your picture , It is after that great Republican George Bush ran the economy into the ditch that all those people became poor enough to qualify for welfare . I know and the Democratic house EYE ROLL . Zeb you just rehash the rhetoric faux news starts
Well here is an issue for you to ponder.
The congress wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%. The problem is that it can only be achieved if we increase the individual rates.
A lot of small businesses operate as pass through entities, meaning their earnings are not tax at the entity level but rather at the individual level. So, if the corporate rate is 25%, why would you continue to operate as a pass through entity which would pay 39.6%?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak what is fair for you ,.
[/quote]
You want to know what I think is unfair?
110 million people on welfare, out of 314 million in the US…
That means I have to labor 50% harder to carry my “fair share” of these 110. Are you going to tell me that every single one is beyond the point of improving their life? 30% of Americans honestly can’t provide for themselves?
If that is true, more tax a) isn’t going to come anywhere near to solving our problem, b) everyone focused on Obama’s attack ads and not this graphic are morons that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Think about this:
A 12% increase in AGI will bring in more tax revenue for the treasury than a 5% increase in tax. A 12% increase is AGI is 4 years worth of cost of living raises. 4 Years of 3% raises, ignoring compounding interest for sake of brevity.
So, if we focus on increasing everyone’s earnings, we get more tax revenue, more economic activity, growth, less welfare, happy people that aren’t starting another fucking war that will never end, and the government doesn’t have to steal from tax payer to give it to his buddies.
You know how we start to raise wages? Take away government’s power. Once government has power, businesses will have fear of the market, and have to stop taking so many risks. If they know the Fed isn’t there printing money and the government won’t steal from us to prop up their bad choices, they will have to operate better. And once government loses it’s power they won’t bother trying to influence them, they can’t do shit but pave a road or two.
[/quote]
Commenting on your picture , It is after that great Republican George Bush ran the economy into the ditch that all those people became poor enough to qualify for welfare . I know and the Democratic house EYE ROLL . Zeb you just rehash the rhetoric faux news starts
[/quote]
Bush created about 4 million jobs when he cut taxes by 5% for every working person in America. What has your hero done in four years?
-Unemployment over 8% for something like 44 straight months
-16 trillion dollar debt of which he is responsible for 5 trillion. Of which he said that Bush was unpatriotic for allowing the debt to climb. And Obama raised it by more in less time!
-43 million people on food stamps and a total of 100 million reliant on some sort of government hand out.
What a failure Obama has been!
Now try really hard to refute the facts without your usual tendency to speak in general terms.
[quote]D Public wrote:
Well here is an issue for you to ponder.
The congress wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%. The problem is that it can only be achieved if we increase the individual rates.
A lot of small businesses operate as pass through entities, meaning their earnings are not tax at the entity level but rather at the individual level. So, if the corporate rate is 25%, why would you continue to operate as a pass through entity which would pay 39.6%?
Obama is screwing the small business person by (only threatening so far) allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
However, if that does occur I assure everyone who is reading this that we will enter into a recession that will make the previous one look like an economic boon!
[/quote]
[quote]D Public wrote:
Well here is an issue for you to ponder.
The congress wants to lower the corporate tax rate to 25%. The problem is that it can only be achieved if we increase the individual rates.
A lot of small businesses operate as pass through entities, meaning their earnings are not tax at the entity level but rather at the individual level. So, if the corporate rate is 25%, why would you continue to operate as a pass through entity which would pay 39.6%?
[/quote]
IMO corp tax rate should be zero , I bet the big corps are already at zero, How bout it Beans 
@ZEB
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2008/07/13/26124/george-will-gramm/
we were in full blown recession when Bush left
I’m just glad no matter what the next Commander in Chief will:
1.) Be a lawyer…awesome
2.) Have no military experience…awesome
3.) Have more money than the majority of Americans (don’t know the %) and still pretend he understands the working/middle class. This isn’t a dig at the rich, I love the rich, and the example they set for someone like me to emulate and aspire to, at least their monetary success anyway. All I’m saying is that the majority of America is made up of hard working, middle income, workers. Not Harvard grads that make millions.
How can they possible understand what a 22 year old with 50K in student loans and no job is going through or a 90 year old on a fixed income for that matter. I?d prefer a candidate that at least started as a 99% and is now a 1%. Maybe he could teach our lazy youth a thing or two about hard work, sacrifice, and reward. Neither of these candidates are anything but silver spoon self serving politicians.
All these last two elections have proven to me is how broken our system is. Are these really the two best choices for POTUS??
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I can not speak what is fair for you ,.
[/quote]
You want to know what I think is unfair?
110 million people on welfare, out of 314 million in the US…
That means I have to labor 50% harder to carry my “fair share” of these 110. Are you going to tell me that every single one is beyond the point of improving their life? 30% of Americans honestly can’t provide for themselves?
If that is true, more tax a) isn’t going to come anywhere near to solving our problem, b) everyone focused on Obama’s attack ads and not this graphic are morons that shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
Think about this:
A 12% increase in AGI will bring in more tax revenue for the treasury than a 5% increase in tax. A 12% increase is AGI is 4 years worth of cost of living raises. 4 Years of 3% raises, ignoring compounding interest for sake of brevity.
So, if we focus on increasing everyone’s earnings, we get more tax revenue, more economic activity, growth, less welfare, happy people that aren’t starting another fucking war that will never end, and the government doesn’t have to steal from tax payer to give it to his buddies.
You know how we start to raise wages? Take away government’s power. Once government has power, businesses will have fear of the market, and have to stop taking so many risks. If they know the Fed isn’t there printing money and the government won’t steal from us to prop up their bad choices, they will have to operate better. And once government loses it’s power they won’t bother trying to influence them, they can’t do shit but pave a road or two.
[/quote]
Commenting on your picture , It is after that great Republican George Bush ran the economy into the ditch that all those people became poor enough to qualify for welfare . I know and the Democratic house EYE ROLL . Zeb you just rehash the rhetoric faux news starts
[/quote]
Bush created about 4 million jobs when he cut taxes by 5% for every working person in America. What has your hero done in four years?
-Unemployment over 8% for something like 44 straight months
-16 trillion dollar debt of which he is responsible for 5 trillion. Of which he said that Bush was unpatriotic for allowing the debt to climb. And Obama raised it by more in less time!
-43 million people on food stamps and a total of 100 million reliant on some sort of government hand out.
What a failure Obama has been!
Now try really hard to refute the facts without your usual tendency to speak in general terms.[/quote]
Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?
Also what do you think the unemployment rate SHOULD be? 0%, so even lazy unemployable people should still be able to get a job?
[quote]D Public wrote:
A lot of small businesses operate as pass through entities, meaning their earnings are not tax at the entity level but rather at the individual level. So, if the corporate rate is 25%, why would you continue to operate as a pass through entity which would pay 39.6%?
[/quote]
Because taking your profits out of a C-Corp ends up taxing you twice. You will pay 25% when you earn the profit, and the 40% when you claim the dividend received.
But, if it is a closely held business you could just bonus it out to yourself every year, but you still pay 13% payroll tax on it, and then 40% as OI on your individual return. Plus, in the case of litigation, this starts giving people an in to pierce the veil.
Both those situations have you paying more than just staying a pass through and paying the 40% with free flow of capital in and out of your business.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Employment changes don’t happen overnight. The month Obama took office you could not blame the current employment status of the country on him. How long into his term do you think the unemployment rate was still a result of bush?
Also what do you think the unemployment rate SHOULD be? 0%, so even lazy unemployable people should still be able to get a job?[/quote]
I’m a little confused by your statement. Shouldn’t 3.5 years be enough time to say, “Hey President Obama umm have you seen the unemployment rate??”
I’d say a reasonable unemployment rate is around 7% and I don’t think the president has a whole lot to do with it.