The Rich Get Richer

You idiots are pissing and moaning over a candidate that has done a great job as an individual within the rules of the system . Originally Posted by The2Dogs

No we are arguing that the rules are so slanted to favor the rich that all others are just on a standby Lottery system.

Care to comment on the below link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/bo...pagewanted=all

Stiglitz succinctly summarized his own argument in a recent online column: “Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset — its people — is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education and technology, impeding the engines of growth. . . . Most importantly, America’s inequality is undermining its values and identity. With inequality reaching such extremes, it is not surprising that its effects are manifest in every public decision, from the conduct of monetary policy to budgetary allocations. America has become a country not ‘with justice for all,’ but rather with favoritism for the rich and justice for those who can afford it — so evident in the foreclosure crisis, in which the big banks believed that they were too big not only to fail, but also to be held accountable.”

Who slanted those rules to favor the rich?

Whoa, there, buddy!

Let's keep this conversation civil!

Just because we "went through this before" does not now make your position some sort of holy writ, sir.

The fact is that we are looking at the same scene, but through different lenses.

You choose to believe that it is perfectly acceptable that people like Romney paid only 13% taxes because he found creative ways to comply with the law.

Well, that don't cut any ice with me and I know bullshit when I see it!

I believe that anyone who makes millions should pay more than what many people who earn less who pay a much higher percentage.

Why do you suppose Mitt does not want to disclose his tax forms?

. . . Furthermore, I maintain that anyone who aspires to the highest office in the country should be above reproach if he expects to win the election.

Although there are plenty of reasons to criticize Romney and to feel that he's not going to suitably address the most critical issues if he's elected president, his personal effective tax rate is not one of them.



Bullshit!

We went through all this earlier. What part of our previous discussion of the different categories of "income" do you still not understand?

I asked this before: Can you point to anyone, of any political persuasion, who instructed his CPAs and tax counsel that he wanted to ignore the tax code and pay the full 35% rate on everything, even if it obviously qualifies for lower rates of taxation -- because failing to so would be "unpatriotic?"

And look again at the case of Obama supporter Warren Buffett, who famously calls for higher taxation on the wealthy, but as I described earlier just so happens to utilize a particular type of shelter that would shield his wealth accumulation from any significant degree of additional taxation even if rates were raised substantially.

If you don't like the tax code, reserve your criticism for those who write the laws, not those of us who invest in businesses, equities, and commercial real estate properties.

It's asinine and insulting to call anyone who simply complies with the law as it was written "dishonest." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

With all the problems in this country created by the present administration, the OP is REALLY worrying about Mitt Romney's taxes? Really?

A mind is a terrrible thing to waste...

okie

With all the problems in this country created by the present administration, the OP is REALLY worrying about Mitt Romney's taxes? Really?

A mind is a terrrible thing to waste...

okie Originally Posted by okiehardun

when the wealthy pay at a 13% clip and then people like you bitch about the deficit, then yes Mitt Romney's taxes are a concern.

Who slanted those rules to favor the rich? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Rich. That is how we get to big to fail.

That is how we got the Tea Party and then the stupid Tea Nuts turn around and support the RICH!


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/bo...pagewanted=all

Stiglitz succinctly summarized his own argument in a recent online column: “Inequality leads to lower growth and less efficiency. Lack of opportunity means that its most valuable asset — its people — is not being fully used. Many at the bottom, or even in the middle, are not living up to their potential, because the rich, needing few public services and worried that a strong government might redistribute income, use their political influence to cut taxes and curtail government spending. This leads to underinvestment in infrastructure, education and technology, impeding the engines of growth. . . . Most importantly, America’s inequality is undermining its values and identity. With inequality reaching such extremes, it is not surprising that its effects are manifest in every public decision, from the conduct of monetary policy to budgetary allocations. America has become a country not ‘with justice for all,’ but rather with favoritism for the rich and justice for those who can afford it — so evident in the foreclosure crisis, in which the big banks believed that they were too big not only to fail, but also to be held accountable.”

when the wealthy pay at a 13% clip and then people like you bitch about the deficit, then yes Mitt Romney's taxes are a concern. Originally Posted by WTF

How much more would they have to pay to eliminate the deficit? I've asked that before, but you avoid it. You obviously think the deficit is caused by too little taxation on the rich, so how much should they be taxed to eliminate the deficit?

Inspire us with your wisdom.

The upper ten percent of income earners pay 70% of the income taxes. The lower fifty percent only pay 2% of the income taxes. To say that the so called rich are not paying enough is ridiculous.

You choose to believe that it is perfectly acceptable that people like Romney paid only 13% taxes because he found creative ways to comply with the law.

Well, that don't cut any ice with me and I know bullshit when I see it!
Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

Good grief!

What is it about this that you don't get? Romney's CPAs didn't seek "creative ways" to get his effective tax rate into the 13-14% range, they simply complied with the existing law! That's simple and obvious. I suggest that you try to learn something about this issue before popping off with any more asinine comments.

I do the same thing, as does everyone else. Sorry, but I haven't told my CPAs and tax attorneys that I want to ignore the rules and pay tax at a 35% rate on carried interest, capital gains, and qualified dividends. I suppose that in your book that makes me unpatriotic and "dishonest."

Unfuckingbelievable.

If you don't like the tax code as it is, fine. A lot of people, including me, certainly agree with that sentiment. But don't whine about "incivility" while calling taxpayers like me who happen to be investors and entrepreneurs "dishonest!"

How much more would they have to pay to eliminate the deficit? I've asked that before, but you avoid it. . Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And have you stopped beating your wife? Just a Yes/No GOG.

No amount of taxation on just the wealthy will eliminate the deficit but if you can not even agree that the rich need to pay an higher rate than 13% , you will never get to the point of a serious discussion on this point.

You obviously think the deficit is caused by too little taxation on the rich, so how much should they be taxed to eliminate the deficit?

Inspire us with your wisdom. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, I think the deficit is a combination of to little tax on us all and to much spending by us all. By that I mean we as a nation want more than we are willing to pay in taxes.

Paul Ryan is a perfect example. He voted for the wars, Medicare spending increase, Auto and Bank Bailouts and wants to lower the tax rate on the rich.


WTF

Then what rate should they pay?

Good grief!

What is it about this that you don't get? Romney's CPAs didn't seek "creative ways" to get his effective tax rate into the 13-14% range, they simply complied with the existing law! That's simple and obvious. I suggest that you try to learn something about this issue before popping off with any more asinine comments.

I do the same thing, as does everyone else. Sorry, but I haven't told my CPAs and tax attorneys that I want to ignore the rules and pay tax at a 35% rate on carried interest, capital gains, and qualified dividends. I suppose that in your book that makes me unpatriotic and "dishonest."

Unfuckingbelievable.

If you don't like the tax code as it is, fine. A lot of people, including me, certainly agree with that sentiment. But don't whine about "incivility" while calling taxpayers like me who happen to be investors and entrepreneurs "dishonest!" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

agreed

I'd say legal creativity in most cases

take deducting $77K for a horse for instance ... legal,sure, creative? indeed, as creative a tax lawyer his money can buy.

Then what rate should they pay? Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I have told you that even the Laffer Curve does not state a set rate. That depends on what that society wants I suppose. If you want to have the biggest baddest military in the world, that protects world commerance without being paid for such, then one would think that it would be higher than 13% .

That is WTF you and other right leaning folks do not understand. SS and Medicare have been paid for. Now the military hawks have spent that surplus but those programs that folks like you bitch about are still in the black.

So I suppose 13% is not going to be enough to continue with the current military spending....something Paul Ryan does not want to cut.

cof thinks the board is capable of estimating of a broad array of technical, behavioral, and economic factors and spit out an exact figure ..

imagine that

I have told you that even the Laffer Curve does not state a set rate. That depends on what that society wants I suppose. If you want to have the biggest baddest military in the world, that protects world commerance without being paid for such, then one would think that it would be higher than 13% .

That is WTF you and other right leaning folks do not understand. SS and Medicare have been paid for. Now the military hawks have spent that surplus but those programs that folks like you bitch about are still in the black.

So I suppose 13% is not going to be enough to continue with the current military spending....something Paul Ryan does not want to cut. Originally Posted by WTF

Why don't you just admit that you don't understand the Laffer Curve? You read about it somewhere, and you think if you refer to it you will sound smart. You don't. Because you don't understand it. It has not a damn thing to do with what society wants.

Here is a brief lesson. The Laffer Curve presumes that if the government assesses 0% in taxes, the government will have $0 in revenue. Make sense so far? It gets a bit more complicated now. The LC also presumes that if the government assesses an income tax rate of 100%, it will also have $0 in revenue, because there would be no incentive to work, therefore no income, therefore no income tax. With me so far?

Now, if you start at the 0% level of taxation, and begin raising the rate, tax revenue would increase, correct? But if you increase the tax rate to 100%, tax revenue would fall to $0. So there must be a point between 0% and 100% where tax revenue collection would be the highest.

Here, let's go a little further. If you raise tax rates from 0% to 5%, you can be pretty certain revenue will increase. A worker won't mind that much if he can keep 95% of his pay. At that rate, it is worth it to spend his time working. At 100%, there is no incentive to spend his time working, so he doesn't.

Now, let's start at 100%, and drop it to, say, 95%. We may gain some revenue, if there are some that would work to be able to keep 5% of their pay. So we may see some increase in revenue. Drop that rate to 70%, and revenue will increase more.

Now, at some point, there will be a level of taxation that provides the optimal level of taxation. If we raise taxes from that level, revenue will go down. If we lower taxes at at level revenue will go down.

The fact is, we don't know what side of the spectrum we're on. Are we on the side where raising taxes will increase revenue, or are we on the side where lowering taxes will increase revenue? That's the debate.

You can come on here and say "That's too low", ok, so prove it. You can prove it by raising it, or lowering it, and seeing what happens.

But the fact is, WDF, you know nothing about tax policy, economics or the Laffer Curve. You spit out whatever the Obamatic Lie Machine tells you. Unfortunately, you are more like Biden than Obama. You think you sound smart, but the rest of can see differently, and are laughing our heads off.

Now the real point is, the rate is irrelevant unless

CONGRESS QUITS SPENDING SO MUCH!!

Raising taxes will do nothing for the deficit or debt. Congress MUST QUIT SPENDING!!

OK, WDF. Your turn to make stuff up, twist this around to mean something it doesn't, and make yourself feel good. Have at it, pal. We already know what you are.