mnealtx 0 #26 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuote Tyranny of the majority is a poor way set any type of policy. Would you prefer a dictatorship to elections? I share George Bush's thoughts on the subject: Quote If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator "It's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one" - Valerie Jarrett “Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, ‘No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintao’s words in Tahrir Square.’” "As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #27 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Tyranny of the majority is a poor way set any type of policy. Would you prefer a dictatorship to elections? I share George Bush's thoughts on the subject: Quote If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier... just so long as I'm the dictator "It's important that President-elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one" - Valerie Jarrett Mr. Obama has told people that it would be so much easier to be the president of China. As one official put it, No one is scrutinizing Hu Jintaos words in Tahrir Square. "As I mentioned when I was at La Raza a few weeks back, I wish I had a magic wand and could make this all happen on my own," Obama told a meeting of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. "There are times where -- until Nancy Pelosi is speaker again -- I'd like to work my way around Congress." Yup. The parties and their presidents are two sides of the same counterfeit coin kowtowing to the corporatist interests that paid to elect them and taking whatever liberties with the Constitution they can get away with. Apart from that it's a nice change to have a conservative in the oval office. Bush 41 was the first to use executive orders to ban guns. Bush 43 made America's tax system the most progressive (ratio of income tax paid to share of income in the top earning decile) out of the OECD 24 (also including Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom). Obama 44 eliminated capital gains taxes for venture capital firms on their seed money and many series-A investments and his stepped up immigration law enforcement has nearly equalled Bush 43's felony illegal rentry prosecutions over eight years in his first term! Too bad we're stuck with the same money funnels to those corporatist interests. Obama 44's federal subsidies to insurance companies are going to be as big as Bush 43's Medicare Part D redirection to pharmaceutical companies. There's also the whole "defense" mess (long before you're spending as much as the rest of the world put together without building an empire it's no longer about defense and is instead about either getting money into private industry or a socialist make-work program). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #28 April 11, 2012 Quote There's also the whole "defense" mess (long before you're spending as much as the rest of the world put together without building an empire it's no longer about defense and is instead about either getting money into private industry or a socialist make-work program). I was watching a Discovery Channel program on Ancient Inventions, and the narrator, in an aside, pointed out that war has traditionally been used since ancient times as a means to concentrate power and/or wealth in the hands of a favored few. He also pointed out that in our time, the favored few have been defense contractors.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #29 April 11, 2012 QuoteYou continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. If Buffet is going to claim others need to pay more taxes, then saying that maybe his own company should pay the taxes it owes is fair game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #30 April 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteYou continue to confuse him and Bershire, the company he heads. The latter is a publicly traded company and his obligation is the the shareholders, not the government. If Buffet is going to claim others need to pay more taxes, then saying that maybe his own company should pay the taxes it owes is fair game. For once I agree with you. But corporate taxes and personal taxes are quite different things, unless like Romney, you think corporations ARE people.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 April 11, 2012 QuoteIf Buffet is going to claim others need to pay more taxes, then saying that maybe his own company should pay the taxes it owes is fair game. Except it doesn't take into account Buffet's reasoning for increased taxes on the very rich. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #32 April 12, 2012 http://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #33 April 12, 2012 Quotehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule No it isn't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #34 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuotehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule No it isn't. Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and distraction from the real issue which is that taxes are too high on both "the wealthy" and rest of us who pay income tax. It might be good marketing for Obama. Prior to 1913 there was no federal income tax. The 1913 income tax law allowed a $3000 exemption for single people ($65,331 in 2010 dollars) and $4000 for married couples ($87,108). The next $20,000 ($435,544) was taxed at 1%. Robber barons raking in $500,000 a year ($10,888,595) paid the top tax rate of 7%. The current standard deduction plus personal exemptions are $9650 for singles and $19300 for couples, which are off by a factor of 6.8 and 4.5. The lowest tax bracket is 10% capped at $8500 and $17000 so the rate there is off by a factor of 10 and bracket end off by factors of 51 and 26 for single and married people. The highest tax bracket is 35% starting at $379,151 with a rate off by a factor of 5 and minimum income a factor of 29. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #35 April 13, 2012 Is that all? You can't elaborate on your opinion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #36 April 13, 2012 QuoteIs that all? You can't elaborate on your opinion? for starter's, there's a clear bias shown by a graphic describing Obama's 2012-2022 deficits. At most you might try to attribute 2017 or 2018 due to the planning cycles. The last 4 years certainly can't be his. The other sum, the value of the tax is substantially (35%) lower than the one I've typically seen. So it seems to be cheating on both ends of the ratio. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #37 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteIs that all? You can't elaborate on your opinion? for starter's, there's a clear bias shown by a graphic describing Obama's 2012-2022 deficits. At most you might try to attribute 2017 or 2018 due to the planning cycles. The last 4 years certainly can't be his. The other sum, the value of the tax is substantially (35%) lower than the one I've typically seen. So it seems to be cheating on both ends of the ratio. Obama talked about how much the new tax would take in over 10 years, so it seems consistent to use the entire 10 year term being spoken of.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #38 April 13, 2012 Quote Obama talked about how much the new tax would take in over 10 years, so it seems consistent to use the entire 10 year term being spoken of. has he? seems like he's doing his best to avoid talking about that aspect. in any event, it's not 10 years of "Obama deficits." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #39 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuote Obama talked about how much the new tax would take in over 10 years, so it seems consistent to use the entire 10 year term being spoken of. has he? seems like he's doing his best to avoid talking about that aspect. in any event, it's not 10 years of "Obama deficits." So far it's been 3.5 years of "It's all Bush's fault". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #40 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule No it isn't. Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and . Nope. A tax system like the one we have in the USA depends for its effectiveness on a sense of fairness. The Buffett rule is a way of eliminating the perception and reality of UNfairness that allows billionaires to pay tax at a lower rate than middle class workers.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #41 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule No it isn't. Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and . Nope. A tax system like the one we have in the USA depends for its effectiveness on a sense of fairness. The Buffett rule is a way of eliminating the perception and reality of UNfairness that allows billionaires to pay tax at a lower rate than middle class workers. What would " BE FAIR " would be if everyone paid the same amount of tax, but we know that to many don't earn enough for that to happen. So we built a system that had different tiers so the more you made the higher dollar amount you paid. Then congress , in order to buy your vote, said we will help those less fortunate by eliminating your obligation to help this country financially, so now 49 million don't even contribute. Now we have the left bitching that those left paying are not paying their fair share need to pay more even though thay are paying almost all. I know I do not have a masters degree but last I heard is that "fair share" means you need to contribute something. The only ones that are not paying their Fair share are the 49 million that pay no fed income tax. Tell me if I am wrong and need further liberal training in a college of your choice. But just remember that if I do get a college eduacation it should be free because I need to get my "fair share of that whichI am entitled to". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #42 April 13, 2012 I like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #43 April 13, 2012 QuoteI like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely. yep, unlikely because everyone has to pay something, and we all know from what we have seen the last 3 years is that everybody paying something is not fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #44 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteI like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely. yep, unlikely because everyone has to pay something, and we all know from what we have seen the last 3 years is that everybody paying something is not fair. How much do you think the homeless people living in cardboard boxes on the grates on Wacker Drive will be able to contribute? Or 90 year old widows with Alzheimers?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #45 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteI like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely. yep, unlikely because everyone has to pay something, and we all know from what we have seen the last 3 years is that everybody paying something is not fair. How much do you think the homeless people living in cardboard boxes on the grates on Wacker Drive will be able to contribute? Or 90 year old widows with Alzheimers? the 90 year old has already paid before retirement and the bum there is no hope for but could pick up trash. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #46 April 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotehttp://www.zerohedge.com/news/buffett-rule-perspective An interesting perspective on the Buffet Rule No it isn't. Yes it is. It shows that this is a feel-good measure with a negligible effect on the bottom line and . Nope. A tax system like the one we have in the USA depends for its effectiveness on a sense of fairness. The Buffett rule is a way of eliminating the perception and reality of UNfairness that allows billionaires to pay tax at a lower rate than middle class workers. Using examples from this thread 65,000 AGI, 6.9% due in income tax 100,000 AGI, 10.6% due in income tax and Mitt Romney 20,900,000 AGI, 15.4% due in income tax shows a progressive tax system with many believing progressive taxation is "fair" It is in fact the most progressive income tax system (defined as the top earning decile's share of tax to share of income) out of OECD 24 including includes Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, The Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland, and The United Kingdom. Making it even more progressive is taking things way beyond fair to punitive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #47 April 13, 2012 QuoteI like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely. When people order pizza to share they usually divide up the bill by the number of people. That's fair. While a flat tax rate is less unfair than the current system, it's not fair like capitation where we divide up government spending by the number of citizens and send everyone their bill. The flat tax rate is a lot more workable though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #48 April 13, 2012 QuoteI like 'flat tax (obviously fair...make more / pay more), no deductions (spend your money how you want), and eliminate the IRS (huge cost savings)' Simple. Fair. Efficient. Unlikely. Without the IRS, who would make sure that people are paying their share?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,070 #49 April 13, 2012 >I know I do not have a masters degree but last I heard is that >"fair share" means you need to contribute something. Unless you're a grandmother with Alzheimer's because she must already have contributed at some point. We'll call that the "Marks exemption." And someone will want an exemption for wounded veterans. Because they, of course, have given society more than those grandmothers. And I am sure there are many other exemptions just as worthy as those two. Fast forward 50 years - and we have a 3000 page tax code. None of those pages came from people with evil intentions; they all came from people just like you, who want to give a little old lady an exemption because "she paid enough already." Don't even need a bachelor's degree for that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #50 April 14, 2012 Should be called the Obama rule. He only paid about 20% while his secretary paid closer to 35% http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/us/politics/obamas-release-tax-returns.html?_r=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
