Anonymous wrote:Public Service Announcement to ManWithAUsername:

You have interesting points on substance to make but I just can't read your comments anymore because you harp on "Rep/Faux" stuff. It isn't helpful when you assert or assume that those on the right are all being led like a pack of wolves and that everything they do or say is a "tactic." I accept that you believe these things but it just derails the conversation when you keep saying it.

Unless the comment really calls for a discussion of "tactics," could you go back to just accepting the other side's positions for what they are and addressing those?

I don't think the rank and file are employing a tactic. That's part of the sad reality. Relative to this, I'd group the Reps roughly as follows:
1) a small group elite leadership in government and media who employ these as tactics, though now perhaps habit or compulsion;
2) a very large group of people thoughtlessly believing it and parroting it, and therefore in great anxiety;
3) a smaller group of people outside of that process.

It's hard to gauge the relative sizes of 2 and 3 because I assume that 2 is more vocal.

It's fairly easy to distinguish between 2 and 3, because people in 2 say ridiculous things like Obama hates business and vilifies business leaders daily. They also tend to use the Rep/Faux talking points, like "class warfare." That's not an assumption; it's a judgment, one with which you're free to disagree.

You say that it's not helpful for me to assert that judgment when I've made it. I think it is helpful for the more thoughtful of us to maintain that perspective, so that instead of pointlessly addressing the fiction we address what's really going on - vulnerable and foolish people being manipulated by powerful and cynical people. When someone makes an absurd and unsupported allegation, it's actually counterproductive to address it, because it just legitimizes the accusation - again, exactly the tactic.

Let's say we're having an argument, and I say, "You seem like a child molester to me." I hope you wouldn't start trying to make your case that you're not. I assume that you'd say, "WTF?" and demand some basis for the statement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Second, those people that paid "no tax" used the exact same deductions as you did. The child care credit, standard deduction, etc. Its just that once they deducted those things, they owned nothing. Most paid Social Security and Medicare, so its not as if they got off completely "free". And the 50% is a high mark. It was 40% in 2007. The statistics have only been tracked since 2004. "

I'd love to know your AGI. I don't get the childcare credit, I don't take the standard deduction. My IRA contributions are nondeductible. Our deductions are reduced due to our income by a percentage.

AGI = ~170k. We only qualify for a fraction of the child care deduction. However, we do use standard deductions, and our retirement plan was deductible.

You're saying that the combined total of state income taxes, mortgage interest, real estate taxes and charitable giving are less than the standard deduction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How did Bob "toil" on this investment? Called his broken buddy and said "make me more money!" Really. He didn't "work" for it at all. Apple made a new widget which a ton of people bought. Apple stock went up. Bob reaps the benefit. Uncle Sam takes a slice off the top.

Bottom line, the money made on that investment is still INCOME. It's why its taxed. The arguement is how much should it be taxed. I think it should be taxed the same as regular income.

But that money is ALREADY taxed. If Bob was saving some of his earning every year that money is taxed at regular rate, then taxed again at capital gains. It's double taxation. That is also the money that goes around to fuel M&A activity, venture capital etc.

No, the money was not "already taxed". If he earns money, taxed on it, and then invests 100k and makes 10k on that investment, only the 10k made on the investment is taxed, not the 100k that he previously earned and was already taxed on. How dense are you?

And he pays tax on that gain, a gain that wouldn't have occurred if he didn't provide that initial pot. And that helps to fuel millions of jobs and the basis of our economy which is our capital markets.

Anonymous wrote:

Well I guess just taking people's money seems "fair" to you. Doesn't matter that Bob not the janitor toiled to make this company. that's irrelevant, Bob definitely needs to share more. And you're not a socialist?

God, you really are a tiresome motherfucker, aren't you? From all the wonderful information you've provided here, I would guess that next to next to no one feels sorry that a selfish d-bag like yourself may have to pay 4% more of your income to taxes. I know, it really is going to put you out. Whatever will you do with your one less trip to Europe a year. And listen, I'm glad you will be giving less to your charities, because the Narcissist Asshole Society doesn't need any more money. Maybe you should be spending more time trying to find your soul, and less worrying that you only have $475 rather than $500 in your wallet.

P.S. We are socialist country. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, hell, even public schools are proof that. Sorry you're so slow on the pick-up.

And you are a dim fucking watt of a lightbulb, by the way do you blow your husband with that mouth because it sure is dirty. Because now my giving more money to a large hole that can't find it's mouth from it's ass with tons of fat piece need to be laid off workers that have zero productivity means have no soul, then I'm running out to the garage to grab my AC/DC cassette tape that I've kept for all these years, because I'm on the Highway to Hell. But since you have the brain of a lab mouse you'll believe anything the government tells you and somehow you think that my $500 will actually help someone. Newsflash hippie: It wont! And I already pay for all those programs, I'm not the one getting a free ride.

This democratic focus on class warfare is appalling. I am a democrat and I am incredibly offended by this tactic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
How did Bob "toil" on this investment? Called his broken buddy and said "make me more money!" Really. He didn't "work" for it at all. Apple made a new widget which a ton of people bought. Apple stock went up. Bob reaps the benefit. Uncle Sam takes a slice off the top.

Bottom line, the money made on that investment is still INCOME. It's why its taxed. The arguement is how much should it be taxed. I think it should be taxed the same as regular income.

But that money is ALREADY taxed. If Bob was saving some of his earning every year that money is taxed at regular rate, then taxed again at capital gains. It's double taxation. That is also the money that goes around to fuel M&A activity, venture capital etc.

No, the money was not "already taxed". If he earns money, taxed on it, and then invests 100k and makes 10k on that investment, only the 10k made on the investment is taxed, not the 100k that he previously earned and was already taxed on. How dense are you?

10:13, how do you propose paying for our current government apparatus and/or reducing it?

Do you think that progressive income taxation, a principle that counts as its believers that commie Adam Smith, is "socialist" in se?

Or, how is the America of now working out? Socialist Germany has lower unemployment than we do, as well as longer life expectancy and greater class mobility.

Racism against the Turks is a problem there but it's not like we are racism-free here.

Well I guess just taking people's money seems "fair" to you. Doesn't matter that Bob not the janitor toiled to make this company. that's irrelevant, Bob definitely needs to share more. And you're not a socialist?

God, you really are a tiresome motherfucker, aren't you? From all the wonderful information you've provided here, I would guess that next to next to no one feels sorry that a selfish d-bag like yourself may have to pay 4% more of your income to taxes. I know, it really is going to put you out. Whatever will you do with your one less trip to Europe a year. And listen, I'm glad you will be giving less to your charities, because the Narcissist Asshole Society doesn't need any more money. Maybe you should be spending more time trying to find your soul, and less worrying that you only have $475 rather than $500 in your wallet.

P.S. We are socialist country. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, hell, even public schools are proof that. Sorry you're so slow on the pick-up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Significant?

So here's the scenario you describe: Person creates a company, employs a number of people, they create a good or a service, sell it to people who benefit from it, the company grows and then they sell it. They are taxed on the sale, and if they invest that money they are taxed on any gains they make yearly. So go back and think of all the taxes they paid, be it unemployment tax, or employer contributions to FICA, health care, retirement, and then the economic impact of hiring workers, or just general spending from the business etc. The overall stimulus to the economy is much much more than your janitor example you love to tout, or even a teacher or a nurse. That is just the facts. Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status. The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100. The problem isn't Democrats in general, Bill Clinton never did this, its Obama and his staff and their view of the world. I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama. The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.

Employer-Sponsored Insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. This is a win-win for all, so don't count it as a burden on the business owner. There are also significant tax breaks for new businesses, and other subsidies.

So, Bob creates company XYZ, makes $150k. He pays taxes on this, bringing it to $100k. He invests this wisely, and makes $10k. He isn't taxed on $110k, just $10k. At 15%, he pays $1500 in taxes, meaning he has $108,500. If he paid 30% on that 10k, he'd still have $106,600. Its not touching the principal, only the earnings, which has not been taxed at all. Seems fair to me.

Well I guess just taking people's money seems "fair" to you. Doesn't matter that Bob not the janitor toiled to make this company. that's irrelevant, Bob definitely needs to share more. And you're not a socialist?

How did Bob "toil" on this investment? Called his broken buddy and said "make me more money!" Really. He didn't "work" for it at all. Apple made a new widget which a ton of people bought. Apple stock went up. Bob reaps the benefit. Uncle Sam takes a slice off the top.

Bottom line, the money made on that investment is still INCOME. It's why its taxed. The arguement is how much should it be taxed. I think it should be taxed the same as regular income.

But that money is ALREADY taxed. If Bob was saving some of his earning every year that money is taxed at regular rate, then taxed again at capital gains. It's double taxation. That is also the money that goes around to fuel M&A activity, venture capital etc.

I really think a better way to have a reasonable conversation is for Obama liberals (which doesn't include all Democrats) to admit that they are Socialists and that they actually support higher taxes due to some moral leaning that they have as opposed to just sheer need and the we can try and work to a middle. If you admit that people who make a lot of money need to share much of their earnings with everyone else then the conversation switches to defining the roles. Then we can ask ourselves do we want a country less like the America of now and more like Europe? Until they plainly state their true motives and then show your work we'll never have consensus. Socialists please stand up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Significant?

So here's the scenario you describe: Person creates a company, employs a number of people, they create a good or a service, sell it to people who benefit from it, the company grows and then they sell it. They are taxed on the sale, and if they invest that money they are taxed on any gains they make yearly. So go back and think of all the taxes they paid, be it unemployment tax, or employer contributions to FICA, health care, retirement, and then the economic impact of hiring workers, or just general spending from the business etc. The overall stimulus to the economy is much much more than your janitor example you love to tout, or even a teacher or a nurse. That is just the facts. Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status. The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100. The problem isn't Democrats in general, Bill Clinton never did this, its Obama and his staff and their view of the world. I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama. The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.

Employer-Sponsored Insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. This is a win-win for all, so don't count it as a burden on the business owner. There are also significant tax breaks for new businesses, and other subsidies.

So, Bob creates company XYZ, makes $150k. He pays taxes on this, bringing it to $100k. He invests this wisely, and makes $10k. He isn't taxed on $110k, just $10k. At 15%, he pays $1500 in taxes, meaning he has $108,500. If he paid 30% on that 10k, he'd still have $106,600. Its not touching the principal, only the earnings, which has not been taxed at all. Seems fair to me.

Well I guess just taking people's money seems "fair" to you. Doesn't matter that Bob not the janitor toiled to make this company. that's irrelevant, Bob definitely needs to share more. And you're not a socialist?

How did Bob "toil" on this investment? Called his broken buddy and said "make me more money!" Really. He didn't "work" for it at all. Apple made a new widget which a ton of people bought. Apple stock went up. Bob reaps the benefit. Uncle Sam takes a slice off the top.

Bottom line, the money made on that investment is still INCOME. It's why its taxed. The arguement is how much should it be taxed. I think it should be taxed the same as regular income.

Anonymous wrote:Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status....I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama.The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.

Quotes? There must be hundreds, if he's vilifying them daily.

Things "seem" that way to you? Is that supposed to carry some weight? Maybe your perceptions are distorted, perhaps because you listen to media liars who manipulate you instead of to the actual words from his mouth. Your evidence of Obama's class hatred is about as strong as Beck's evidence of his race hatred.

Anonymous wrote:The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100.

I can only imagine that you didn't actually read that piece. It must be hard to find some time not devoted to watching Faux commentators.

The piece doesn't say anything like that. To the contrary, the entire point of the piece is that Obama avoids that language.

The "fat cat" language was the author's, not Obama's. The only time he's used that language was when he was criticizing some in finance while calling for more loans for small businesses. God, how he hates business!

The rich are the victims of a class war led by Obama, Christmas is endangered by atheists, your marriage is endangered by homosexuals, Sarah Palin has been victimized by the media, etc., etc. The Reps used to market themselves as tough guys, but the most vocal are just crybabies and Chicken Littles now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Significant?

So here's the scenario you describe: Person creates a company, employs a number of people, they create a good or a service, sell it to people who benefit from it, the company grows and then they sell it. They are taxed on the sale, and if they invest that money they are taxed on any gains they make yearly. So go back and think of all the taxes they paid, be it unemployment tax, or employer contributions to FICA, health care, retirement, and then the economic impact of hiring workers, or just general spending from the business etc. The overall stimulus to the economy is much much more than your janitor example you love to tout, or even a teacher or a nurse. That is just the facts. Vilifying someone who has done all of that as evil as our President seems to do daily is a clear disincentive for the next person to take this long path to reach that status. The sensible Economist which is a pretty left of center free market publication talks about this. On one hand the president talks about wanting American business to be strong and higher more workers then he calls the same people who will do so "fat cats" http://www.economist.com/node/21530100. The problem isn't Democrats in general, Bill Clinton never did this, its Obama and his staff and their view of the world. I've never heard a president sound so anti-business so anti-capitalism as from Obama. The issue of taxes is really just a small number it's the way he seems to just HATE anyone who owns a business.

Employer-Sponsored Insurance is heavily subsidized by the federal government. This is a win-win for all, so don't count it as a burden on the business owner. There are also significant tax breaks for new businesses, and other subsidies.

So, Bob creates company XYZ, makes $150k. He pays taxes on this, bringing it to $100k. He invests this wisely, and makes $10k. He isn't taxed on $110k, just $10k. At 15%, he pays $1500 in taxes, meaning he has $108,500. If he paid 30% on that 10k, he'd still have $106,600. Its not touching the principal, only the earnings, which has not been taxed at all. Seems fair to me.

Well I guess just taking people's money seems "fair" to you. Doesn't matter that Bob not the janitor toiled to make this company. that's irrelevant, Bob definitely needs to share more. And you're not a socialist?

Public Service Announcement to ManWithAUsername:

You have interesting points on substance to make but I just can't read your comments anymore because you harp on "Rep/Faux" stuff. It isn't helpful when you assert or assume that those on the right are all being led like a pack of wolves and that everything they do or say is a "tactic." I accept that you believe these things but it just derails the conversation when you keep saying it.

Unless the comment really calls for a discussion of "tactics," could you go back to just accepting the other side's positions for what they are and addressing those?

"That's why I didn't slack off in school" That's funny! So, poor people do not work hard...therefore they are poor? Let's really say what you are implying, poor people have a moral defect in their character that is why they are poor. I have achieved my position in society b/c I am morally superior to others below my position. I achieve, not due to my advantages in life, but b/c of my hard work. Please! A classmate at business school had the same last name as the the b-school's, ie joe xxx was at xxx school of business. Dumb as a rock, did not work hard, had a monthly allowance in the 5 figures(yes), and a job waiting at the family business. In your world, he is as superior to you as you are to the poor people you think are lazy.