PDA

View Full Version : Obama Businesswoman calls it like it is


HonestChieffan
08-06-2011, 07:59 PM
<iframe width="560" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/YkOExn3A62Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Predarat
08-06-2011, 08:37 PM
Holy shit that gal is awesome!

Buehler445
08-06-2011, 08:55 PM
Pretty much right. What Obama doesn't seem to understand is that without some sort of reasonable assurance that the environment will be stable, large scale growth will not happen.

Dylan
08-06-2011, 09:23 PM
+1

Please share this with the idiots in academia.

teedubya
08-06-2011, 09:25 PM
I've met Amilya... She is a brilliant, self made multi-millionaire.

Instead of giving Trillions to the failed banks... they should have put a few billion in a fund for entrepreneurship and innovation.

mlyonsd
08-06-2011, 09:40 PM
Just pay your taxes you vile woman.

ku_jhawk23
08-06-2011, 11:26 PM
So let me understand this. She is a shill for Fox News, so she's a Republican. It is the GOP that keeps saying that the Bush tax cuts have to stay in place so that jobs are created. Now, this bimbo is a hero for yelling about not creating jobs, when she is directly benefiting from the tax cuts that are supposedly in place just to create jobs? This is somehow Obama's fault, even though the biggest reason that we were just downgraded is because we didn't create a 4 trillion dollar shift that can only happen by raising taxes which the GOP fought. Lets not forget that the tax increases that the Dems wanted would only affect 1% of people in this country, and the idiots that screamed about it wouldn't pay the taxes. No wonder this country is screwed.

headsnap
08-06-2011, 11:52 PM
So let me understand this. She is a shill for Fox News, so she's a Republican. It is the GOP that keeps saying that the Bush tax cuts have to stay in place so that jobs are created. Now, this bimbo is a hero for yelling about not creating jobs, when she is directly benefiting from the tax cuts that are supposedly in place just to create jobs? This is somehow Obama's fault, even though the biggest reason that we were just downgraded is because we didn't create a 4 trillion dollar shift that can only happen by raising taxes which the GOP fought. Lets not forget that the tax increases that the Dems wanted would only affect 1% of people in this country, and the idiots that screamed about it wouldn't pay the taxes. No wonder this country is screwed.

post fail

Elwaysux
08-07-2011, 06:45 AM
She is so right on. BO would never apologize. Blame Bush yes, apologize no.

Elwaysux
08-07-2011, 07:49 AM
By the way, I'd hit it. But understand I would need to perform or she'd let me know.

mlyonsd
08-07-2011, 08:46 AM
By the way, I'd hit it. But understand I would need to perform or she'd let me know.Go limp and I bet she just bites it off.

donkhater
08-07-2011, 08:56 AM
Obama and the democratic leadership have absolutely NO leg to stand on when discussing the Bush tax cuts. If they believed in their heart of hearts that increasing the tax rate was the key to the economy improving and deficit reduction then they would have done it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and clear control of the House.

But they didn't.

So they are spineless politicians that can't act on their convictions for fear of not getting re-elected (which happened anyway) or they really don't have conviction at all (re: no budget offered in the senate in 3 years).

Either way, they need to shut the hell up about the tax rate.

Shaid
08-07-2011, 08:59 AM
Didn't they basically say that if our taxes weren't increased on top of the budget cuts that we would be downgraded? Essentially, not eliminating the loopholes, etc. is the cause of the downgrade and that is the republicans fault. We still have the hedge fund managers making insane amounts of money and paying less taxes than I do. Fix that crap and there won't be a downgrade. Point at Obama all you want, the republicans fucked this one up by playing politics. Their number one goal is to get Obama out of office and they don't care if this country goes to hell in the process.

http://www.care2.com/causes/top-25-hedgefund-managers-make-almost-1-billion-each-and-pay-less-taxes-than-you-do.html

Shaid
08-07-2011, 09:01 AM
Obama and the democratic leadership have absolutely NO leg to stand on when discussing the Bush tax cuts. If they believed in their heart of hearts that increasing the tax rate was the key to the economy improving and deficit reduction then they would have done it when they had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and clear control of the House.

But they didn't.

So they are spineless politicians that can't act on their convictions for fear of not getting re-elected (which happened anyway) or they really don't have conviction at all (re: no budget offered in the senate in 3 years).

Either way, they need to shut the hell up about the tax rate.

They were essentially trying to wait until we started to see a turnaround in the economy. Didn't happen. So now we need to grow up and take our medicine before we fuck up the economy even more.

donkhater
08-07-2011, 09:01 AM
Didn't they basically say that if our taxes weren't increased on top of the budget cuts that we would be downgraded? Essentially, not eliminating the loopholes, etc. is the cause of the downgrade and that is the republicans fault. We still have the hedge fund managers making insane amounts of money and paying less taxes than I do. Fix that crap and there won't be a downgrade. Point at Obama all you want, the republicans ****ed this one up by playing politics. Their number one goal is to get Obama out of office and they don't care if this country goes to hell in the process.

http://www.care2.com/causes/top-25-hedgefund-managers-make-almost-1-billion-each-and-pay-less-taxes-than-you-do.html

Again, the democrats had two years to address this. The GOP has had control of ONE of the arms of the legislature for 8 months. How inept does that make Democrats sound?

donkhater
08-07-2011, 09:05 AM
The democratic strategy is clear. Differ to the GOP to act then demagogue the hell out of them. It worked on budget proposals, the debt ceiling and it's what got this president elected in the first place. No ideas of their own that they are willingly to act on. None.

mlyonsd
08-07-2011, 09:13 AM
Again, the democrats had two years to address this. The GOP has had control of ONE of the arms of the legislature for 8 months. How inept does that make Democrats sound?The fact democrats didn't have the political balls to pass a budget for two years should automatically take them out of any economy discussion. It would in my house anyway.

That aside, if democrats really think we have a revenue problem taxing just the top earners barely scratches the surface of the debt problem. If they really believe that they should be pushing for tax increases across the board. But they'll never do that.

Shaid
08-07-2011, 09:15 AM
Again, the democrats had two years to address this. The GOP has had control of ONE of the arms of the legislature for 8 months. How inept does that make Democrats sound?

I agree that they didn't do hardly anything with the time they had but it's kind of like someone handing you the keys to a Pinto and saying, "Now go win the Indy 500!" Probably not gonna happen. The dems had 2 years where they should have done something and didn't. Now that the conservatives have control, how about they show some leadership instead of just playing politics. As it is right now I may as well vote for Mickey Mouse because neither side is doing anything that's worth my vote.

ChiTown
08-07-2011, 09:21 AM
I agree that they didn't do hardly anything with the time they had but it's kind of like someone handing you the keys to a Pinto and saying, "Now go win the Indy 500!" Probably not gonna happen. The dems had 2 years where they should have done something and didn't. Now that the conservatives have control, how about they show some leadership instead of just playing politics. As it is right now I may as well vote for Mickey Mouse because neither side is doing anything that's worth my vote.

Actually, it's like being handled the keys to the Pinto and being told not run it off a cliff. Nobody expected us to win an Indy 500. We just expected to have some semblance of an automobile left.

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 09:49 AM
post fail

Good to see a well thought out counter-point.

S&P essentially has said multiple times that without new tax revenues, we could not avoid a downgrade. Taxes should not be raised on everyone, but taxes as a whole must increase. The first way to do this would be through eliminating the EIC that allows people who paid no taxes to begin with to receive a tax return.

That being said, it is rediculous for this woman to go on TV and blast Obama saying that she should not bear the responsibility of creating jobs while at the same time taking advantage of the Bush tax cuts that are (according to the right) in place to help the JOB CREATORS.

Here's an idea: Remove the tax cuts for the wealthy, but give a tax credit for every job created. Make them earn the tax cut, not give it to them and hope.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 10:17 AM
No, that is not what S and P indicated...in fact, they lay the issue directly on spending cuts and only a modest endorsement for revenues...since raising taxes may or may not create greater revenue.

Cutting spending is real, measurable and direct. Raising taxes is no more than a theory and a hope.

Im sure a smart KU guy can read this and correct the misconception you have:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/175755-sap-values-spending-cuts-more-than-tax-revenue-in-credit-rating-analysis

(The Hill) — Standard & Poor’s laments the possibility cuts to entitlement programs won’t materialize and the decreasing likelihood of new tax revenues.

The decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating to “AA+” at once laments the possibility that cuts to entitlement programs will not materialize and the decreasing likelihood of new tax revenues. But it appears to give more weight to the need for more spending cuts, as it warns that a further credit rating downgrade is in the cards if the U.S. does not trim spending.

In contrast, while the report indicates that new tax revenues would help mitigate the debt crisis, failing to find these revenues does not immediately put the U.S. at risk of another downgrade.

Specifically, the report warns directly that a further downgrade to “AA” status could occur within the next two years if there is “less reduction in spending” than what was agreed in the debt ceiling agreement. S&P said one factor that could lead to this second downgrade is if the minimum $1.2 trillion in spending cuts under the debt ceiling agreement does not occur.

Shaid
08-07-2011, 11:17 AM
Actually, it's like being handled the keys to the Pinto and being told not run it off a cliff. Nobody expected us to win an Indy 500. We just expected to have some semblance of an automobile left.

When you keep pulling parts off the automobile and never pay to put new parts on, you don't have much of a car left.

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 01:00 PM
No, that is not what S and P indicated...in fact, they lay the issue directly on spending cuts and only a modest endorsement for revenues...since raising taxes may or may not create greater revenue.

Cutting spending is real, measurable and direct. Raising taxes is no more than a theory and a hope.

Im sure a smart KU guy can read this and correct the misconception you have:

(The Hill) — Standard & Poor’s laments the possibility cuts to entitlement programs won’t materialize and the decreasing likelihood of new tax revenues.

The decision by Standard & Poor’s to downgrade the U.S. credit rating to “AA+” at once laments the possibility that cuts to entitlement programs will not materialize and the decreasing likelihood of new tax revenues. But it appears to give more weight to the need for more spending cuts, as it warns that a further credit rating downgrade is in the cards if the U.S. does not trim spending.

In contrast, while the report indicates that new tax revenues would help mitigate the debt crisis, failing to find these revenues does not immediately put the U.S. at risk of another downgrade.

Specifically, the report warns directly that a further downgrade to “AA” status could occur within the next two years if there is “less reduction in spending” than what was agreed in the debt ceiling agreement. S&P said one factor that could lead to this second downgrade is if the minimum $1.2 trillion in spending cuts under the debt ceiling agreement does not occur.


Really? Do you need help with reading comprehension? Your own link does not say that tax revenue increases aren't need.
In contrast, while the report indicates that new tax revenues would help mitigate the debt crisis, failing to find these revenues does not immediately put the U.S. at risk of another downgrade.


What this means is that tax revenues ALONE will not fix the problem. You do read the part that says "tax revenues would hep mitigate the debt crisis" right? The point I was making is that a 4 trillion dollar shift can not come only from cuts...it just can't. Tax revenues have to increase, either by raising taxes or cutting the loopholes. Do you have an argument for that?

You can't just cut entitlements completely either. That would cause more problems than it solves. We have to reduce entitlements, cut back spending (Hello Defense Department) and increase revenues.

If you own a company, and it isn't doing well, you can't just cut expense, you have to increase revenues. That is very simple Economics. We can't have billion dollar companies paying no taxes at all, and we can't have the upper 0.1% of incomes paying less tax than those making less than them. Is it right when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percent tax than him?

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 01:08 PM
Tell me about running a business.

Chief Faithful
08-07-2011, 02:02 PM
Really? Do you need help with reading comprehension? Your own link does not say that tax revenue increases aren't need.
In contrast, while the report indicates that new tax revenues would help mitigate the debt crisis, failing to find these revenues does not immediately put the U.S. at risk of another downgrade.


What this means is that tax revenues ALONE will not fix the problem. You do read the part that says "tax revenues would hep mitigate the debt crisis" right? The point I was making is that a 4 trillion dollar shift can not come only from cuts...it just can't. Tax revenues have to increase, either by raising taxes or cutting the loopholes. Do you have an argument for that?

You can't just cut entitlements completely either. That would cause more problems than it solves. We have to reduce entitlements, cut back spending (Hello Defense Department) and increase revenues.

If you own a company, and it isn't doing well, you can't just cut expense, you have to increase revenues. That is very simple Economics. We can't have billion dollar companies paying no taxes at all, and we can't have the upper 0.1% of incomes paying less tax than those making less than them. Is it right when Warren Buffett's secretary pays a higher percent tax than him?
The tax issue only exists because the economy has crashed. Fix the economy and tax revenue increases. Taking more fuel from economic engine does not help.

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 02:21 PM
Tell me about running a business.

Wow, that was inciteful. I'm so glad you could answer any of my questions. I assume this was your condescending attempt to belittle me, but don't let the 23 in my nick fool you for my age. I run several very successfull businesses, and would probably be affected by any tax increase that might come.

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 02:32 PM
The tax issue only exists because the economy has crashed. Fix the economy and tax revenue increases. Taking more fuel from economic engine does not help.

The tax issue exists because of much more than the economy crashing. The economy crashing has just exposed it. In 2000, we had a 236 billion dollar surplus, in 2002, we had a 158 billion dollar defecit. The first Bush tax cut was in June of 2001, before 9/11. The unemployment rate at the time was 4.3%. Since the tax cuts that the right now says are in effect to "creat jobs", the unemploment rate has never been that low again. I would love for someone to explain how these tax cuts lead to job creation when unemployment has never been higher, and it began rising within one month of the original tax cut.

The original point of this thread was to pump up a woman who said she shouldn't create jobs if she doesn't like the government. My point was it's very hypocritical of her to take advantage of the tax cuts that benefit her and are supposedly in place to create jobs while publicly stating that she shouldn't have to creat jobs. I agree, she shouldn't have to create jobs. She also shouldn't get tax cuts aimed at "creating jobs" if she is going to purposely not creat jobs to spite the government. Does anyone here have a real argument in her favor?

I would also ask how slightly increasing the taxes on the top 1% would slow the economic engine. The economic engine is now and has always been driven by the middle class.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 02:36 PM
Taxing the top 1% will cause the middle class to do what?

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 02:46 PM
Taxing the top 1% will cause the middle class to do what?

Wow, reading comprehension really is your downfall isn't it. Taxing the 1% will not cause anything for the middle class. I never said it would. I said the upper 1% do not drive the economic engine. Do you have a hint of an argument for that.

Taxing the upper 1% will lower our defecit, which is what the whole damn argument is about.

ChiTown
08-07-2011, 02:48 PM
The tax issue exists because of much more than the economy crashing. The economy crashing has just exposed it. In 2000, we had a 236 billion dollar surplus, in 2002, we had a 158 billion dollar defecit. The first Bush tax cut was in June of 2001, before 9/11. The unemployment rate at the time was 4.3%. Since the tax cuts that the right now says are in effect to "creat jobs", the unemploment rate has never been that low again. I would love for someone to explain how these tax cuts lead to job creation when unemployment has never been higher, and it began rising within one month of the original tax cut.

The original point of this thread was to pump up a woman who said she shouldn't create jobs if she doesn't like the government. My point was it's very hypocritical of her to take advantage of the tax cuts that benefit her and are supposedly in place to create jobs while publicly stating that she shouldn't have to creat jobs. I agree, she shouldn't have to create jobs. She also shouldn't get tax cuts aimed at "creating jobs" if she is going to purposely not creat jobs to spite the government. Does anyone here have a real argument in her favor?

I would also ask how slightly increasing the taxes on the top 1% would slow the economic engine. The economic engine is now and has always been driven by the middle class.

Quantify "slightly increasing"

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 02:54 PM
Wow, reading comprehension really is your downfall isn't it. Taxing the 1% will not cause anything for the middle class. I never said it would. I said the upper 1% do not drive the economic engine. Do you have a hint of an argument for that.

Taxing the upper 1% will lower our defecit, which is what the whole damn argument is about.


Why would you stop at the top 1%? If you have a real interest in reducing the deficit then you would expand the tax base as far as possible would you not?

How many dollars will you derive from your increase on the top 1%?

Who and what do you believe drives the economic engine?

ChiefsCountry
08-07-2011, 02:55 PM
Another hot, smart Republican woman. :thumb:

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 03:34 PM
Why would you stop at the top 1%? If you have a real interest in reducing the deficit then you would expand the tax base as far as possible would you not?

How many dollars will you derive from your increase on the top 1%?

Who and what do you believe drives the economic engine?

Really? I already said who drives the economic engine, so why ask it again. If you need to ask what drives the economic engine, then you should bow out of any discussion on economics.

The economic engine is driven by sales. The biggest retail companies in the US are Wal-mart, Kroger, Home Depot, Costco and Target. I'm willing to bet that Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch aren't spending any time at Wal-mart. The largest Auto company is Toyota. Glad to see billionaires driving Camry's in your world.

The only argument the right has against raising taxes on the wealthy is that they are "job creators." The only problem is that unemployment is 2.5 times higher than when Bush first introduced the tax cuts. I am more than willing to hear an argument you have if you can actually back up an argument with something substantial. So far you seem like a teenager....arguing for the sake of arguing without providing any fact to back yourself. If you can provide something to prove that the economy is better off by not going back to the Clinton era tax plan (when we had a surplus) please, explain it. Maybe I am wrong, but no one has yet to give any reason why I am.

mlyonsd
08-07-2011, 03:38 PM
Really? I already said who drives the economic engine, so why ask it again. If you need to ask what drives the economic engine, then you should bow out of any discussion on economics.

The economic engine is driven by sales. The biggest retail companies in the US are Wal-mart, Kroger, Home Depot, Costco and Target. I'm willing to bet that Donald Trump and Rupert Murdoch aren't spending any time at Wal-mart. The largest Auto company is Toyota. Glad to see billionaires driving Camry's in your world.

The only argument the right has against raising taxes on the wealthy is that they are "job creators." The only problem is that unemployment is 2.5 times higher than when Bush first introduced the tax cuts. I am more than willing to hear an argument you have if you can actually back up an argument with something substantial. So far you seem like a teenager....arguing for the sake of arguing without providing any fact to back yourself. If you can provide something to prove that the economy is better off by not going back to the Clinton era tax plan (when we had a surplus) please, explain it. Maybe I am wrong, but no one has yet to give any reason why I am.How would you feel about raising taxes across the board?

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 04:22 PM
Why would you stop at the top 1%? If you have a real interest in reducing the deficit then you would expand the tax base as far as possible would you not?

How many dollars will you derive from your increase on the top 1%?

Who and what do you believe drives the economic engine?


OK, we now are focused on retail sales as the driver of the economy. Can you address the first two questions?

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 04:41 PM
How would you feel about raising taxes across the board?

I am not necessarily in favor of them for one main reason. Most middle class tax payers do not get the benefits of most of the deductions/tax breaks. I am much more in favor of a standardized tax table without deductions than I am in favor of tax increases. If we are going to keep the current system, however, then increases need to happen. In 2010, the top 1% paid less in taxes than the top 5%, and only paid marginally more than the top 10%. Of course they did pay a higher percentage than the middle class, but not by much after adjustments. While the published number for the upper level is 34%, the top level actually pays closer to 20%. They only pay 60% of what they are supposed to theoretically pay, but the middle class pays closer to 70% of what they are supposed to pay. That 10% may not seem like much, but costs our yearly defecit about 116 billion dollars.

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 04:42 PM
OK, we now are focused on retail sales as the driver of the economy. Can you address the first two questions?

Why would I answer any of your questions when you have yet to provide anything of substance. You have argued for the sake of arguing but have yet to refute anything with actual data. Come back when you have something of value.

go bowe
08-07-2011, 04:49 PM
expand the tax base as far as possible is fine, depending on how you define possible...

of course the biggest expansion would come from an improving economy...

increasing taxes on the middle class would be fine if tax breaks were limited for such things like mortgage interest so that there would be real increases for the wealthier without changing their marginal rates (other than an expiration of the bush cuts)...

taxes on genuinely poor people don't make a lot of sense to me, and reductions in services such as medicaid food stamps and unemployment benefits will have already hurt poor people...

if we want to tax them at least stop cutting off the benefits they have no choice but to depend on...

go bowe
08-07-2011, 04:52 PM
Why would I answer any of your questions when you have yet to provide anything of substance. You have argued for the sake of arguing but have yet to refute anything with actual data. Come back when you have something of value.

have you been lurking the past six years?

there's lots of actual data in dc, you just can't trust most of it... :p

TEX
08-07-2011, 04:56 PM
So let me understand this. She is a shill for Fox News, so she's a Republican. It is the GOP that keeps saying that the Bush tax cuts have to stay in place so that jobs are created. Now, this bimbo is a hero for yelling about not creating jobs, when she is directly benefiting from the tax cuts that are supposedly in place just to create jobs? This is somehow Obama's fault, even though the biggest reason that we were just downgraded is because we didn't create a 4 trillion dollar shift that can only happen by raising taxes which the GOP fought. Lets not forget that the tax increases that the Dems wanted would only affect 1% of people in this country, and the idiots that screamed about it wouldn't pay the taxes. No wonder this country is screwed.

Just look in the mirror and repeat last sentence...:shake:

ThatRaceCardGuy
08-07-2011, 04:57 PM
And how much does she pay in taxes ? Yah, I guess when you get all the tax breaks this country has to offer, and you don't pay your fare share, its pretty damn easy to spread propaganda. You see what she is doing right ? She loves the GOP , they protect her from being taxed fairly, why wouldn't she attack their sworn enemy President Obama..but I guess that's just too far fetched ...

go bowe
08-07-2011, 04:58 PM
I am not necessarily in favor of them for one main reason. Most middle class tax payers do not get the benefits of most of the deductions/tax breaks. I am much more in favor of a standardized tax table without deductions than I am in favor of tax increases. If we are going to keep the current system, however, then increases need to happen. In 2010, the top 1% paid less in taxes than the top 5%, and only paid marginally more than the top 10%. Of course they did pay a higher percentage than the middle class, but not by much after adjustments. While the published number for the upper level is 34%, the top level actually pays closer to 20%. They only pay 60% of what they are supposed to theoretically pay, but the middle class pays closer to 70% of what they are supposed to pay. That 10% may not seem like much, but costs our yearly defecit about 116 billion dollars.
i'm curious...

how do we know that top level earners pay only 20% vs. the published number and who publishes that number? (disclaimer: i know next to nothing about economics in general - only what bep tells me)

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 05:01 PM
have you been lurking the past six years?

there's lots of actual data in dc, you just can't trust most of it... :p

Not really lurking...I've posted a few times, just don't see alot in here worth posting about.

A quick google search can get whatever data you need too, but I'm still waiting on someone here to refute what I've said.


I do agree with your post about economic recovery being the biggest catalyst, but the constant outsourcing of everything is making that more and more difficult. Our economy seems to be based more on paper than actual goods. Also, I don't think a middle class tax increase would be at all necessary if the government would limit tax breaks to items that everyone has a chance at. Corporate tax reform might be the biggest necessity, but no one is talking about that. GE paying no taxes and Google paying 2% is rediculous. Of course, there is a simple solution to that that will never be considered. Whatever profits a company shows their stockholders at the end of the year is what they are taxed on....period. To simple for congress to ever consider.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 05:06 PM
Why would I answer any of your questions when you have yet to provide anything of substance. You have argued for the sake of arguing but have yet to refute anything with actual data. Come back when you have something of value.

Im asking questions to learn. You seem to be pretty smart but you are not very forthcoming with any additional information is all.

I would like to have a better understanding of the gains we get by taxing the top 1%. You seem pretty keen on that idea so there must be some pretty good info on how much we can cut this deficit by doing that.

There seems to be some reason you have not helped us understand on why we would stop at the top 1%. If thats all we need in terms of revenue produced then that would be good. But if we still have deficits, wouldn't we want to tax further down the chain?

Retail sales as the driver of the economy eliminates a lot of economic activity. If I follow you, things like durable goods orders, industries like heavy machinery or the hospitality industry must not really play much. What % of GDP is retail sales? And why do we worry about GDP if retail is the thing that makes the economy rock and roll? I recall on the news every month they talk about housing starts and exports. Neither of those would be in your retail figure. Im just pretty keen on knowing more from your point of view.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 05:19 PM
I am not necessarily in favor of them for one main reason. Most middle class tax payers do not get the benefits of most of the deductions/tax breaks. I am much more in favor of a standardized tax table without deductions than I am in favor of tax increases. If we are going to keep the current system, however, then increases need to happen. In 2010, the top 1% paid less in taxes than the top 5%, and only paid marginally more than the top 10%. Of course they did pay a higher percentage than the middle class, but not by much after adjustments. While the published number for the upper level is 34%, the top level actually pays closer to 20%. They only pay 60% of what they are supposed to theoretically pay, but the middle class pays closer to 70% of what they are supposed to pay. That 10% may not seem like much, but costs our yearly defecit about 116 billion dollars.

Over the years I can recall paying federal income tax if you made over $600. That was a few years back, like 64-65 or so. In the time since then lots of changes have occurred in this wide old world of income taxes. One thing I seem to recall is that today after tax credits, tax rebates, tax deferrals and the like, some 50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. How does this jibe with your statement "Most middle class tax payers do not get the benefits of most of the deductions/tax breaks."

If these other folks you mention only pay part of what they are supposed to pay who set the figures on what they are supposed to pay? I got all lost and confused with supposed to and theoretically and all that.

Saul Good
08-07-2011, 05:35 PM
They were essentially trying to wait until we started to see a turnaround in the economy. Didn't happen. So now we need to grow up and take our medicine before we **** up the economy even more.

By "take our medicine", do you mean forcing the rich to pay more?

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 05:43 PM
Over the years I can recall paying federal income tax if you made over $600. That was a few years back, like 64-65 or so. In the time since then lots of changes have occurred in this wide old world of income taxes. One thing I seem to recall is that today after tax credits, tax rebates, tax deferrals and the like, some 50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. How does this jibe with your statement "Most middle class tax payers do not get the benefits of most of the deductions/tax breaks."

If these other folks you mention only pay part of what they are supposed to pay who set the figures on what they are supposed to pay? I got all lost and confused with supposed to and theoretically and all that.

I agree that numbers thrown out show that 50% of wage earners pay no federal income tax. 50% of wage earners also make less than 33,000 dollars a year. The living wage in Jackson county for a single person is about 20k a year, and Jackson is on the lower end. This is only for housing, basic clothing, and basic food. This does not count utilities or anything else. It is hard to expect these people to put alot into the tax coffers. I have a HUGE problem with tax items like the earned income credit which allow someone to get back more than what they pay in. That has to stop and I mentioned that in one of my first posts.

About what someone is supposed to pay...The tax number you hear on TV all the time is 34% for the upper echelon, but after tax credits and deductions, they do not pay that. It is closer to 20-22%.

All of this can be found through google and websites like taxfoundation.org

ku_jhawk23
08-07-2011, 05:51 PM
Im asking questions to learn. You seem to be pretty smart but you are not very forthcoming with any additional information is all.

I would like to have a better understanding of the gains we get by taxing the top 1%. You seem pretty keen on that idea so there must be some pretty good info on how much we can cut this deficit by doing that.

There seems to be some reason you have not helped us understand on why we would stop at the top 1%. If thats all we need in terms of revenue produced then that would be good. But if we still have deficits, wouldn't we want to tax further down the chain?

Retail sales as the driver of the economy eliminates a lot of economic activity. If I follow you, things like durable goods orders, industries like heavy machinery or the hospitality industry must not really play much. What % of GDP is retail sales? And why do we worry about GDP if retail is the thing that makes the economy rock and roll? I recall on the news every month they talk about housing starts and exports. Neither of those would be in your retail figure. Im just pretty keen on knowing more from your point of view.

I only stopped at the top 1% because that was the original plan that Obama wanted...to raise taxes on the top 1%. This thread is about some woman who is complaining about Obama. I was pointing out that if we would have adopted that 1% plan, we would see an increase in our tax revenues of 116 billion per year. Since the S&P mentioned 4 trillion change, and everything I have seen has been based on a 10 year plan, that would equal just over a trillion of that 4 trillion change. There is no reason I stopped at 1% other than that.

Like I have said in this thread already. I would be very much in favor of a simplified tax system that would eliminate deductions and credits and would be much more fair to everyone involved.

When you make 10 million dollars, you can afford an extra 2%, when you are making 30k, that 2% means something.

HonestChieffan
08-07-2011, 07:47 PM
OK. Good use of figures. But you pretty well lost me with the retail deal.

You and Obama have no clue what a tax increase will bring since its based on assumptions about income that has not yet even been created. If you base success on any prediction that comes out of this WhiteHouse I have a cool bridge to sell you.

You stopped at the top 1% because that is what has been fed to you so you can regurgitate it like you have any damn clue what it means.