-
BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity
May 24, 2013 | 13 comments
-
Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden
May 24, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Good Luck Quin
May 24, 2013 | 6 comments
-
One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born
May 23, 2013 | 9 comments
-
The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again
May 22, 2013 | 7 comments
The Spectacle Blog
When I first heard that President Obama was planning to propose a “Buffett Rule” I knew it had nothing to do with parrotheads, margaritas and cheeseburgers.
Obama is apparently set to propose a minimum tax for millionaires and billionaires on Monday. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone given what he has said in promotion of the American Jobs Act over the past few days beginning with his speech before a joint session of Congress on September 8th:
Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work so our kids can graduate ready for college and good jobs? Right now, we can’t afford to do both.
This isn’t political grandstanding. This isn’t class warfare. This is simple math. This is simple math. These are real choices. These are real choices we’ve got to make. And I’m pretty sure I know what most Americans would choose. It’s not even close. And it’s time for us to do what’s right for our future.
On September 9th, while speaking at the University of Virginia in Richmond, President Obama said:
Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires? Or should we put teachers back to work, so our kids are ready to graduate from college and get a good job. We can’t afford to do both.
We’ve got to make real choices about the kind of country we want to be. That’s not class warfare. I’m not attacking anybody. I’m just - it’s simple math. We can’t afford for folks who are the most fortunate to do the least, and put the largest burden on the folks who are struggling the most. That doesn’t make sense.
Three days later, this is what President Obama said in the Rose Garden:
Should we keep tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires — or should we invest in education and technology and infrastructure, all the things that are going to help us out-innovate and out-educate and out-build other countries in the future?
On September 13th, President Obama found himself at Fort Hayes High School in Columbus, Ohio and guess what traversed his lips:
Do you want to keep tax breaks for multi-millionaires and billionaires? Or do you want to put teachers back to work, help small businesses, and cut taxes for middle-class families?
Then the following day, President Obama spoke at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, North Carolina. I think you know what’s coming:
Do you want to keep tax breaks for multi-millionaires and billionaires? Or do you want to cut taxes for small business owners and middle-class families?
This, of course, the same in speech in which Obama said, “If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill.”
It’s going to take a lot more than love for President Obama to get Congress pass his jobs bill and he knows it. Obama knows full well House Republicans will never go for a jobs bill which involves such a tax increase. It’ll give Obama an opportunity to say, “We had a chance to put teachers back to work, help small businesses and cut taxes for middle class families. But Republicans are more interested in keeping tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. They are putting party ahead of country.”
I can only hope people will see right through it. After all, President Obama is presenting us with false choices. How does increasing the capital gains tax or imposing a minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires put teachers back to work and help small businesses? How does that encourage investment? Doesn’t that only provide incentive to those who have wealth to move it offshore?
Besides I thought President Obama provided a tax cut to 95% of all Americans. As recently as his Labor Day speech in Detroit (you know the one where Teamsters Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. called Tea Party activists SOBs) Obama claimed “we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.” Well, fat lot of good it did with unemployment in excess of 9%, near zero economic growth and more than half a billion dollars wasted on sink holes like Solyndra. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to think that people will see beyond the gimmicks and respond to Obama’s invocation of Buffett with a firm “stuff it.”
View all comments (97) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/09/18/thoughts-on-obamas-buffett-rul
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Hannah and Her Friends
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
- Her Unrequited Letter
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kim| 9.18.11 @ 1:28AM
"How does increasing the capital gains tax or imposing a minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires put teachers back to work and help small businesses?"
I can't believe you seriously asked that question. It's obvious; so obvious a child could understand it. The US federal government is running an enormous budget deficit. Every dollar raised from the rich is one dollar less that needs to be raised from the middle class, or one dollar less that needs to be raised from small business, or one dollar less that needs to be cut from education. And it is well known that the rich generally don't spend their tax breaks; they hoard them, providing no economic benefit. The worst section of society (based on outcomes) to provide tax breaks to are the rich. Trickle down Reaganomics is a fiction.
As Mr Obama said, it's 'simple math'. The middle class simply cannot afford to fund the US deficit. Unless substantial defence cuts are considered (and they won't be for quite some time), then the rich must pitch in too. This is especially relevant because, as Warren Buffett said, "I pay a lower tax rate than my cleaning lady".
If the rich don't pay their fair share, the USA is doomed as an economic power, which means it's also doomed as a military power. Simple as that. The USA needs an equitable tax system, and it needs it soon.
Winghunter| 9.18.11 @ 1:52AM
Hey Comrade Kim,
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” —Thomas Jefferson
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." -- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, 1766
Get loyal or pay the consequences!
Simon Templar| 9.18.11 @ 2:30AM
"If the rich don't pay their fair share, the USA is doomed as an economic power, which means it's also doomed as a military power. Simple as that. The USA needs an equitable tax system, and it needs it soon."
Simple as that! It really is that simple when you have a very simple mind and you are ignorant as shit.
Now, I want you to try real hard, strain that little useful idiot brain, and if you can listen carefully.
Oh, please do not take my word for it...I insist you get off your idle ass and look it up for yourself. Hey, maybe even take a couple of business courses!
The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes.
Recent research has shown that if you confiscate the total wealth of all these rich you want to tax more, it would hardly put a dent in the total deficit this nation has accumulated from overspending.
This is the reality. Look the rest of it up for yourself and start using your brain and stop parroting what you hear from the liberal media talking points and the crap you hear from your liberal friends.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 2:30PM
"The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 percent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax."
The way you come up with a number like that is to look only at federal income taxes, pretending that the government doesn't get it's fingers into your pockets with other taxes that are mostly regressive, and to only look at wage income, pretending that the richest Americans get their money through wages rather than capital gains and so on that are taxed at much lower rates.
I'm not one of the super wealthy but my income is all from investments, and if you, Simon, are a working stiff then it's safe to say that the federal government takes a lower percentage out of my pocket than it does out of yours. It's also very likely that I take in more each year than you do.
I think it's hilarious that so many wingers have been brainwashed into thinking that this is the way it should be, that they should pay a higher rate to the government than me, making it harder for them to accumulate wealth, even though they're working hard for a living and the hardest thing I do regarding my income is to check my brokerage statements every month and send documents to my accountant.
Please note that I'm not suggesting that I should pay more, even though the current arrangement is hugely skewed in my favor. I'm merely gloating that you're working so hard to make sure I and people like me don't have to give as high a percentage of our money to the government as you.
Here's something to chew on:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf
Edward| 9.18.11 @ 11:30PM
Well, BobG, since you are so concerned that you are getting a free ride, and want to use the government's power to force everyone in your tax bracket to pay more,why don't you set and example and each year send the Treasury a voluntary contribution in the amount you believe you ought to be paying? If you don't do that, then you are just a hypocrite who wants to take other's money from them by force.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 10:31AM
Edward, learn to read. I said I'm not trying to pay more. I'm laughing at you for fighting so hard to make sure I pay less and you pay more, making it harder for you to become wealthy and easier for me to become wealthier. Your gullibility is my gain. Have a good day!
Wayne| 9.18.11 @ 8:18AM
Kim, did you ever ask if these teachers are paying their fair share? Are they paying their fair share of their health benefits and their retirement benefits? Are they receiving the same benefits as the private sector teachers? Isn't federal support of public education creating an unfair advantage to public schools over private schools? Is a federally supported monopoly helpful to our children? Before greedily take the money from the rich, why not at least make sure it is going to benefit someone other than greedy unions and Obama contributors? We have seen enough cronyism from the blamer in chief to last us a life time.
Tom| 9.18.11 @ 10:47AM
Kim;
It's not a revenue problem; it's a spending problem. The last thing this country needs to to send Obama more money to use in his never-ending quest to have the federal government impose his leftist agenda on every aspect of our lives.
Now that's not too difficult to understand, is it?
USSAlabama| 9.18.11 @ 2:05PM
Speaking of spending problems - why do we keep throwing money at these schools?
They suck no matter how much gets poured into them. Do we want *those* teachers back at work?
Regarding passing the jobs bill "Now", Sen. Dick Durban (#2 D-Ill) told Candy Crowley “more realistic that it would be next month.”
danny| 9.18.11 @ 5:42PM
Tom, No that is not too hard to understand. Just sad that too many of these useful idiods don't get it.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 6:53PM
There is definitely a spending problem, Tom. But look at it this way. I assume you work for a living. The federal government probably gets twice the percentage of every dollar you earn, give or take, that it gets from every dollar I gain. Maybe more than double if you have a high salary.
Buffett thinks that's unfair. So do I, except that I'm just gloating about how wingers are fighting to keep it unfair.
The pundits you listen to could have argued that yes, this is unfair, but Obama doesn't need more money to spend ... so how about increasing the tax rate on people like me who pay little in taxes and don't create jobs or anything particularly useful AND then cut taxes on hard working people like yourself. Meet in the middle, in other words, somewhere between what you pay and what I pay.
This would mean no more money to Obama.
This would mean more money in your pocket.
This would make it easier for you to save up money to, hopefully, enjoy an easy retirement some day.
As for me, it wouldn't keep me from investing my money or anything, and truth be told I'd hardly notice the difference. Big numbers are like that. It's not like it would cause me any financial hardship. Maybe one less vacation or something.
And if spending were cut, by some miracle, then you and I both could pay less. There's nothing about wanting to see spending cut that implies I should pay less out of every dollar I make from investments than you pay out of your paycheck. Two separate issues entirely.
But you'll notice that the right-wing pundits don't argue this way. In fact, some want you to argue for tax changes that would mean that I would pay zero taxes on the money I take in from capital gains and dividends, something that costs me all of maybe twenty hours of "work" each year.
Ask yourself why.
Dale| 9.18.11 @ 11:15AM
Delusional.
deadite| 9.18.11 @ 11:23AM
As the great Bugs Bunny says, "What a maroon!" Look it up Kim. http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/in.....21,00.html Although I'm guessing you probably don't have the mental capacity to fire up excel, never mind do the math. If you tax just millionaires, it won't make a dent. That's why the (evil) One wants to tax the 200K range. Even that isn't enough. To do everything he wants, he will have to push it down to the 70K range, and it will continue to drop. As one other commentator says, its the spending. But its also the regulations, which are estimated to be the equivalent of $1 trillion in equivalent taxation on the economy.
For the republicans, we should call the (evil) One's bluff. Give it to him for a permanent fix on the Bush tax cuts on everyone who makes under a million. And then let the Rep pres candidates say they will reverse even that and redo the tax system when they get in. That will put O in a real bind.
Occam's Tool| 9.18.11 @ 11:59AM
The rich pay more than their fair share. Buffett is an exception, in this as in much else.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 2:31PM
"The rich pay more than their fair share. Buffett is an exception, in this as in much else."
That's hilarious. You really believe that, don't you.
For starters:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08intop400.pdf
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:19AM
Hey BobG,
Here's a real life example for you.
In New Jersey the baldheaded one Jon Corzine, Friend of Barack, decided to make up the deficit that was caused by too much money going to union featherbedding projects and pensions that he instituted the Millionaire's Tax. That was intended to raise enough to cut the deficit. Well, by 2009 they did no such thing even by drilling down to $400K. The net result was that the deficit grew to $20 Billion and roughly 5000 or so individuals and businesses left the state taking $80 Billion with them.
That is what your so-called "Millionaire's Tax" will do to us.
The fact is, you have admitted that you will only pay more in taxes at the point of a gun. You will not pay voluntarily, which means that you don't really believe that the government has any right to your hard earned money.
PS your money does create jobs depending on where you invest your dough:
Municipal Bonds enable cities to grow.
Investing in businesses enable them to grow and hire more people.
Doesn't seem to me that you are who you claim you are, eh?
You're probably someone that really doesn't pay any income taxes, that is, at the bottom 50%, and is just envious of those who do pay the taxes.
You sound like some of the commenters to the NYTimes article:
http://community.nytimes.com/c.....aires.html
You're working way too hard to convince us of something that will only make things worse.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 10:35AM
Why should I pay voluntarily? Gullible working types like you are working so hard to make sure the government takes less out of my dollar than it takes out of yours, even though you (I assume) work hard for a living and I just do whatever I feel like doing while my investments make money for me. Thanks! Keep up the good work!
P.S. I'm not starting my own company. I don't buy munies. Some other investor sells their stock, I buy it, the company doesn't get any money out of the deal. This doesn't create jobs. Sorry.
ds80| 9.18.11 @ 11:00PM
Kim - you and your Saint Obama can keep your effin greedy jealous hands out of other peoples' pockets.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:42AM
Comrade Kim:
"And it is well known that the rich generally don't spend their tax breaks; they hoard them, providing no economic benefit."
You must have watched too many Disney cartoons when you were a child.
You must be thinking of Scrooge McDuck delivering a truck full of money to his silo.
Where do you think cities get their municipal bond money from?
Where do you think banks get their money to loan YOU money for a house, a car or a business loan, eh?
tonypal| 9.19.11 @ 1:43PM
"And it is well known that the rich generally don't spend their tax breaks; they hoard them, providing no economic benefit."
Really? Where is this well known?
Winghunter| 9.18.11 @ 1:46AM
CEO: 'My Response To Buffet & Obama' http://on.wsj.com/rmfGQ8
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 2:54PM
"Of my current income this year, I expect to pay 80%-90% in federal income taxes, state income taxes, Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state estate taxes."
If you think that's possible, you don't understand the tax system. The author of that piece is assuming you don't understand it. He's wealthy enough that payroll taxes, if he pays any now that he's retired, are a negligible percentage. He's not dead so he's not paying estate taxes on his own money! If his income is mostly from investments, which is a safe bet, he's not taxed at anything close to 80 or 90%.
He's counting on people being ignorant and gullible.
M. Scott Eiland| 9.18.11 @ 2:31AM
So, who wants to break it to the clowns on Pennsylvania Avenue that they're reinventing the AMT--and remind them that Congress is *still* cleaning up the mess that the original one has created because some idiots were mortally offended that some people had enough deductions not to pay taxes even though they were rich?
martin j smith| 9.18.11 @ 7:53AM
Eto pismo za tovareeshch Keem:
Pozhalustu-ne govoreet tak slovi od nashi partiya na
eto web site. Ochen vazhen !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now how do i feel ? First of all this is grand standing and Obama is using class warfare to stir up riots. Bloomberg and th NYT have gotten word from comrade Obama that now is the time to pile on. He wants riots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So does Bloomberg and so does Warren Buffett at al.
I think it is time for any Presidential candidate with the guts to say to Obama and his Socialist Cronies: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND YOU Will BE HELD TO ACCOUNT IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG --i.e.
RIOTING,CASUALTIES ETC. It is time to take all , of these agitators to account.
Now back to Kim: You ( whoever you are ) talk a good line. But I would like to see your tax documentation. I would like to see Obama's ( both of them ) and Buffett and do they pay their "fare share ? I doubt it. How about Jeffrey imelt
Lets look at Nancy Pelosi'ss and Harry Reid's.
And I would like to know who exactly are those individual demonstrators are in NYC --their names,their income, their families income and exactly what political group their are affiliated with. Its time to get down to business. No more BS.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 2:35PM
I would like to see Obama's ( both of them ) and Buffett and do they pay their "fare share ?
Buffett pays such a low percentage of tax because his income is not in the form of wages. The tax structure is designed to punish wage earners and reward those who make money from investments.
Buffett takes only 100,000 in salary, for example. The vast bulk of his money is in the form of long term capital gains that are taxed at a lower rate. Moreover, most of his wealth is in the form of unrealized cap gains that has been compounding tax free for most of his life. Eliminate the "death tax" and most of his lifetime accumulation of wealth would be taxed at a rate of zero, leaving him more to give to Planned Parenthood and other charities he favors.
Wayne| 9.18.11 @ 8:13AM
"This isn't political grandstanding. This isn't class warfare. "
When a politician says this, then you know it IS political grandstanding and it IS class warfare.
Obama is a compulsive liar and seems to have no conscience.
I am not a millionaire or a billionaire, but from where Obama's class warfare is no different than that of Trotsky and Lenin. Somehow he sees the millionaires money as belonging to him. Now any legit economists will tell you that if you want less of something, you tax it. So if you want fewer millionaires you tax them more. Of course as any legit economist also knows, that will mean fewer jobs. Because what is being punished is success, and what is being supported is failure.
Bob K.| 9.18.11 @ 8:25AM
It is beginning to sound like a mantra.
Bob K.| 9.18.11 @ 8:36AM
In the history of our country there has never been a President who has identified himself so closely with the empirical snootiness and the conspicuous spending and trappings of political wealth. He has a "let them eat cake" mentality and attitude towards the electorate and this attempt at class warfare will fall flat.
Bob K.| 9.18.11 @ 8:36AM
In the history of our country there has never been a President who has identified himself so closely with the empirical snootiness and the conspicuous spending and trappings of political wealth. He has a "let them eat cake" mentality and attitude towards the electorate and this attempt at class warfare will fall flat.
Bob K.| 9.18.11 @ 9:01AM
Please make that Imperial Snootiness instead of empirical! It is still early in the morning.
beebop| 9.18.11 @ 9:15AM
Maybe Berkshire Hathaway would like to pay its taxes -- some of which go back nearly a decade?
For a political leader who is going to be facing significant backlash from his cronyism for green jobs I would think he might have found something else to talk about this weekend. Perhaps we might get the money back from BILLIONARE Kaiser that was sucked out of our taxpayer pockets and summarily flushed as it was subordinated to Kaiser and his ilk? I should think that even a round a photo op golf would be less damaging. He is so involved in his own self love he can't see the loathing.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 2:42PM
Berkshire Hathaway pays its taxes every year. So does Buffett. He just pays at a lower rate than you because he's rich and you're not.
beebop| 9.18.11 @ 4:59PM
"Berkshire Hathaway, the eighth-largest public company in the world according to Forbes, openly admits to still owing taxes for years 2002 through 2004 and 2005 through 2009, according to the New York Post. The company says it expects to "resolve all adjustments proposed by the US Internal Revenue Service" within the next year. "
Just to clear this up, Bob, I don't give a rat's ass about what Warren Buffet makes or what he keeps. What I am saying, Bob, is that someone who gets up on his damn Trojan Horse exhorting the government to tax him more should merely pay the amount he owes. Maybe his credibility would improve? Just sayin' ...
And? In the future? Just google Berkshire Hathway unpaid taxes. You'll be surprised how frequently it has been reported, Bob ....
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 6:05PM
See, this is why I love talking to wingers. You're just so freaking hilarious. Some random sentence gets repeated in right-wing sources all over, and the wingers dutifully repeat it without understanding a syllable of it. Instead it's somehow vindication of the winger campaign to make sure that they, the hard-working wage earners, pay a higher percentage to the government than Buffett.
Here's the Form 10-K for 2010:
http://www.berkshirehathaway.c.....1010-K.pdf
Skip to page 85, but I warn you that if you read with any comprehension at all you may find yourself suddenly disillusioned about the, ahem, quality of your news sources.
Short summary: Berkshire Hathaway is an extremely complex company that is, in part, a reinsurance company. See page 2, for example, about what that means regarding the 9/11 attacks and the tax implications of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program on tax years 2002 to the present -- large losses often take many years to fully settle. You can read the first 18 pages for a summary of the various businesses that make up Berkshire Hathaway.
Anyway, this means their taxes are very complicated. They pay their taxes, but then the IRS takes years to review them. When the IRS comes up with their own analysis, Berkshire Hathaway has its own lawyers respond. Eventually they reach an agreement. The IRS just completed its review of 2005-2006. Tax years 2002 to 2004 are wrapping up the appeals process.
In other words, it's not a problem of Berkshire Hathaway being a deadbeat company, it's a problem of a complicated conglomerate working through absurdly complicated tax laws that take years to settle.
But that doesn't mean you shouldn't fight hard to pay a higher tax rate than Buffett!
beebop| 9.18.11 @ 6:38PM
The information was from HUFFINGTON POST -- hardly a "winger" publication. Pull your head out of your ass. Your side is toast even if you COULD persuade the House to pass the bs the clown in the white house is proposing. But I think you know that, don't you, Bob?
beebop| 9.18.11 @ 6:40PM
Oh? And why not just pay what the IRS tells them to? I mean, Warrn wants to be tax, tax, taxed!
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 6:57PM
You think the huffington post is a better source than the Form 10-K? Hilarious!
Buffett's point is that it's unfair that you pay more out of every dollar you earn than he pays out of every dollar he earns. You're so gullible, though, that you're insisting that you should pay more, based on something you read and didn't understand.
You're helping to make sure Buffett has more money to send to Planned Parenthood, and you're offering money out of your own wallet, by insisting on paying a higher tax rate than Buffett, to make that happen. Good job!
I'm also paying a lower tax rate than you, thanks to people like you who fight to keep taxes regressive. But I'm not asking to pay more. I'm just laughing at you.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:25AM
BobG:
"I'm also paying a lower tax rate than you, thanks to people like you who fight to keep taxes regressive. But I'm not asking to pay more. I'm just laughing at you."
Hey Bob, who cars if you are or you are not.
The $64,000 is why didn't your boy get this tax package passed through the House and Senate when he owned them both from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, eh?
They had a rock solid majority in both houses, why didn't he do it then?
If Warren Buffay wants to fund 3 million abortions a year with his money, that's on his conscience.
Not mine.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:26AM
should be:
The $64,000 Question is why didn't your boy get this tax package passed through the House and Senate when he owned them both from Jan 2009 to Jan 2011, eh?
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 12:24PM
I don't know. When I'm feeling selfish, I don't care. If I'm feeling really selfish then I hope a Republican gets elected next time around because (a) I don't need social security or medicare or anything like that, and I pay for my own medical insurance, and (b) a Republican president and congress might set cap gains and dividend tax rates to zero, which would save me quite a bit of money over the next few decades.
Look, I'll say it again because you and the other wingers keep trying so hard to miss the point: it's not fair that the federal government takes less than half as much out of every dollar I earn than it takes out of every dollar you earn, but I don't care. I'm laughing at you for fighting so hard to keep yourself at a disadvantage, making it harder for you to accumulate wealth and easier for me.
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:39AM
BoBG:
"Look, I'll say it again because you and the other wingers keep trying so hard to miss the point: it's not fair that the federal government takes less than half as much out of every dollar I earn than it takes out of every dollar you earn, but I don't care. "
So, what you're saying is, is that if your taxes are quadrupled or so, MY taxes will be cut by the same proportion?
You really must think we are saps. Government never gets any smaller and spends any less, so stow it.
The only solution is to elect men and women that will slowly strangle government and make it lose weight.
What you are really trying to say is that Government has all the right to our hard earned money and you agree with that.
beebop| 9.19.11 @ 5:35AM
Bob? Bob? It made me sick to use the Huffington Post as a source, much less actually go there and copy what was written. You may have noticed that your original nasty comment --- that I was a "ringer" was a little nasty so I was merely trying to show you that I didn't absorb "Some random sentence gets repeated in right-wing sources all over, and the wingers dutifully repeat it without understanding a syllable of it." Your reading (even self reading) comprehension actually sucks. Please don't hesitate to report me to ATTACKWATCH as someone who thinks that I can think for myself. That, you see, is the greatest danger to the 0bama madministration. They are counting on those who have voted "d" their whole lives and that group is shrinking. I have a good friend who (for the very first time in nearly 50 years) cares about something that is going to affect her directly: Paying her own medical and pension expenses instead of requiring taxpayers to do it. Her union is REQUIRING two hours of all members on a phone bank. Trust me when I tell you that she is not prepared for the kind of push back she is going to hear. And did you know that the social security administration is strongly considering FURLOUGHING for 20 days (or, for folks like you a MONTH) because their budget is over spent? What? How can that be? Could it be the unintended consequences of not paying FICA? The only thing that Rick Perry had wrong about Ponzi scheme is that the Resident has taken over running the game and both Peter and Paul are out of scratch.
Please. Do me a favor. Don't respond to me. But at least I am not Paul Krugman who simply HIDES when he expects that comments to his vile bile will be unsupportive. Do democrats not have SPINES these days?
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 10:59AM
Wow, not a word of that had anything to do with what we were talking about. Look, if the Republicans take control then my taxes probably go down even more. Some Republicans want to reduce cap gains and dividend rates to zero, which would be very nice for me. But those Republicans you'll work so hard to get elected won't make deep cuts (you'll call them RINOs but it won't change anything), and you, sadly, won't see your tax rate drop nearly as much as mine will drop. And for that, I thank you, and others like you who insist on paying more than your fair share.
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:44AM
Boy o Boy o Boy.
You really are working overtime to convince us that the only way to go is to reallllly tax the rich.
The top 50% already pay more than 32 times the income taxes of the bottom 50%.
So what do you do with all these ill-gotten gains that really don't belong to you, according to Liberals and Progs everywhere.
Donate to charity much?
Donate to hospitals or schools?
How about faith based groups, eh?
Sean| 9.18.11 @ 9:58AM
Here is some taxes I propose. 95% income and property tax on politicians, university professors, actors, media companies, newspapers, government workers, lawyers, community activists, TARP recipients, and journalists. All proceeds go to paying down the debt.
Occam's Tool| 9.18.11 @ 12:00PM
I agree with you on that one, Sean. Exempt University Professors in the Hard Sciences, though, and IT.
martin j smith| 9.18.11 @ 11:03AM
It is really time--and about time -to attack Obama on class warfare and the uncivil rhetoric that he has encouraged and spoken.I am waiting to hear from our esteemed Presidential candidates on this issue.
PattyMor| 9.18.11 @ 12:42PM
Shadowing boxing with strawmen would make a great campaign commercial. But, saddly "This Bill" doesn't exist; no bill has been filed. And if it would be passed and come into law, it probably wouldn't bring in the amount of money they say it would and it certainly wouldn't be used to pay down anything.
Its nothing but a bone thrown to his marxist base. Obama doesn't intend to pass it, he just wants to run his campaign commercials against a "do nothing" Congress. It worked for Truman and we know Obama doesn't have an orginal thought in his head. He's all Carl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, and Saul Alinsky all rolled into one. And, its showing.
USSAlabama| 9.18.11 @ 4:29PM
Patty -- like I wrote above, Dick Durbin says "next month" . . . not that that means it would actually pass.
JmsA| 9.18.11 @ 1:07PM
Even those in his own party are seening right through it. He's no Truman, not even close to it.
Willy| 9.18.11 @ 1:35PM
One more reason for that bumper sticker that would have helped us before 2008. "If you are ignorant, don't vote"
anarchteacher| 9.18.11 @ 3:25PM
"Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught be the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics."
Congressman Howard Buffett, father of the billionaire investor Warren Buffett, was the Ron Paul of his day. He was a strict constitutionalist, opposed to the welfare-warfare state, a foreign policy non-interventionist, and a strong believer in the gold standard.
Buffett Tax? What happened to his son?
http://www.fame.org/pdf/buffet3.pdf
william| 9.18.11 @ 4:09PM
I am no fan of Obama's economic policies or his class warfare politics. But there is mostly personally insulting rhetoric and little substance in the responses to BobG. There are real problems with taxing investment income; on the other hand, a tax system that gives Buffet a free ride cannot be considered fair. Those conservatives who insist on defending Buffet's tax situation severely undermine the credibility of the good points they make on the economy and taxation.
BobG| 9.18.11 @ 6:33PM
They want to pay a higher percentage of taxes than someone like Buffett. Or on a much smaller scale, someone like me. My tax rate isn't usually zero but it was last year thanks to a loophole on capital gains created in 2005 and currently extended to 2012. (If you have significant investments, and some unrealized long-term cap gains, and have little or no wage income, this is definitely something worth talking to an accountant about.)
Here's my opinion: I make money by investing. I have a few brokerage accounts, and I buy stocks and index funds and so on. I'm grateful to have a lower tax rate now than I had when I was working for a living, but there's nothing fair about it. It makes it difficult for people who are working hard for a living to become wealthy, in order to make it easy for those who are wealthy to get wealthier.
The only problem with taxing investment income is in taxing the kind of investments that create jobs. I'm not creating any jobs. My accountant gets a few thousand a year out of me, and Schwab presumably makes some money off of having my investments sitting in an account there, and so on, but that's nothing.
The argument should be that people who risk their own capital to start a business, and create jobs, should be rewarded in the tax code. Instead they're taxed more than me! They're taxed more than Buffett's own personal money!
But that's not what the wingers are fighting for. Why? It's a "follow the money" question if ever there was one.
In the mean time, I'm grateful to all the wingers who insist that people like me who live off of investments should give up a lower percentage of our money than people like them who work hard for a living. Bless their gullible little hearts.
William| 9.18.11 @ 10:45PM
I wouldn't want to see all investment income taxed a much higher than current rates. There are millions of working Americans who are not millionaires who have investments. Even taxing them at their income tax rate (as used to be the case) would be a substantial tax increase. It would be a major burden on these taxpayers. I also believe this also would reduce the funds available for investment because, taking the entire pool of investment funds created from all sources (millionaires or the average wage earner), the more these are taxed the less, in aggregate, is left for investment in the economy. So, I'm not sure I agree with your suggestion that you can distinguish between investments that create jobs and investment from people like you that supposedly don't create jobs. I think the uses of the national pool of investment funds, including for job creation, don't depend on who they come from.
On its face it does seem unfair that $100,000 of earnings by an ordinary guy should be taxed at higher rate than $100,000 of return on investments realized by someone who has substantial wealth. But it is true that, viewed from a macro-economic level, the investment tax is essentially a double tax, as investments generally come from what is left after paying taxes on primary income. The double tax aspect, together with the substantial portion of investment that comes from non-millionaires, are cogent reasons not to treat all investment and earning income the same for tax purposes.
So, that leaves me in something of a quandry as to what to do about someone like Buffet, or you. Maybe we should have a progressive tax on investment income, so that when you get to the point of making millions of dollars a year from such income you a paying a significantly higher tax rate. This would address the perceived "fairness" issue, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about the fact that this is still double taxation, and that you are reducing the capital funds available to invest in the economy. To me, this would be more acceptable if the funds from such tax increases were specifically committed to deficit reduction. Otherwise, you are making an implicit choice (under the guise of "fairness") that the government can spend this money better than could the private economy. And I think it is this that bothers many of the "wingers" you refer to.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 11:03AM
Where are you seeing a double tax? Most of my net worth at one point had never been taxed. Pure unrealized cap gains. As I've realized those cap gains they've been taxed at various rates, most recently zero thanks to one of the Bush tax cuts, but still lower than ordinary income.
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:47AM
Boy6 o boy o boy.
You really are gilding the lily aren't you?
Trying awfully hard to make us hate you or hate the guy you want us to think you are.
You really want to tar and feather every rich guy and steal his stuff.
Nice try, but it ain't workin'.
ds80| 9.18.11 @ 11:06PM
hehehe ... BobG: you're wasting your time ... your posts are mostly scrolled past.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.18.11 @ 11:49PM
They are just typical white people, BobG. They all remind me of Grandma and will join her under the bus if I get my way. You really came to the rescue. I mean I just got caught handing out tax payer money to Solyndra with some real sweet heart deals to my donors and you make the case of why it would be fair to have some more tax payer money to give to my donors. You got to admit that the Democratic Party is so full of morons that they actually buy this. I tell them to go out and hit the internet with this nonsense and I don't even have to wink. Wait a minute, you are one of those morons aren't you? Oops. Fairness BobG, that is what I am about. Don't look too closely at Imelt or anything solar or wind. It will just confuse you. Unless you are very nuanced like me you are likely to think that the Democratic Party leadership is nothing but a bunch of crooks and not caring and wonderful people that will deliver the poor people to a heaven on Earth like we did in the Soviet Union. Hope and change, baby. May you have your air conditioner powered with wind energy on a hot day. May you get one of those high paying green jobs in China. McDonald's is hiring. You seem like a manager type of guy. May you be forced to pay the full actual price for high speed rail. May you get a real job and stop pretending you are an actual person instead of the troll that you are, baby.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 12:28PM
You're missing the point, duck. I agree that guaranteeing a loan to Solyndra was, at best, really really stupid, and depending on how much Obama knew it could be his Watergate. I agree that spending is out of control.
I also think it's unfair that you pay more to the government out of dollars you take in than I pay out of what I take in, assuming you work for a living. However, I'm not trying to change that. I'm applauding your eagerness to defend the unfairness, so that it's harder for you to retire wealthy and easier for me. And also laughing at you for being so gullible. Have a good day!
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.19.11 @ 1:37PM
I'm all about fairness, BobG. You got me wrong. I am with you a hundred percent. I will be playing golf and on another expensive vacation one way or another. I hope nobody asks why taking money from some rich guy and giving it to another rich guy affects some dumb sap's retirement. Now that is gullible. If you like gullible how about, high speed rail, wind farms, green jobs, the summer of recovery, closing gitmo, obamacare, hope and change and just about anything one of we Democrats say. Choice is death, baby.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 3:04PM
Snark is more effective when it's internally consistent, duck. Coherence is useful, too. What in the world did you mean by "I hope nobody asks why taking money from some rich guy and giving it to another rich guy affects some dumb sap's retirement."? You're paying more out of every dollar you take in so that I can pay less, assuming you're a regular working-for-a-living kind of guy. That's not taking money from one rich guy and giving it to another, that's taking money from you so that less money can be taken from me.
For which, by the way, let me again say thank you.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.19.11 @ 3:28PM
Snark away, BobG. Darn it. I am on board with you. I get you. Tell the dummies that their taxes will go down if Buffett's go up. I hope they can't add. These schemes are not ready for prime time if we have citizens that can add. Fortunately with government schools we have taken care of that. The way we steal is through quantitative easing. That is a very nuanced way of stealing and Buffett likes it so what could go wrong unless you're a working kind of guy or retired. You are really one of us BobG. As you know there is a sucker born every minute and they are all Democrats. Take high speed rail someplace and you will feel good about yourself, baby.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.19.11 @ 3:46PM
"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.", BobbyG. Now those that believed this line of crap that came off my teleprompter have a real gullibility problem. You are one of them, aren't you? Keep investing out of your mama's basement. She might be looking for a rent hike as all my really smart Democratic hacks continue to undermine the dollar. I get you but you better hope that the citizens don't figure you out. They have a lot of pitch forks, baby and I can't protect everybody. Frankly lowly trolls are pretty far down the list.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 4:06PM
You keep trying to change the subject, duck, so I'll play along.
That's one of the dumbest lines I've ever heard. I had to google it to see where it came from. If your point is that Democrats are gullible about some things then I'm not disagreeing.
What's interesting to me is that you're using their gullibility to deflect attention from the gullibility of those who have been convinced by bogus arguments that it's right and good that Buffett loses less out of every dollar he gains than they lose out of every dollar they gain. A lot less, even though Buffett earns more in a week than most will earn in a lifetime.
I think both are examples of gullibility. But through your clumsy and inconsistent snark you're making a hilarious "moral equivalence" argument. It's the usual "they do it too" kind of thing but it's basically saying that because Democrats are gullible about climate change and obamacare and so on (which many are, although disillusionment levels are rising!) this somehow balances out gullibility on the right about regressive taxation.
You've taken the "our leader lied, but so did yours" form of argument and turned it into "we're being gullible, but so are they." Did you think that through much before posting?
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 3:58PM
It would be easier to believe you were on the same page as me if you didn't say silly things like "Tell the dummies that their taxes will go down if Buffett's go up."
Nobody's proposing to do that. I doubt anyone here believes it would happen. The Democrats aren't proposing that. The Republicans want to cut Buffett's tax rate, and some want to increase the tax rate on the 50% of Americans who don't pay federal income tax, while also guaranteeing that entitlements for those retired or near retirement, the bottom line of which means that most people end up paying the same or more. Those under 45 or so end paying for the boomers who are retired while also having to fund their own retirement. And bless their little hearts for insisting that this is the way they want it!
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.19.11 @ 4:59PM
You are ruining my golf game, BoobyG. I am on the same page as you and you keep arguing with me. You are going off script though. The Republicans are trying to push grandma off the cliff and not leave her anything. Stop saying they are trying to guarantee entitlements. That is not helpful. We need to stick to this line. Take all of Buffetts assets if we can get them. I don't care. Well actually I do. He gave a lot of money to me. Is there any way we can just take money from rich Republicans? I guess that is what kick backs are all about. Stealing from future generations? Darn it we are investing in companies like Solyndra, high speed rail and wind farms. Please be careful with your language. Have you ever noticed that Democrats claimed that they were going to keep the old from having to work and when their pyramid scheme collapses the old will have to work. Or that Democrats wanted to help people own their houses and when they were finished less of the them own their houses and our economy is in shambles as well? Or that Democrats wanted to improve education through the injection of lots of money and SAT scores are at all time lows? Who would guess that there is little trust in really smart Democrats and with their next set of schemes? Maybe we should cut government first, and recognize that the government lives off the productivity of its people and not the other way around. Naw. Hope and change baby. The goose can't be killed. There is just a temporary slow down in golden egg production. After all American economy was great with high tax rates if you ignore the mess we had made of Europe and Japan during the war. Funny what can happen with a lack of competition. High speed rail to Sandpoint, baby.
The One Who Runs Like a Duck| 9.19.11 @ 5:06PM
http://www.nbcwashington.com/n.....05248.html
Are you in the Washington area, BobG?
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 6:08PM
The best I can figure is that you are in the habit of responding to criticism of Republicans by finding a Democrat who has done something similar and playing the "they do it too" card.
So here, on the point about the Republican rank and file being duped into working against their own self interest, your response ... is to play the "they do it too" card by pointing out that Democrats can be gullible, too.
Which is true!
But somehow the argument that if Democrats are stupid, Republicans ought to be stupid too, doesn't quite work the way you seem to think it works.
Anyway, you're right that Democrats can be very gullible and I'm not disagreeing with you there, so if that helps you stay in denial about your own gullibility then more power to you.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 4:36PM
The GOTP needs a new slogan, don't they? They can have this one:
Arbeit Macht Frei (Work Sets You Free)
The infamous iron sign bearing the Nazis' cynical slogan "Arbeit Macht Frei" spanned the main entrance to the former Auschwitz death camp. The slogan was also used at the entrances to other Nazi camps, including Dachau and Sachsenhausen.
J.C.Eaton| 9.18.11 @ 4:57PM
Like I told you before:the only net you're king of is the one someone threw over you.Sie sind eine peine in der sphincte.
william| 9.18.11 @ 4:58PM
Now the liberal chimes in to show no one can out-nasty him.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:29AM
KingoftheKnots:
Here's one for you and your posse, eh?
Obama Corrupts,
Absolute Obama Corrupts Absolutely!
phil| 9.19.11 @ 12:25AM
A significant source of taxes could be raised by taxing the nonprofits that billionaires use to shield their wealth from confiscation upon death. If those organizations just paid normal tax rates, billions would be collected to help reduce our debt and they could use whats left to "do good" with, like advocating that other taxpayers should pay higher taxes. I'm sure the billionaires would have no problem being charitable with their after tax income. Of course after they pay 39% of their income in taxes they would just have to give more, but then these are really good people. To be fair we could just make this provision temporary effective only in years that our budget is not balanced, including future obligations not funded. Making this change retroactive to previous out of balance years would be complicated, but many jobs for accountants would help stimulate the economy.
martin j smith| 9.19.11 @ 7:41AM
Look we have " the golfing President" and the "vacation president" lecturing us how to live and how much to be taxed ?
No I am for President Obama and his queen opening their tax documents so that tax accountants who are not their buddies can go over them with a fine tooth comb. Lets do the same for all the crony capitalists aligned with "Mr Golf "like Warren B, Jeffrey I and the mayor of NYC Micheal Bloomberg. Lets see if their pay their fair share as things are now before we talk further.
JP| 9.19.11 @ 7:56AM
And I thought that the President was focused 100% on jobs. Question: how many private sector jobs will the millionaire sur-charge create?
And when was the last time a tax increase went to paying down the defecit?
JimH| 9.19.11 @ 8:37AM
Who decides what’s fair? And how is it decided? Should my friends and I vote to make you pay more? That’s Democracy. The truly rich have the ability to show or hide as much income in a year as they and their accountants find convenient. So if you truly want more from them you need some sort of wealth tax. The income tax as it is a horror. If you must have an income tax, a flat or at least flatter tax with most deductions removed is the way to go. This would be viewed as fairer and reduce tax driven malinvestments. Another path to consider, instead of an income tax, is some sort of national sales tax. This has an advantage of not penalizing savings. A possible issue that I’ve not seen discussed is that it could encourage black markets to escape the tax.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 12:33PM
"The truly rich have the ability to show or hide as much income in a year as they and their accountants find convenient."
That's a common misconception, but the truth is much simpler. The tax rates you pay for ordinary income, the wages you earn for working hard for a living, are higher than the tax rates someone who lives off of investments has to pay. In fact, one Bush tax cut lowered the cap gains rate to zero for some people, including me last year.
Some people here think it's fair that a big chunk of their hard-earned wages goes to the government, while I probably made more money but was taxed at a rate of zero (and with no payroll taxes either). I think they're being gullible, but I'm not trying to change their minds. I'm just having a laugh at them.
Pecos Pete| 9.19.11 @ 9:01AM
Kim and BobG are trolls sent out by King O.
The deficit problem is a result of spending money that doesn't exist. King O could take all of our money, including BobG's money, and it wouldn't make a dent in the national debt or the annual deficit.
Stop excessive spending and over regulation before playing around with the tax code ... that's not to say that the tax code doesn't need to be thrown out the window and replaced with a flat tax or whatever. We should all be filing a simple one page document with the IRS and put the tax accountants and lawyers out of business. Or better yet, replace the income tax with a national sales tax and put the IRS out of business too.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 12:42PM
Hi Pete! Actually the statistic you want is a lot more restrictive. If King O took all the money of the richest 1% it wouldn't make much of a dent in the deficit. What the pundits who tell you what to think don't want you to think about is the fact that those same favorable tax rates affect many more people than just the top 1%. I'm nowhere near the top 1%, and yet the money I made last year off of investments was taxed at a rate of ZERO, thanks to a Bush tax cut.
As I've said before I'm not asking to pay more. I'm gloating that people like you are defending this blatant unfairness based on bogus arguments.
And yes, I agree that spending is out of control. But that's a separate issue from the issue of people who work hard for a living having more of their dollar taken than people who live off of investments. The funny thing here is that when someone raises the issue of tax fairness, people like you are so easily distracted by arguments like this. Someone like Warren Buffett makes more in an hour than you make in a year but pays a much smaller percentage of it to the government .... never mind that! Look over there .... it's out of control spending!
(BTW that cap gains rate of zero has been extended again, so if anyone out there has large unrealized cap gains, and little or no wage income, definitely talk to your accountant. It may pay off big to realize those cap gains in a year that you can take the zero rate. You're welcome!)
martin j smith| 9.19.11 @ 10:14AM
To the trolls, I have received a letter from KPUSA--
Kah-Peh Es Sha Ah--do you know what that means --
CPUSA that is what it means . This letter was received by mistake but it came into my hands and it says in rough translation that you are idiots for exposing who are members of the Party
When you talk about class you talk of class warfare you are exposing Obama as well to dangerous criticism of having a foreign ideology.
The jig is up trolls and your side will take the consequences of ANY TACTICS you use. ANY
martin j smith| 9.19.11 @ 10:20AM
What Republicans should do is to get together a number of small to mid size business owners who have been hurt by regulations of the Obama administration and who fear the results of Obama care and hold a press conference with these business owners and let them talk--unscripted.
And the subtext of this is OBAMA'S job killing program.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 1:02PM
That's actually a good idea, but what does it have with the topic at hand?
Anyway, if you do that, be careful who you pick. Obamacare is a pretty bad deal for most but there are provisions for small and mid-size businesses that are helpful. Tax breaks for small businesses offering health insurance to employees, for example, have let a lot of small businesses offer health insurance (thus making the jobs they offer more appealing to applicants) who weren't offering it before. For example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ri.....obamacare/
Before any knees jerk, I'm not defending Obamacare. Just pointing out that it's a net positive for some businesses, especially small businesses. The problems it causes in order to achieve those things are problems for the health insurance industry (forcing them to cover people with preexisting conditions, at the same rate as for healthy applicants), problems for people who currently have great coverage (more people being insured means more demand without more supply), and major cost control problems overall. But people with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage now, and small businesses who would benefit from tax breaks, etc., are not the people you want in your focus group if the goal is to make Obamacare look bad.
Kingofthenet| 9.19.11 @ 11:58AM
Oh Noes, Big Bad Obama is making businesses do what they SHOULD have been doing all along, pay part of their workers HealthCare Insurance, rather than charging society the costs. It's called CORPORATE responsibility, you know like 'personal' responsibility you are so fond of, BUT for Corporations.
Kodiak Jack| 9.19.11 @ 12:58PM
Kim, I am 73 years old and attended a one room school "up a hollow" in West Virginia with 1st through the 6th grade and one teacher teaching all the grades. The wood frame school building was 100 years old when I attended. We heated the building with a "pot bellied" coal burning stove in the middle of the room; we had outside toilets and a well with a manual pump for our drinking water. In my class mates ranging from 2 years before and two years after, this school produced a 3 star general (army), a noted psychologist with a practice in New York, a skilled surgeon, numerous school teachers, successful business men and women, successful politicians. I am a seminary trained pastor with 40 years of service all over the world. In short Kim, education is not so much about money or buildings as about answering a call and maintaining discipline in the class room and teaching facts and truth, morals and manner and ethics, and not political ideology of the left and perverted political correctness.
tonypal| 9.19.11 @ 1:42PM
We will not be hearing from Kim again. She has her marching orders and received her official e-mail from one of the many organizations financed by George Soros. Instead of being a productive member of society, Kim (if that's even her name) will spend Monday cutting and pasting the official message of the day onto her assigned message boards. She will not respond to anything we write to her or about her because that would require her to give some sort of thoughtful response. That's a bit above her pay grade.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 3:22PM
I'll respond, tony! If you make an actual argument, that is.
My income is entirely from investments. If you had the same AGI, but from wages, the federal government would take 25 to 35% of it, according to handy on-line tax estimator, depending on your filing status and deductions and so on. Last year my tax rate was zero, thanks to a loophole created by Bush (part of TIPRA) and extended recently. If that goes away I'll still be paying less than half as much out of every dollar I take in, compared to someone who has to work for a living to make the same amount of money.
Make your argument about why you think this is fair, and I'll check back later and respond.
Again: I'm not arguing that this should change. I'm laughing at those who are so eager to make sure it doesn't, even though the effect of this kind of regressive taxation is to make it less likely that they'll be able to retire comfortably, and to make it easier for me to gain more.
And although I'm laughing at them I also want to offer my sincere thanks.
I also offer my condolences in advance, for when they find themselves complaining that the Republicans they help get elected don't make any real changes that let them keep more of their money, but do manage to make changes that let me keep more of my money (if they cut the cap gains and dividend tax rates, as many want to do). I'll be here to offer a shoulder for them to cry on!
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 4:07PM
Hey tony, you haven't posted anything to respond to yet, but I'll try to check back again later. Looking forward to it!
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 6:09PM
This article is about to scroll off the front page, so it looks like you've missed your chance to make a coherent argument and have someone stick around to reply to you. I'm sure it would have been a humdinger of an argument, too. Oh, well. Maybe on another thread.
PattyMor| 9.19.11 @ 3:46PM
We should call the tax the Warren Buffoon Tax. While The Buffoon says he wants to pay higher taxes, Warren is fighting the very same IRS over higher taxes. What a cruel joke. Besides, if good ole' Warren wants to donate, he can contribute all he wants to the gov'ment. Frauds and charlatans.
Let's pass the higher tax into law with the stipulation that only those registered as Democrats have to pay it. Case closed. Maybe we could collect some of our dough back from Kaiser from the Solyndra deal.
BobG| 9.19.11 @ 4:09PM
Well said, Patty, and as someone who (like Buffett, but on a much smaller scale) benefits from low tax rates on cap gains and so on, I want to thank you for fighting to keep the status quo. Especially if you're working for a living and paying higher rates so that I can pay lower rates while I live off of my investments. Thanks!
Shill Watch| 9.19.11 @ 10:47PM
Republicans should not be tax collectors for Democrats. The Democrats owned the government for two years and didn't do this. You are trying to sell your inconsistent line of garbage to the wrong folks. You are not very good at this troll thing. After one post you gave off enough signs of your phony story. The game is over for you for a while. Take a rest and get used to disappointment.