Who Do you plan to Vote for in the Republican Primary?

[BLADEMDA]

Tax The Rich!

Submitted by Robert Oak on Sun, 09/18/2011 - 03:33

• Bernie Sanders
• Obama
• Peter Defazio
• social security
• Warren Buffet

Oh those millionaires, they suffer so. Seems Obama has dusted off some past campaign rhetoric and is now proposing to tax millionaires to pay down the deficit.

President Obama on Monday will call for a new minimum tax rate for individuals making more than $1 million a year to ensure that they pay at least the same percentage of their earnings as middle-income taxpayers, according to administration officials.
​

Details are sketchy yet it seems to be some sort of alternative minimum tax so millionaires aren't paying glorified capital gains tax rates on their yearly income. Shame Obama caved on letting the Bush tax cuts expire when he had a Democratic Congress.
When investment managers, hedge fund managers receive compensation, it's in the form of stocks, options, which are taxed at a 15% capital gains rate, not the top tier 35% income tax bracket.
Additionally, millionaires don't pay additional social security contribution taxes past $106,800 of their yearly earnings.
To wit, Populist House Democrat Peter Defazio has introduced legislation to raise that cap on social security contributions and stop the attacks and social security defunding attempts:

Nervous that Social Security seems under siege from all sides, congressional liberals on Wednesday proposed raising the payroll tax that funds the program, but only for people earning more than $250,000 a year.
The legislation is designed to keep the pension program solvent for the next 75 years, which is the standard used by government actuaries, by putting an additional $6.5 trillion into the Social Security trust fund over that period. The plan also is intended to head off other efforts to overhaul the program or trim benefits, or to use its funds to help pay for debt reduction.
"No more discussion about raising the retirement age, no more discussion about cutting benefits, no more discussion about privatization," said Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., one of the sponsors.
​

Recall this is one of Obama's lost forgotten campaign promises, to ensure social security is funded, plus make it more progressive by raising the social security contribution tax on people making over 250,000 a year.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

[FONT=times new roman,times]The latest Congressional Budget Office .[FONT=times new roman,times]report.[FONT=times new roman,times] concludes that the country will average an annual budget deficit close to $750 Billion per year for the next ten years including this year. Therefore the national debt will rise by nearly $7.5 Trillion dollars to a total debt of over $21.5 Trillion (115% of the nation's projected gross national product) putting the nation into technical insolvency..

[FONT=times new roman,times]With that figure agreed upon, what would be the impact of raising the taxes rates on those filers with modified taxable income above $200,000.00 per year? The most recent comprehensive data on income and tax filing was issued by the IRS in October 2010 and is for the 2008 taxable year. (.[FONT=times new roman,times]http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html.[FONT=times new roman,times]) .

[FONT=times new roman,times]For this exercise, a few hard-to-believe assumption must be made: 1) that Congress would apply all additional revenue to the deficit and debt, 2) that no new programs would be initiated, 3) the spending assumptions for items such as ObamaCare, Medicare and Social Security are 100% accurate and 4) there would be no catastrophic natural or man-made disasters..

[FONT=times new roman,times]In 2008 there were 4,359,000 tax returns filed with modified taxable income (MTI) of $200,000 or above. The total amount of MTI above $200,000 was $1.189 Trillion. Using the simplest calculation possible, let us assume the current income tax rate of 35% was increased by a factor of 20%. The new tax rate of 42% would generate an additional $237 Billion in revenue to the government per year. If fully applied to the deficit per the CBO, then the deficit would be reduced to $513 Billion per year and the debt would increase by $5.1 Trillion over ten years to a total indebtedness of $18.8 Trillion still 100% of projected GDP..

[FONT=times new roman,times]If the current top income tax rate would be increased by 40% to a rate of 49%, then theoretically the additional income to the government would increase by $474 Billion per year and reduce the deficit to $276 Billion per year, and the overall debt would go up by $2.8 Trillion over ten years to a total indebtedness of $16.7 Trillion (88% of projected GDP).

[FONT=times new roman,times]The overall effective tax rate (incl. Medicare, average state income tax and misc income taxes) for those in the highest income category would be 51% (if the Federal rate were increased by 20%) and 57% (if increased by 40%). This is before the impact of such items as property taxes, excise taxes etc. The average person would acknowledge that when the overall tax impact on every dollar above $200,000 would be taxed at 55 to 65%+, then the incentive to earn more money would be greatly diminished..

[FONT=times new roman,times]This phenomenon has been documented by Arthur Laffer and his Laffer Curve which .[FONT=times new roman,times]shows.[FONT=times new roman,times] that the higher the tax rate the less tax revenue is collected by the government. .

[FONT=times new roman,times]Even in an ideal world, discounting human nature, and with the Congress on their best fiscal behavior in the future, raising taxes on the so-called rich will not solve the country's financial problems. Raising the rates too high will in fact make matters worse. It is time to stop listening to the snake oil salesmen in the Democratic Party and their tired class warfare rhetoric and get serious about cutting spending..

 

[BLADEMDA]

Our Progressive Tax System and Their Fair Share

September 20th, 2011 Greg Mankiw points out just how progressive our tax system is:

If you can remember only one fact, make it this one: The middle class (middle quintile) pays 14.1 percent of its income in federal taxes, while the rich (top tenth of one percent of the population) pay 30.4 percent.
​

That's from the Tax Policy Center, and I should also note that those are effective tax rates.
We can debate whether that rate should be higher, but it isn't accurate to argue that the rich don't pay a significant amount in taxes. They do, and they pay significantly more, whether measured as a percentage of income or in absolute terms.
It's important to keep this in mind as we enter the 2012 campaign. We're going to hear a lot more about how the rich don't pay "their fair share." Knowing the data helps make clear exactly what that means when used as a justification for higher taxes on the wealthy. This isn't simply a case where the wealthy are paying an absurdly low percentage of tax revenues while the middle class and poor shoulder the burden.
"They don't pay their fair share" isn't an empirical claim. It's a moral claim, and there's a very high bar to clear when making that argument. Why isn't nearly a third of their income fair and forty percent of income tax revenue for the top one percent fair? What percentage would be fair? By what standard do you define what is a fair percentage and what isn't?
And that doesn't even begin a much more immediate debate: is increasing taxes on the wealthy in order to fund a few more years of unsustainable government spending a desirable policy?
That phrase appeals to people because this recession is affecting the middle class and poor much, much more severely than it is the wealthy, and so placing more of the tax burden on them feels satisfying in some way—they're going to be affected, too, just like us. But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do morally, nor does it mean it's the right policy.
I tend toward thinking that, long-term, we do need to raise taxes on the wealthy. But this must be a part of a much broader reform, which makes us solvent and successful in the future. This means substantially changing our entitlement programs so they are sustainable over the next century, not just the next decade. This means reforming our tax code with lower marginal rates, less exemptions, exclusions and deductions, and so it doesn't require a tax professional to understand how much we owe.
Yes, higher taxes on the wealthy will likely need to be a part of comprehensive reform that makes us solvent. But it absolutely should not be used to paper over our structurally unsound spending for a few more years, nor as a campaign wedge and red meat.


http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

Last week, healthcare expert Christopher Conover posted an analysis at the American Enterprise Institute, illustrating the differences between Social Security and Medicare. He found that while most people (except low-income earners) receive Social Security benefits that are roughly commensurate to their contributions from the 12.4% payroll tax, the same cannot be said of Medicare benefits. The average Medicare recipient, according to Conover, received $2-$6 per every dollar paid into the system via the 2.9% Medicare tax. Moreover, the only people who earn all of their Medicare benefits are those earning an average of $130,000 a year over their entire career – the very people who will see a payroll tax increase under Obamacare.

The two entitlement programs must be addressed with honest solutions, albeit with drastically different approaches. Social Security is very simple. It is not an entitlement program. With the exception of low-income earners, most people receive less than the aggregate contributions paid into the system, when the expectation for reasonable interest returns is factored in. Social Security is a mandatory Ponzi scheme that offers lousy returns, taxes some of those returns, and commandeers those returns from the estate of a deceased recipient.
Accordingly, people who decry attempts to cut Social Security by using the rallying cry, “it’s my money,” are absolutely correct. It is their money – and if they were given an opportunity to invest that money in private accounts, they would be able to retire comfortably and enjoy a better rate of return. Thus, a gradual move towards private accounts is the way to go.
Medicare, as Mr. Conover observes, is a very different challenge. Not only is Medicare, as it’s currently constituted, a burgeoning budget-busting entitlement program, it is the most prominent market-distorter amongst the plethora of market distorting programs Democrats have injected into the healthcare system over the years. This open-ended third-party program has engendered a self-fulfilling cycle of unaffordability into the healthcare system. Its very existence has raised the cost of care to the point that very few people can afford to retire without it. To that end, unlike with Social Security benefits, Medicare recipients lack the ability to say (they say it anyway), “give me my money back, and I’ll take care of my own healthcare.”
The bottom line is that the aggregate savings from the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax and the premiums for retirees are insufficient to pay for today’s healthcare costs – costs that were spiked by the counterintuitive nature of third-party open-ended payments. This is how liberals have distorted the costs of healthcare and created dependency over the past few decades. Whatever is left of free-market healthcare after Medicare, Medicaid, VA, SChip, and all the mandates on private insurance – will be decimated by Obamacare

 

[BLADEMDA]

Grasshopper,

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. Obama is leading us down a path of bankruptcy. He must be defeated in 2012.


res ipsa loquitur

 

[BLADEMDA]

By Patricia Zengerle

updated 11/4/2011 1:52:58 PM ET

• Print
• Font:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama's fortunes are improving slightly, although he would face a tough struggle for re-election next year if Mitt Romney were the Republican nominee, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said Friday.
Forty-nine percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, up from 47 percent in an October poll.
Obama's disapproval rating held steady at 50 percent.
While still low, the percentage of Americans who believe the country is headed in the right direction also increased, to 25 from 21 in the previous survey. The percentage who feel it is on the wrong track slipped to 70 from 74, the survey said.

1. Other political news of note
   
   1. Justices pressured to sit on sidelines First Read: Political groups are calling for Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the pending health reform case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear.
   2. Romney: Obama doesn't understand America
   3. Boehner calls GOP deficit plan a 'fair offer'
   4. First Read: Perry plans to 'uproot' government
   5. Supreme Court to take up Obama health care law

Wild week in review The poll showed Obama would finish just behind Romney if the November 2012 presidential election were held today, with the former Massachusetts governor at 44 percent and Obama at 43 percent among registered voters.
It was the first Reuters/Ipsos poll to show Romney ahead, although his slim lead is within the survey's margin of error and technically a dead heat.
Obama led Romney by 6 percentage points when the same question was asked in a poll in September.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNxG0Eo3QtY&feature=fvwrel

Watch the video Grasshopper. I also assume you aren't a member of the NRA?

 

[BLADEMDA]

If Ron Paul runs as an Independent in the General Election then Grasshopper will be right: I'll get 4 more years of Obama. I'll need to buy a very, very large safe to hid my cash, gold and guns. I may need to build a concrete cellar to hold my food as well.

I doubt the cash will be worth much anyway by 2016 but the Gold sure will.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[TheBlend]

I see how u got 5k + posts in two years. Too bad the vast majority arn't your own thoughts much less fair or accurate descriptions of the statistics they are misrepresenting.but instead a repeatedly misleading and massive copy and paste campaign.

This picture is that of the next losing candidate for president . Don't forget he is a Mormon and even if ur ok with it, many too many in your partt not to mention the independents will not be.

I'm ending my participation in this thread. A dozen back to back to back posts is just another tactic used by you folk to steer conversations, ignore large parts of what I have said, and move the goalposts of the points. I could just as easily vomit post after post of biased manipulative unsourced rambling or random chats, but it is dishonest and ineffective. You seem to have a real problem withthe concept of evidence as proven by your stances on climate change, evolution, tax rates etc.

“If someone disagrees with you all you can do is appeal to scientific values and if he doesn’t share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic? -Sam Harris

With that, see u around the forum.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I see how u got 5k + posts in two years. Too bad the vast majority arn't your own thoughts much less fair or accurate descriptions of the statistics they are misrepresenting.but instead a repeatedly misleading and massive copy and paste campaign.

This picture is that of the next losing candidate for president . Don't forget he is a Mormon and even if ur ok with it, many too many in your partt not to mention the independents will not be.

I'm ending my participation in this thread. A dozen back to back to back posts is just another tactic used by you folk to steer conversations, ignore large parts of what I have said, and move the goalposts of the points. I could just as easily vomit post after post of biased manipulative unsourced rambling or random chats, but it is dishonest and ineffective. You seem to have a real problem withthe concept of evidence as proven by your stances on climate change, evolution, tax rates etc.

“If someone disagrees with you all you can do is appeal to scientific values and if he doesn’t share those values the conversation is over. If someone doesn’t value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument are you going to provide to show the importance of logic? -Sam Harris

With that, see u around the forum.

That's the main problem with liberals. They can't add. I've been posting on SDN since at least April 2007. Yet, you clearly state "two years." This is the same math Obama and his cronies have been using to run this nation. We can't afford 4 more years.

 

[DreamMachine]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=infC6-L4DiQ&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Osteoimperfecta]

Can anyone explain to me what Newt is doing ahead on the polls. What has Romney done wrong to deserve this BS treatment?

 

[PMPMD]

That's the main problem with liberals. They can't add. I've been posting on SDN since at least April 2007. Yet, you clearly state "two years." This is the same math Obama and his cronies have been using to run this nation. We can't afford 4 more years.

4 more years (of Blade)!

 

[pacucare]

The loss of Mr. Cain is truly a devestating blow. Lol, god bless pokeman

 

[CambieMD]

The loss of Mr. Cain is truly a devestating blow. Lol, god bless pokeman

Cain had no business in the race in the first place. He was completetly unprepared for the vigors of American presidential politics. The man was out of his league.

Cambie

p.s. At some point integrity must matter.

 

[Narcotized]

I would have voted for the Fat Man.