PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Bad bad Barack wants to raise this guy's taxes!


Frankie
09-20-2011, 09:39 PM
ROFL

Multi-Millionaire Rep. Says He Can’t Afford A Tax Hike Because He Only Has $400K A Year After Feeding Family

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/HW2VW-Z1M94" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) appeared on MSNBC with Chris Jansing this morning to attack President Obama’s new deficit reduction plan, which includes some tax increases on the wealthy. Taking up the typical GOP talking point, Fleming said raising taxes on wealthy “job creators” is a terrible idea that kills jobs because many of these people are small business owners who pay taxes through personal income rates.

Fleming is himself a businesses owner, so Jansing asked, “If you have to pay more in taxes, you would get rid of some of those employees?” Fleming responded by saying that while his businesses made $6.3 million last year, after you “pay 500 employees, you pay rent, you pay equipment, and food,” his profits “a mere fraction of that” — “by the time I feed my family, I have maybe $400,000 left over.”

Jansing pointed out that whining about tax increases while making $400,000 annually is “not exactly a sympathetic position.” Fleming could only respond by saying that “class warfare has never created a job” and that his success is a “virtue.” But he noticeably never answered Jansing’s question about whether he would actually be forced to lay off workers if his taxes went up.

Considering that he has $400,000 “left over,” it seems that Fleming could actually afford to hire workers and still bring home a respectable pay. The average household income in the U.S. in 2010 was just under $50,000 — down 2.3 percent from 2009 and lower than it was in 1997.

And how hard does the congressman work to make the equivalent of eight median household incomes? Fleming told the Wall Street Journal that “he spends very little time on day-to-day management, though he weighs in on broad strategy decisions.” “I monitor the reports. I’m certainly in communication with the managers,” he told the paper.

Bewbies
09-20-2011, 09:42 PM
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/75766282/

And Ted Turner advises Buffett to mail a check to the gov't--then complains that it's hard to afford a jet with only $500 million.

Get over yourself Frankie.

Frankie
09-20-2011, 09:45 PM
Get over yourself Frankie.

I report. You decide.

SNR
09-20-2011, 09:47 PM
I report. You decide.I thought you were the weatherman? Whatever that means.

Bewbies
09-20-2011, 09:49 PM
I report. You decide.

I've decided that it's your right to decide how much money is or isn't enough for someone else to live on.

ClevelandBronco
09-20-2011, 09:57 PM
You report. We deride.

Jaric
09-21-2011, 08:00 AM
500 people have a job because of this dude. I have no problem with him making a lot of money.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 08:51 AM
He's saying that he lives on $200K per year and that that $400k goes toward creating new jobs by expanding his businesses. These aren't the "saved" jobs that Obama claims, these are real new jobs. Increasing his tax load isn't going to cut into his $200k lifestyle, it's going to cut into that $400k and reduce the rate at which this guy's business expands.

I guess that in the long run, punitive taxation will reduce this guy's retirement net worth, but in the short term it's going to eliminate some job opportunities for people who make $30k per year. Is that what you're looking for, Frankie?

Donger
09-21-2011, 08:53 AM
I report. You decide.

Okay. You are a jealous, bitter little man.

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 08:54 AM
You are a ****ing idiot, Frankie. Go start a business that employs 500 people, take a big portion of the risk, make $400K after all that, and tell me that it's just ACES being you. I can assure you, that business owners expect a shit ton more than that, when they employ that many people. Do you have ANY ****ing concept of the risk/reward model? Any clue at all? I do. I have 2 small businesses, where I have (over the years) laid it all on the line to risk the opportunity of having more. Making $400K isn't the model people are pining to accomplish when taking on 500 employees.

Get a clue or better yet, just STFU already

By the way, here is the rest of that line that they conveniently left out: "The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million," Fleming explained. "So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment."

Huffmeister
09-21-2011, 09:03 AM
By the way, here is the rest of that line that they conveniently left out: "The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million," Fleming explained. "So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment."

Wow, that's really the rest of the quote? If so, that's some extremely dishonest reporting in the OP. No wonder Frankie didn't provide a link.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:05 AM
500 people have a job because of this dude. I have no problem with him making a lot of money.

not very many people have a problem with people making lots lot of money...

it's about paying taxes like the rest of us 53% who pay taxes...

the rich should pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, not more not less...

the tax code needs to be completely overhauled, but i don't see that happening in the political climate in washington...

just like cutting social security, medicare, medicaid and defense, "raising" taxes isn't a politically viable alternative at this point...

we can't afford to wait until the economy turns around, if it ever does turn around, before we address the deficit and that requires action on both the revenue side and the spending side (well, moreso on the spending side)...

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 09:05 AM
Wow, that's really the rest of the quote? If so, that's some extremely dishonest reporting in the OP. No wonder Frankie didn't provide a link.

Yep. Watch the video, he states it in there.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:07 AM
He's saying that he lives on $200K per year and that that $400k goes toward creating new jobs by expanding his businesses. These aren't the "saved" jobs that Obama claims, these are real new jobs. Increasing his tax load isn't going to cut into his $200k lifestyle, it's going to cut into that $400k and reduce the rate at which this guy's business expands.

I guess that in the long run, punitive taxation will reduce this guy's retirement net worth, but in the short term it's going to eliminate some job opportunities for people who make $30k per year. Is that what you're looking for, Frankie?

punitive taxation?

rich people are being punished?

is that what taxes are nowdays?

or are they only punitive for rich people and not for the middle class or the working poor?

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 09:11 AM
the rich should pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, not more not less...


The rich already pay more in percentage.

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2011, 09:11 AM
The rich already pay more in percentage.

Total taxes, as a per centage of income?

Nope. Not even close.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:13 AM
You are a ****ing idiot, Frankie. Go start a business that employs 500 people, take a big portion of the risk, make $400K after all that, and tell me that it's just ACES being you. I can assure you, that business owners expect a shit ton more than that, when they employ that many people. Do you have ANY ****ing concept of the risk/reward model? Any clue at all? I do. I have 2 small businesses, where I have (over the years) laid it all on the line to risk the opportunity of having more. Making $400K isn't the model people are pining to accomplish when taking on 500 employees.

Get a clue or better yet, just STFU already

By the way, here is the rest of that line that they conveniently left out: "The amount that I have to reinvest in my business and feed my family is more like $600,000 of that $6.3 million," Fleming explained. "So by the time I feed my family I have, maybe, $400,000 left over to invest in new locations, upgrade my locations, buy more equipment."

and this guy is using his profits to expand and presumably hire more workers...

but how many are simply pocketing the profits and not creating squat in terms of new jobs?

maybe the tax code should be that if you only make $200,000 to live on you shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all...

after all, they earned that money...

and all the rest of us didn't earn ours... :p :p :p

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:14 AM
Wow, that's really the rest of the quote? If so, that's some extremely dishonest reporting in the OP. No wonder Frankie didn't provide a link.

yeah, i was wondering where the link was...

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:15 AM
The rich already pay more in percentage.

not percentage of all taxes paid, but a percentage of their income...

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:16 AM
Total taxes, as a per centage of income?

Nope. Not even close.

damn, when even kotter agrees with me it must be true!!!

Donger
09-21-2011, 09:17 AM
Total taxes, as a per centage of income?

Nope. Not even close.

That depends on how much of their income of derived from investments. Read:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 09:17 AM
Total taxes, as a per centage of income?

Nope. Not even close.

That absolutely depends whether you are talking regular income or cap gains

patteeu
09-21-2011, 09:20 AM
punitive taxation?

rich people are being punished?

is that what taxes are nowdays?

or are they only punitive for rich people and not for the middle class or the working poor?

We're talking here about taxes that would only be applied to the higher income groups so they obviously aren't punitive for the middle class or working poor.

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 09:21 AM
Total taxes, as a per centage of income?

Nope. Not even close.Total income taxes paid as a percentage of income. Yes, yes they do. I'm sorry you've been taken hook line and sinker.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:23 AM
That absolutely depends whether you are talking regular income or cap gains

capital gains is a tricky one...

one the one hand, it's important to keep the cap gains tax low, particularly in the case of home buyers who are selling their houses and retirees with limited incomes...

on the other hand, most rich people do receive a great deal of their income in cap gains...

so if the rich are to pay a comparable percentage of income as everybody else the cap gains tax must be modified (i don't know how that would be done exactly)...

actually, i'm kinda surprised the tax and spend people aren't already looking at the cap gains tax...

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 09:25 AM
actually, i'm kinda surprised the tax and spend people aren't already looking at the cap gains tax...

Uh, they are. Cap gains goes from it's current 15% up to 20% in 2013. If BO could, I think he'd take it up to 30+%

Edit: It's the sole reason I plan to sell the remainder of my business in 2012 in order to avoid the additional tax.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:29 AM
We're talking here about taxes that would only be applied to the higher income groups so they obviously aren't punitive for the middle class or working poor.

well, that's where we differ...

increasing taxes on the poor (ok, making poor people pay taxes regardless of their income) would be punitive in my view...

not cutting taxes (specifically payroll taxes) for the middle class could be considered punitive too...

but asking high income people to pay taxes at the levels which existed before the bush tax cuts isn't punitive at all...

the purpose of the tax code is not to punish high income taxpayers, it's to raise revenue to help reduce the deficit...

i just don't buy the notion that letting the bush tax cuts expire is somehow punitive...

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:31 AM
Total income taxes paid as a percentage of income. Yes, yes they do. I'm sorry you've been taken hook line and sinker.

would you happen to have a link for that?

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 09:32 AM
the purpose of the tax code is not to punish high income taxpayers, it's to raise revenue to help reduce the deficit...

i just don't buy the notion that letting the bush tax cuts expire is somehow punitive...

So the Bush Tax cuts expire. Great. What is the net effect on decreasing the deficit of a Government that has shown NO willpower to stop fucking spending??

patteeu
09-21-2011, 09:34 AM
capital gains is a tricky one...

one the one hand, it's important to keep the cap gains tax low, particularly in the case of home buyers who are selling their houses and retirees with limited incomes...

on the other hand, most rich people do receive a great deal of their income in cap gains...

so if the rich are to pay a comparable percentage of income as everybody else the cap gains tax must be modified (i don't know how that would be done exactly)...

actually, i'm kinda surprised the tax and spend people aren't already looking at the cap gains tax...

There's no good reason to treat investment income the same as earned income. In fact, IMO, it's a bad idea. We should be taxing consumption (or consumed income) not investment. That means either a consumption tax or a tax on wages but not investment/savings proceeds. And as long as we have a corporate tax, we're already effectively taxing dividends and capital gains before they're realized anyway.

But leaving that aside, I don't think you and Kotter are right about the rich paying a lower rate of total income tax than the middle class. If you add in payroll taxes, that might be the case, but not just income/cap gains/dividend taxation.

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 09:35 AM
would you happen to have a link for that?Donger provided one in post 21.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:35 AM
Uh, they are. Cap gains goes from it's current 15% up to 20% in 2013. If BO could, I think he'd take it up to 30+%

Edit: It's the sole reason I plan to sell the remainder of my business in 2012 in order to avoid the additional tax.

hmmm, i guess they're not publicizing that much...

imo, cap gains taxes should be decreased for people with relatively low income and perhaps, maybe, raised on the highest income people...

i haven't really given it much thought...

but is that tax increase (assuming that o can get it through the repub house) so much that you'd do better selling your business than continuing to make money from it?

well, i guess it is, since that's what you're going to do...

i take it your business has a lot of cap gains income which would be affected by an increase in cap gains tax...

patteeu
09-21-2011, 09:38 AM
well, that's where we differ...

increasing taxes on the poor (ok, making poor people pay taxes regardless of their income) would be punitive in my view...

not cutting taxes (specifically payroll taxes) for the middle class could be considered punitive too...

but asking high income people to pay taxes at the levels which existed before the bush tax cuts isn't punitive at all...

the purpose of the tax code is not to punish high income taxpayers, it's to raise revenue to help reduce the deficit...

i just don't buy the notion that letting the bush tax cuts expire is somehow punitive...

More revenue could be created by raising the tax rate on the poor and middle class than by raising the rate on the rich so if we accept your assertion that the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue, it cuts in favor of my position not yours, IMO.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 09:39 AM
i just don't buy the notion that letting the bush tax cuts expire is somehow punitive...

I might be mistaken, but I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

FishingRod
09-21-2011, 09:42 AM
What if we all just paid 15% of our income and there were no deductions with 8 % to the Fed 4 % to the state and 3 % to local?

loochy
09-21-2011, 09:44 AM
What if we all just paid 15% of our income and there were no deductions with 8 % to the Fed 4 % to the state and 3 % to local?

I'd be happy with that for sure. Hell, bump that up to 25% for all I care...just stop the special treatment for select individuals.

Taco John
09-21-2011, 09:45 AM
punitive taxation?

rich people are being punished?

is that what taxes are nowdays?

or are they only punitive for rich people and not for the middle class or the working poor?


It's all punitive.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 09:47 AM
Uh, they are. Cap gains goes from it's current 15% up to 20% in 2013. If BO could, I think he'd take it up to 30+%

Edit: It's the sole reason I plan to sell the remainder of my business in 2012 in order to avoid the additional tax.

hmmm, i guess they're not publicizing that much...

imo, cap gains taxes should be decreased for people with relatively low income and perhaps, maybe, raised on the highest income people...

i haven't really given it much thought...

but is that tax increase (assuming that o can get it through the repub house) so much that you'd do better selling your business than continuing to make money from it?

well, i guess it is, since that's what you're going to do...

i take it your business has a lot of cap gains income which would be affected by an increase in cap gains tax...

as with most things related to the deficit and ever-accumulating debt, it probably isn't politically feasible to expect any real substantive changes

FishingRod
09-21-2011, 09:49 AM
well, that's where we differ...

increasing taxes on the poor (ok, making poor people pay taxes regardless of their income) would be punitive in my view...

not cutting taxes (specifically payroll taxes) for the middle class could be considered punitive too...

but asking high income people to pay taxes at the levels which existed before the bush tax cuts isn't punitive at all...

the purpose of the tax code is not to punish high income taxpayers, it's to raise revenue to help reduce the deficit...

i just don't buy the notion that letting the bush tax cuts expire is somehow punitive...

Since the lower income brackets as well as the upper were lowered with the Bush Tax cuts are you in fovor of letting them all revert back to what they were? I'm not rich but, I really don't want my taxes to go up since I don't feel I am getting my money's worth with what I am paying now.

FishingRod
09-21-2011, 09:59 AM
FWIW Flemming should shut the heck up. He obviously is disconnected from JQ public. He would be much better off saying that the wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes and our Government hasn’t shown even a modicum of fiscal responsibility why should ANYONE be asked to pay even more?

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 10:00 AM
I'm not rich but, I really don't want my taxes to go up since I don't feel I am getting my money's worth with what I am paying now.See that's the rub. No one is getting their money's worth not even those paying no federal income taxes. Raising taxes now is silly. More money for the pols to waste - really? There is so much pocket lining going on that one could most likely slash $300+ Billion dollars from the budget tomorrow just by acting on the GAO's waste & fraud report. But, one can't get reelected by doing that thus....the hole we are in.

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 10:01 AM
See that's the rub. No one is getting their money's worth not even those paying no federal income taxes. Raising taxes now is silly. More money for the pols to waste - really? There is so much pocket lining going on that one could most likely slash $300+ Billion dollars from the budget tomorrow just by acting on the GAO's waste & fraud report. But, one can't get reelected by doing that thus....the hole we are in.Oh wait, we don't have a budget.... forgot.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:01 AM
There's no good reason to treat investment income the same as earned income. In fact, IMO, it's a bad idea. We should be taxing consumption (or consumed income) not investment. That means either a consumption tax or a tax on wages but not investment/savings proceeds. And as long as we have a corporate tax, we're already effectively taxing dividends and capital gains before they're realized anyway.

But leaving that aside, I don't think you and Kotter are right about the rich paying a lower rate of total income tax than the middle class. If you add in payroll taxes, that might be the case, but not just income/cap gains/dividend taxation.

nope, investment income should not be treated the same as earned income...

but it's still income that could be taxed at a higher rate based on total income and at a lower rate for moderate income people (poor people don't have much in the way of cap gains to be taxed)...

i understand your preference for protecting higher income people from "punitive" taxes, and i understand your reasoning for saying taxing investment income is a bad idea, but there are lots of ideas that are bad in isolation but in the context of our massive deficits and growing debt load should be undertaken anyway...

when deficits are a thing of the past and the debt is decreasing then i would support drastic lowering of the cap gains taxes and income tax rates for everybody, but we are nowhere near that point now...

as far as the percentage of income, the article donger cited does indicate that the rich are paying a higher percentage total income on average... i'm surprised, but pretty much convinced by the article...

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:04 AM
More revenue could be created by raising the tax rate on the poor and middle class than by raising the rate on the rich so if we accept your assertion that the purpose of the tax code is to raise revenue, it cuts in favor of my position not yours, IMO.

actually, we should probably raise the rates on everybody until the debt crisis is brought under control...

of course, i would make the rates for lower income people very low...

raising revenue is a burden that all should share...

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 10:06 AM
FWIW Flemming should shut the heck up. He obviously is disconnected from JQ public. He would be much better off saying that the wealthy already pay the vast majority of the taxes and our Government hasn’t shown even a modicum of fiscal responsibility why should ANYONE be asked to pay even more?

Why? He's making a valid point. He's not living like a pauper, but why should he. The point he is making is that:

1. He's not making $6.3MM

2. He has a lot of employees to maintain and pay

3. It looks like he is giving himself a salary of $200K. For an owner, that's not that great. The $600,000 pays his salary PLUS any growth and maintenance items he has to address for all those stores - which, at the end of the day, isn't much.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:07 AM
What if we all just paid 15% of our income and there were no deductions with 8 % to the Fed 4 % to the state and 3 % to local?

isn't that what they call a flat tax?

the fight over progressive taxation was pretty much lost when the constitution was amended to allow it...

i understand the affection that people with higher incomes have for a flat tax concept, but progressive taxation is here to stay...

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 10:10 AM
isn't that what they call a flat tax?

the fight over progressive taxation was pretty much lost when the constitution was amended to allow it...

i understand the affection that people with higher incomes have for a flat tax concept, but progressive taxation is here to stay...No I'm pretty sure even the progressive tax will cease once we do.

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:10 AM
Since the lower income brackets as well as the upper were lowered with the Bush Tax cuts are you in fovor of letting them all revert back to what they were? I'm not rich but, I really don't want my taxes to go up since I don't feel I am getting my money's worth with what I am paying now.

although it is heresy to liberals, yes i do think the tax rates for everybody should go back to the pre-bush cut levels until the deficit is brought under control...

blaise
09-21-2011, 10:11 AM
How dare he want to make money. How daaaaare he.

Frankie
09-21-2011, 10:11 AM
not very many people have a problem with people making lots lot of money...

it's about paying taxes like the rest of us 53% who pay taxes...

the rich should pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else, not more not less...

the tax code needs to be completely overhauled, but i don't see that happening in the political climate in washington...

just like cutting social security, medicare, medicaid and defense, "raising" taxes isn't a politically viable alternative at this point...

we can't afford to wait until the economy turns around, if it ever does turn around, before we address the deficit and that requires action on both the revenue side and the spending side (well, moreso on the spending side)...
Dammit Mr. go bowe! You party pooper. You had to come in understanding the actual point while I was enjoying all the BAA BAA that was going on.

I was feeling like this: LMAO Now I'm only feeling like this: :D

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:12 AM
No I'm pretty sure even the progressive tax will cease once we do.

only if you shoot all the liberals and poor folk...

blaise
09-21-2011, 10:14 AM
I don't really get the complaint against him. Should he be running his business and be happy making $100,000 or $75,000? I think it's more indicative of how out of touch the left is. Is he supposed to make the same as all the employees or something?

Frankie
09-21-2011, 10:16 AM
Wow, that's really the rest of the quote? If so, that's some extremely dishonest reporting in the OP. No wonder Frankie didn't provide a link.

My bad. I'm always good at posting links. This was a mistake on my part. I have since closed that tab. But if you google congressman Fleming and the quote you will see many links about this story.

patteeu
09-21-2011, 10:20 AM
What if we all just paid 15% of our income and there were no deductions with 8 % to the Fed 4 % to the state and 3 % to local?

That wouldn't be enough to support the level of government we currently have. The necessary rate would depend on how much you want to cut the size of government, but in general I like your idea. I think you'd need something closer to 20 or 25% to maintain the current level of government (minus the absurd Obama expansions).

Frankie
09-21-2011, 10:22 AM
See that's the rub. No one is getting their money's worth not even those paying no federal income taxes......

WTF? No one's getting their money's worth?!! Have you checked Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies profit reports?!!!

This is a terrible economy for you and I, but a great one for the big money.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 10:25 AM
although it is heresy to liberals, yes i do think the tax rates for everybody should go back to the pre-bush cut levels until the deficit is brought under control...

You REALLY don't get it, do you?

We don't have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. You can raise taxes all you want, but as long as Obama spends TRILLIONS of dollars for his pet programs we will NEVER get out of this mess.

How can anyone not understand this?????

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:39 AM
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

We don't have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. You can raise taxes all you want, but as long as Obama spends TRILLIONS of dollars for his pet programs we will NEVER get out of this mess.

How can anyone not understand this?????

right, as long as spending is out of control, spending is a problem...

but we don't a spending problem we have a deficit/debt problem and that's going to require both spending cuts and increases in revenue to solve...

as far as obama's pet projects, how many new ones do you think there'll be with a repub controlled house?

Mr. Kotter
09-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Total income taxes paid as a percentage of income. Yes, yes they do. I'm sorry you've been taken hook line and sinker.

Total taxes, period. Just like I stated.

You just can't get past the misleading demogoguery of ONLY addressing one tax.

ChiTown
09-21-2011, 10:48 AM
right, as long as spending is out of control, spending is a problem...

but we don't a spending problem we have a deficit/debt problem and that's going to require both spending cuts and increases in revenue to solve...

as far as obama's pet projects, how many new ones do you think there'll be with a repub controlled house?

We have BOTH a spending and deficit problem.

However, you don't start solving the problem by giving the addict more money. You address the problem of spending first, then you can address the money needs. It's sheer lunacy to give these govt spendocrats more money until they radically address the cost cutting that is needed.

banyon
09-21-2011, 10:50 AM
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

We don't have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. You can raise taxes all you want, but as long as Obama spends TRILLIONS of dollars for his pet programs we will NEVER get out of this mess.

How can anyone not understand this?????

Because basic arithmetic refutes it?

Do you not agree that, at some theoretical level, if all taxes say were lowered to 1% we would have a revenue problem?

It's really just a dispute about what level of government service is essential and at what level do you draw the line. In historical terms, the revenue line and tax burden is extremely low, particularly on the top 10-1%. Does that mean we've had the balance wrong for almost 80 years? Should we return to times and minimalist levels of service we had in the frontier days?

Are there cuts to be made? Absolutely. Is it the right time to make them? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is revenue part of the equation to balance the budget or should we slash services to the point where we may cause serious harm?

go bowe
09-21-2011, 10:53 AM
We have BOTH a spending and deficit problem.

However, you don't start solving the problem by giving the addict more money. You address the problem of spending first, then you can address the money needs. It's sheer lunacy to give these govt spendocrats more money until they radically address the cost cutting that is needed.

i see your point, but liberals don't trust the repubs to increase taxes after costs are cut...

"no tax increases" is pretty clear to the average joe...

it should all be part of one package that addresses entitlement reform, defense spending, and increased taxes...

i know, i know, it's a pipe dream, but it's still the way we have to go if we want to make real progress in reducing the deficit...

patteeu
09-21-2011, 11:13 AM
Total taxes, period. Just like I stated.

You just can't get past the misleading demogoguery of ONLY addressing one tax.

How about you provide some credible support for your claim?

KC Dan
09-21-2011, 11:17 AM
WTF? No one's getting their money's worth?!! Have you checked Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies profit reports?!!!

This is a terrible economy for you and I, but a great one for the big money.I disagree, its a good economy for me. I work my arse off and am well paid. I pay more taxes to the feds than I ever have. I don't like it but in our progressive system, I understand. Yet, The gov't pays out more in entitlement welfare than ever before yet they want, no they neeeeed more revenue (to prevent cutting spending and adding more spending). The gov't dole has expanded at rate greater than any since the great depression yet they want to spend more. Why? To continue their reelections. It really is that simple.

I know that living within one's means may be foreign to some but for those of us that do, life is going ok. The gov't needs to live within their means. How difficult would it be to return to 2006 spending levels? Take a look at the GAO report on waste and fraud. It is mind-blowing how much money is being used to line supporters pockets so our illustrious idiots in D.C. can get reelected. Yet, they continue to just give lip service to eliminating such waste and fraud. Here are some links:

http://liftingtheveil.blog.com/2010/10/01/gao-reports-reveal-fraud-and-waste-in-head-start-and-other-childrens-programs/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/01/government-waste-numbers-report-identifies-dozens-duplicative-programs/

and the actual report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf

mlyonsd
09-21-2011, 12:11 PM
Total taxes, period. Just like I stated.

You just can't get past the misleading demogoguery of ONLY addressing one tax.Doesn't matter you'd still be wrong.

Calcountry
09-21-2011, 12:14 PM
He's saying that he lives on $200K per year and that that $400k goes toward creating new jobs by expanding his businesses. These aren't the "saved" jobs that Obama claims, these are real new jobs. Increasing his tax load isn't going to cut into his $200k lifestyle, it's going to cut into that $400k and reduce the rate at which this guy's business expands.

I guess that in the long run, punitive taxation will reduce this guy's retirement net worth, but in the short term it's going to eliminate some job opportunities for people who make $30k per year. Is that what you're looking for, Frankie?Which part will the marginal tax increase come out of? the 200K, or the 400k of investment capital.

It isn't Trickle down, IT'S MATH!.

Calcountry
09-21-2011, 12:16 PM
I disagree, its a good economy for me. I work my arse off and am well paid. I pay more taxes to the feds than I ever have. I don't like it but in our progressive system, I understand. Yet, The gov't pays out more in entitlement welfare than ever before yet they want, no they neeeeed more revenue (to prevent cutting spending and adding more spending). The gov't dole has expanded at rate greater than any since the great depression yet they want to spend more. Why? To continue their reelections. It really is that simple.

I know that living within one's means may be foreign to some but for those of us that do, life is going ok. The gov't needs to live within their means. How difficult would it be to return to 2006 spending levels? Take a look at the GAO report on waste and fraud. It is mind-blowing how much money is being used to line supporters pockets so our illustrious idiots in D.C. can get reelected. Yet, they continue to just give lip service to eliminating such waste and fraud. Here are some links:

http://liftingtheveil.blog.com/2010/10/01/gao-reports-reveal-fraud-and-waste-in-head-start-and-other-childrens-programs/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/01/government-waste-numbers-report-identifies-dozens-duplicative-programs/

and the actual report:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdfFurthermore, the super duper committee should cut spending by 1% per month, across the board, until the budget is balanced. That is, unless they could agree to prioritize the spending cuts.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 12:40 PM
Because basic arithmetic refutes it?

Do you not agree that, at some theoretical level, if all taxes say were lowered to 1% we would have a revenue problem?

It's really just a dispute about what level of government service is essential and at what level do you draw the line. In historical terms, the revenue line and tax burden is extremely low, particularly on the top 10-1%. Does that mean we've had the balance wrong for almost 80 years? Should we return to times and minimalist levels of service we had in the frontier days?

Are there cuts to be made? Absolutely. Is it the right time to make them? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Is revenue part of the equation to balance the budget or should we slash services to the point where we may cause serious harm?
Basic arithmetic doesn't refute my point. It proves it.

Let's compare two years: 2000 and 2011. Total tax revenues for the year 2000 were just over $2 trillion. Total spending was just under $1.8 trillion. The government had a surplus of over $200 billion.

Now let's take a look at 2011. Total tax revenues for 2011 were slightly under $2.2 trillion. Total spending was $3.8 trillion.

We have more tax revenue than we did 11 years ago, but we've gone from a $200 billion surplus to a deficit of nearly $4 trillion. Please explain how basic arithmetic refutes the statement that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

My numbers came from the Congressional Budget Office. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

This is why Republicans resist all of these idiotic calls for tax increases by Obama and the Democrats. Raising taxes will do NOTHING to solve the problem. It may make the liberals feel good because it gives them an excuse to stick it to "the rich", but class warfare will not solve this problem. The only way to solve this problem is to stop spending nearly four f*cking trillion dollars every year.

banyon
09-21-2011, 12:49 PM
Basic arithmetic doesn't refute my point. It proves it.

Let's compare two years: 2000 and 2011. Total tax revenues for the year 2000 were just over $2 trillion. Total spending was just under $1.8 trillion. The government had a surplus of over $200 billion.

Now let's take a look at 2011. Total tax revenues for 2011 were slightly under $2.2 trillion. Total spending was $3.8 trillion.

We have more tax revenue than we did 11 years ago, but we've gone from a $200 billion surplus to a deficit of nearly $4 trillion. Please explain how basic arithmetic refutes the statement that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

My numbers came from the Congressional Budget Office. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

This is why Republicans resist all of these idiotic calls for tax increases by Obama and the Democrats. Raising taxes will do NOTHING to solve the problem. It may make the liberals feel good because it gives them an excuse to stick it to "the rich", but class warfare will not solve this problem. The only way to solve this problem is to stop spending nearly four f*cking trillion dollars every year.

I think you forgot to factor in population growth of 30 million (not even counting illegals) in the last 10 years.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 12:59 PM
I think you forgot to factor in population growth of 30 million (not even counting illegals) in the last 10 years.
No, the real problem is that you don't understand that raising tax rates is not the way to raise tax revenues. When you create a climate that is extremely hostile to business, business will not expand. See Obamacare.

Frankie
09-21-2011, 01:47 PM
We don't have a revenue problem. WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. You can raise taxes all you want, but as long as Obama spends TRILLIONS of dollars for his pet programs we will NEVER get out of this mess.Education, infrastructure, Americans safe and secure from health disasters, etc., etc., .... yeah all Obama's personal pet projects and all wasteful spending.

I have news for you my friend. Running and maintaining a country has costs. Costs are covered by taxes. When the economy is bad the super rich are in the most effective and the least damaging position to help out. Instead big corporations have been posting record profits while the middle class is rapidly becoming the poor.

How can anyone not understand this?????This ranks as one of the most ironic statements EVER on the CP.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Education, infrastructure, Americans safe and secure from health disasters, etc., etc., .... yeah all Obama's personal pet projects and all wasteful spending.

I have news for you my friend. Running and maintaining a country has costs. Costs are covered by taxes. When the economy is bad the super rich are in the most effective and the least damaging position to help out. Instead big corporations have been posting record profits while the middle class is rapidly becoming the poor.

This ranks as one of the most ironic statements EVER on the CP.

I see what you mean. The profits are the problem. Luckily your guy is working to fix that problem.

Frankie
09-21-2011, 01:52 PM
I know that living within one's means may be foreign to some but for those of us that do, life is going ok.

Not true. You may be an exception not the rule. Living within one's means is increasingly getting harder and more impossible for the majority of the (former) middle class.

Donger
09-21-2011, 01:53 PM
WTF? No one's getting their money's worth?!! Have you checked Wall Street, pharmaceuticals, oil companies profit reports?!!

I'll take issue with that last one. Frankie, do you know what Exxon's tax burden was last FY?

47%

Frankie
09-21-2011, 01:57 PM
I see what you mean. The profits are the problem. Luckily your guy is working to fix that problem.

Bad economy = Everybody's profit is cut or reversed.

Good economy = Everybody with just reasonable luck and effort can live in reasonable comfort, while some post very good profit.

Selective 'good economy' = the little man suffers while the fat cat posts record profits and buys more yachts.

Guess which one today's economy is.

Brainiac
09-21-2011, 02:02 PM
I think you forgot to factor in population growth of 30 million (not even counting illegals) in the last 10 years.
Government spending doubled to four trillion dollars in the last 10 years. Did the population double?

Try again.

Frankie
09-21-2011, 02:07 PM
Government spending doubled to four trillion dollars in the last 10 years. Did the population double?

Try again.

Costs are always increasing. A dollar bought 3 or 4 hamburgers 40 years ago, but it only buys one now.

Donger
09-21-2011, 02:12 PM
Can someone clue Frankie in on what the inflation rate was over the last ten years?

banyon
09-21-2011, 02:41 PM
Costs are always increasing. A dollar bought 3 or 4 hamburgers 40 years ago, but it only buys one now.

Subtract the wars and DOD increases and I wonder what the increase is down to? Especially if it's just discretionary nondefense.

Frankie
09-21-2011, 02:44 PM
Can someone clue Frankie in on what the inflation rate was over the last ten years?

I fully understand the concept of inflation rates. I also understand that bridges are giving away under cars in Minnesota, education is badly falling behind other countries and Americans are some of the least protected people against health problems in the first world.

There are things we have neglected, especially in the last 10 years that need addressed. The longer we wait the costlier in lives and money they will be to address.

Donger
09-21-2011, 02:48 PM
I fully understand the concept of inflation rates. I also understand that bridges are giving away under cars in Minnesota, education is badly falling behind other countries and Americans are some of the least protected people against health problems in the first world.

There are things we have neglected, especially in the last 10 years that need addressed. The longer we wait the costlier in lives and money they will be to address.

No, "a" bridge collapsed in MN. And that was, what, two years ago? How many other bridges have collapsed since?

And, we are already taxed plenty to repair our infrastructure.

SNR
09-21-2011, 03:33 PM
No, "a" bridge collapsed in MN. And that was, what, two years ago? How many other bridges have collapsed since?

And, we are already taxed plenty to repair our infrastructure.The bridge was re-built two years ago. It's almost like nothing even happened in Minneapolis.

RedNeckRaider
09-21-2011, 03:55 PM
No, "a" bridge collapsed in MN. And that was, what, two years ago? How many other bridges have collapsed since?

And, we are already taxed plenty to repair our infrastructure.

Answer the question damn it! Did the bridge break in half in mid-air???

go bowe
09-21-2011, 04:59 PM
Answer the question damn it! Did the bridge break in half in mid-air???

enquiring minds and all that... LMAO LMAO LMAO

stevieray
09-21-2011, 06:55 PM
I know that living within one's means may be foreign to some but for those of us that do, life is going ok.

yes sir.....:clap:

headsnap
09-21-2011, 08:05 PM
No, "a" bridge collapsed in MN. And that was, what, two years ago? How many other bridges have collapsed since?

And, we are already taxed plenty to repair our infrastructure.

here is Louisville, we have 3 bridges that cross the Ohio River, 2 major highway and one two lane(the one that Bill Murray threw the keys to that taxi off in Stripes). One of the major bridges, the Sherman Minton bridge(HWY 64), had a crack in it discovered about two weeks ago... rather convenient timing... the thing is closed, glad I don't have to cross the river daily!

BigChiefFan
09-23-2011, 10:24 AM
Congress has plenty of revenue, they just don't have a clue on how to manage it.


That being said, Fleming is a douche. I like how he fails to mention his TAX FREE pay from the taxpayers in addition to his $400,000. Why should this fuck get more tax relief than the middle-class? We've footed the bill long enough-he wants all the perks and none of the pain that goes with being squeezed for more. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Funny how these fucks have no problem taxing everybody else to the max, but when it starts hitting them in the pocketbook, they don't like it. Welcome to the real world, Fleming.

patteeu
09-23-2011, 11:03 AM
Congress has plenty of revenue, they just don't have a clue on how to manage it.


That being said, Fleming is a douche. I like how he fails to mention his TAX FREE pay from the taxpayers in addition to his $400,000. Why should this **** get more tax relief than the middle-class? We've footed the bill long enough-he wants all the perks and none of the pain that goes with being squeezed for more. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Funny how these ****s have no problem taxing everybody else to the max, but when it starts hitting them in the pocketbook, they don't like it. Welcome to the real world, Fleming.

Could you be more specific?

Frankie
09-23-2011, 12:07 PM
Congress has plenty of revenue, they just don't have a clue on how to manage it.


That being said, Fleming is a douche. I like how he fails to mention his TAX FREE pay from the taxpayers in addition to his $400,000. Why should this **** get more tax relief than the middle-class? We've footed the bill long enough-he wants all the perks and none of the pain that goes with being squeezed for more. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Funny how these ****s have no problem taxing everybody else to the max, but when it starts hitting them in the pocketbook, they don't like it. Welcome to the real world, Fleming.

Could you be more specific?

Yeah. He says Fleming is a fleming POS.