meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
and you know this how?
The I Told You So Obama Will Fuck Up Thread
- Thread starter don_equis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- barack obama sore losers
and you know this how?
Well I guess you voted for McCain....
Since when has the conservative area been the smarter bunch?
I guess we had fun with "W" for the last 8 years and now since you lost you can have your views.
He was all the things I mentioned and you hightlighted them. I merely recited his campaign slogan in 2000.
I am a moderate liberal and have voted for both parties over the years.
I voted for Obama, but I am far from a O-Zombie.....
Philbert
Banned
Sorry...you use the same logic as an O-Zombie...and no, I have never voted Republican. Silly person.
I didn't run for anything, so no, I didn't lose.
You are the one who once posted I couldn't know if there is indeed racism to be found in Chicago, since I don't live there. Yet, you have Detroit listed as where you live...does that invalidate your take on everything else pertaining to any thing or place occuring outside Detroit?
And I didn't read your answer...what is a "false Texan"?
I remember when you claimed you proved I did not understand how a progressive tax system worked but by the above I think it is clear who does not.Progressive tax system by definition means the higher income pays at a higher % in tax rate.It really is a very simple concept.Some may think its unfair to higher incomes ( I tottaly disagree with that as I think the concept is the definition of fairness) but to argue that you can't have a lower rate for lower incomes without the higher income brackets also benefitting is prepostourous.
And here you seem to rail agaisnt a potential 90% rate on those over 100k.For the record I think that would be too high a rate on that level of income as well.But my point is that you seem to acknowledge that such a rate would be possible on such a level of income,you aren't actually going to say that if you had such a rate on 100k that it would be impossible to have say a 20% rate on incomes of lets say 40k or less are you?
Oh and BTW right now I am doing tax preparartion on a daily basis during tax season and I know YMIHERE is actually a CPA who does tax prep at this time of year as well.Maybe just maybe we know something about taxes.
That all aside I have to say I think the US tax system overall is not nearly "progressive" enough and that the burden of taxes on higher incomes is much too low.We allow different rates on different forms of incomes (with the hope this will encourage a growing economy).An example is income gained from capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than income from wages for many earning that way.That makes some workers pay a higher rate than someone who just earns income from an investment.That may be desirable to encourage investment but it still reeks of unfairness and we should if we are going to allow that find a way to recoup those lost taxes on higher incomes more that are not capital formation related.
But again finally lets put this insanity about what a "progressive" tax system is or isn't to rest.A "progressive" tax system is one is which higher incomes pay a "progressively" higher percentage in taxes,again a very simple easily applied concept that has been around a very long time.Its based on a philosophy of taxing with ability to pay in mind and again I think that is emminently a fair system.
Facetious
Moderated
General thoughts -
obama and that punk emanuel are at work to fast track as much of their detestable marxist ideology as possible. Why ? they know that their popularity will dwindle to such a level that The People will not entertain his second term. The o-men's poll #s aren't improving, have you seen ?
The next thing will be the butchering of the First & Second Amendments, you can be sure. The question is, have you become demoralized by an atrocious economy, a devalued 401k, the layoffs, the foreclosures etc. ad nauseam, so much that you'll simply roll over to the dictate of such an unaccomplished president ? What has the man accomplished in all of his life ? BFD, so he's an attorney ! A dime a dozen these days.
I find it despicable that obama goes and appoints some 17 lobbyists and a collection of tax evaders to fill cabinet positions. How about that treasury secretary, who can't figure out quick books® or turbo tax® or whatever, so that he can appropriately pay his due taxes, huh ?, is that competency or what ? Where is the accountability for that pussy, daschle, who was short some $100,000 + in the payment of his taxes ? The govt. would have us humiliated and behind bars for that kind "MISTAKE". Oh, yeah, everything is a "mistake" these days, don't you like the twisted semantics ? Mistake my arse ! they knew that they could get away with it, is the truth.
:thefinger:
Finally, WTF does obama mean when he says that the stimulus package will "SAVE" jobs ? It's not about saving government jobs dude, it's about reinvigorating an economy, or is it ?
Hey obama guys - don't you want to control your own destiny ? Can't you support yourself ?
obama and that punk emanuel are at work to fast track as much of their detestable marxist ideology as possible. Why ? they know that their popularity will dwindle to such a level that The People will not entertain his second term. The o-men's poll #s aren't improving, have you seen ?
The next thing will be the butchering of the First & Second Amendments, you can be sure. The question is, have you become demoralized by an atrocious economy, a devalued 401k, the layoffs, the foreclosures etc. ad nauseam, so much that you'll simply roll over to the dictate of such an unaccomplished president ? What has the man accomplished in all of his life ? BFD, so he's an attorney ! A dime a dozen these days.
I find it despicable that obama goes and appoints some 17 lobbyists and a collection of tax evaders to fill cabinet positions. How about that treasury secretary, who can't figure out quick books® or turbo tax® or whatever, so that he can appropriately pay his due taxes, huh ?, is that competency or what ? Where is the accountability for that pussy, daschle, who was short some $100,000 + in the payment of his taxes ? The govt. would have us humiliated and behind bars for that kind "MISTAKE". Oh, yeah, everything is a "mistake" these days, don't you like the twisted semantics ? Mistake my arse ! they knew that they could get away with it, is the truth.
:thefinger:Finally, WTF does obama mean when he says that the stimulus package will "SAVE" jobs ? It's not about saving government jobs dude, it's about reinvigorating an economy, or is it ?
Hey obama guys - don't you want to control your own destiny ? Can't you support yourself ?
I luv obama i wish he was incharge of england
I didn't like W., much less W. + Republican Congress ...
Understand I cared none for the Republican Congress under W. The American people aren't stupid, they didn't either. So they voted in a Democrat Congress. But guess what? The Democrats did the same thing, and that's why the American people started blasting their approval ratings even more.
I'm not saying the Democrat Congress was worse than the Republicans, not at all. People should actually note this. I'm saying that the American people voted in the Democrat Congress in the hope of changing direction, and they did not. The only thing that happened is that W. started voting some things.
In reality, the worst thing for a President is to get involved in a full engagement like Iraq, just like Vietnam before it. Because they start having to appease Congressmen and women just to get funding. The cost of the war then doubles or even triples, because of all the pork spending that comes with it. Heck, same happened to Reagan as well, and that was peacetime (although the build-up was significant).
I honestly wished the Democrats would have taken back Congress in 2002. If they would have, we wouldn't have been in Iraq and the cost of the war in Afghanistan would be much less. Would it have prevented the collapse of our investment banking industry? No. But it would have reduced the additional burden on the government, reducing our debt in the long-run, although the financial issues was and still is costing us far more than the war plus pork, sadly enough.
What he doesn't have is my support to increase entitlements, projects and "redistribution of wealth" programs that have nothing to do with the current financial issues. That will break us. It's bad enough that the W. + Republicans spent pork like the country was full of pigs, but right now Obama has to focus on the immediate recession and financial issues.
Frankly I'm hoping the first two years of the Obama administration are like the first two years of the Clinton administration, and that will lead to a Republican sweep of Congress in 2010 on 1994 like ideals. I have hope that Obama will be the "moderate" he says he is, and we'll experience bliss from 2014+.
Side Note: I noted more recently that even the history has been re-written on the "Balanced Budget Amendment" along with NAFTA, blaming the Republicans for not passing the former and being the only ones for the latter. WTF? We all know who was against the former, and who pushed the latter to the American people.
Again, I'm hopeful that Obama will surprise me, much like Clinton did.
In all honesty, I don't see Obama addressing it not because of Obama, but because of the economy we have (or don't have). I fully predicted well before Obama that unemployment would be 10% for a long time. I honestly don't think he can do anything to stop that. Unless, of course, he starts just building a socialist economy where people are social workers and government jobs are created 10:1 over private.
Although in Obama's defense, that was already happening under W. somewhat.
A similar thing happened during the .COM boom. You had all these investments created, based on multipliers far exceeding any possible worth. It then came crashing down. The housing boom saved us from the full effects of the .COM boom, but now it seems there's nothing to keep us from feeling this full effect. Even the short-lived commodities run-up has fizzled out.
So how the heck could I expect Obama to do it?
My absolute biggest fear is that Obama is going to start a trend of entitlements via "tax credits" whereby those making over X start funding the lifecycles of those under Y. Because in short order, those between X and Y will find themselves also funding those under Y.
I.e., Clinton promised to raise taxes on only those making over $100K and it ended up being only those making over $20K. Obama has stated $250K and now it's looking like not just over $100K, but possibly as low as $50K -- right at the median income.
Understand I'm not complaining because I'm allegedly rich, but complaining because -- like Clinton -- people who can not afford to have their income tax increased will see it increased. Most people between X and Y would much rather have their tax liabilities reduced, not more entitlements let alone their own money undergo a "redistribution of wealth" via the government.
My problem with Obama right now is not Obama, but more of the media calling for this stupidity. I just hope Obama "comes to his senses." Unfortunately, W. didn't either, and he listened to the media way too much. In all honesty, I preferred Clinton because he'd lie to the media, and then do the "right thing" (at least 1995-1998). In fact, the only time Newt Gingrich didn't get what he wanted from Clinton is when he made a stink of it in the media.
In the case of Afghanistan, if you believe Obama is going to end it, then you don't understand Obama. Obama "gets it" with Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc... He understands this is a multi-decade struggle. The War on Terror is going to be a prolonged engagement.
In fact, given how the W. administration pressured Israel into a policy of "appeasement" from 2001-2005, Israel has now said, "fuck this, it's only making things worse," and Obama now has to deal with it. Is it W.'s fault? Yes and no. Yes in that it now only proved that the Hezbolla and Hamas absolutely do not want peace and that has only strengthened the common Israeli attitude, but also no for the same reason.
That it exposed the "root cause" goes back to the '40s and their objectives is not a "negotiated coexistence" with Israel, but doesn't end until Israel is removed from the Middle East. Now how do you solve that?
The way to get North Korea to comply is to pressure China. This is a 6-nation issue, not a 2-nation issue. The new tactic is working, although slow and with plenty of rhetoric. When North Korea wants to change its terms, it's now not only got Japan and South Korea to deal with on the US side, but it has to plead their rhetoric to China, which does not fly.
I think Obama understands North Korea quite well, and knows that this is really a diplomatic issue with China more than North Korea.
Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated I like Obama's foreign policy focus on Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and believe it will be much more successful than W.'s, especially if he gets us out of Iraq. Unfortunately I think Iraq won't survive our pull out, and the US will focus on protecting the oil reserves while letting the population kill itself. Yet another genocide the US will be blamed for, even though it existed before the US got involved (just like Vietnam).
Obama will re-focus us on the War on Terror. We'll see what happens, but I am confident that he will do a far better job. Right now I'm watching what he's doing with the former Gitmo detainees. Maybe he'll pull a Clinton, tell the media one thing, but do the "right thing" when they aren't looking. But in the case of War on Terror detainees, I honestly don't know how you protect liberties without letting combatants go who can never be "rehabilitated" and just re-join the enemy. The war will not only be far too long to keep them PoWs, but unlike in other wars where they stop fighting after one nation is defeated, they just don't ever want to stop fighting.
He's got a damn tough job. The Presidency always is, although I don't think he can do much about the economy at this point. It's been building since the '70s. Generation Y isn't able to accept what must be done. They still want low inflation in the economy and high pay for blue collar jobs.
They could by tying it to war funding. But that wasn't just limited to the Democrats 2007+, it is also how the Republicans got thing through that W. also disagreed with, with even fewer vetos.
Understand I cared none for the Republican Congress under W. The American people aren't stupid, they didn't either. So they voted in a Democrat Congress. But guess what? The Democrats did the same thing, and that's why the American people started blasting their approval ratings even more.
I'm not saying the Democrat Congress was worse than the Republicans, not at all. People should actually note this. I'm saying that the American people voted in the Democrat Congress in the hope of changing direction, and they did not. The only thing that happened is that W. started voting some things.
In reality, the worst thing for a President is to get involved in a full engagement like Iraq, just like Vietnam before it. Because they start having to appease Congressmen and women just to get funding. The cost of the war then doubles or even triples, because of all the pork spending that comes with it. Heck, same happened to Reagan as well, and that was peacetime (although the build-up was significant).
I honestly wished the Democrats would have taken back Congress in 2002. If they would have, we wouldn't have been in Iraq and the cost of the war in Afghanistan would be much less. Would it have prevented the collapse of our investment banking industry? No. But it would have reduced the additional burden on the government, reducing our debt in the long-run, although the financial issues was and still is costing us far more than the war plus pork, sadly enough.
I support Obama. I'm glad to see he took it. If the Republicans "get back to their 1994 roots" and take the Congress in 2010, I'll be very happy.
Unfortunately, Obama is pushing tax credits not cuts.
That's impossible for Obama right now. I'm a realist. Just like W. in 2001, Obama actually has to increase entitlements because of reduced employment during the recession. At the same time, revenue is down, just like in 2001. So I do not blame Obama for that at all. He has my support.
What he doesn't have is my support to increase entitlements, projects and "redistribution of wealth" programs that have nothing to do with the current financial issues. That will break us. It's bad enough that the W. + Republicans spent pork like the country was full of pigs, but right now Obama has to focus on the immediate recession and financial issues.
Frankly I'm hoping the first two years of the Obama administration are like the first two years of the Clinton administration, and that will lead to a Republican sweep of Congress in 2010 on 1994 like ideals. I have hope that Obama will be the "moderate" he says he is, and we'll experience bliss from 2014+.
If you go back to 1993-1994, Clinton did not do this at all either. It wasn't until the Republicans took back in 1994 and pushed their "Contract with American" agenda in 1995+. The only thing that didn't pass was the "Balanced Budget Amendment."
Side Note: I noted more recently that even the history has been re-written on the "Balanced Budget Amendment" along with NAFTA, blaming the Republicans for not passing the former and being the only ones for the latter. WTF? We all know who was against the former, and who pushed the latter to the American people.
We haven't had a "GOP President" in a long time -- i.e., a true, fiscal conservative -- at least on their own. What we've had is a "fiscal conservative Congress in 1995-1998, and a President who worked with them, not any President who "enacted" such -- not even a Republican.
Again, I'm hopeful that Obama will surprise me, much like Clinton did.
Hardly!
How does he do that? Clinton couldn't do it in a year. W. couldn't do it in a year. It took Clinton well into the Republican Congress before that started picking up, and only under the "false wealth" of the .COM boom and W. under the "false wealth" of the housing boom.
In all honesty, I don't see Obama addressing it not because of Obama, but because of the economy we have (or don't have). I fully predicted well before Obama that unemployment would be 10% for a long time. I honestly don't think he can do anything to stop that. Unless, of course, he starts just building a socialist economy where people are social workers and government jobs are created 10:1 over private.
Although in Obama's defense, that was already happening under W. somewhat.
He can't do anything there either. The "mortgage crisis" is one of those things that will have to work itself out. A lot of investment and other banks just created too much money out of "thin air," a bigger money multiplier than we can remotely afford.
A similar thing happened during the .COM boom. You had all these investments created, based on multipliers far exceeding any possible worth. It then came crashing down. The housing boom saved us from the full effects of the .COM boom, but now it seems there's nothing to keep us from feeling this full effect. Even the short-lived commodities run-up has fizzled out.
Impossible. It's going to take 30 years to pay that off if we balance the budget. Heck, even during the short-lived surplus, the government still ends up spending it, and the debt only decreases because of what the government would pay off normally -- it's just not adding more.
Okay, this is where you (and most of you) differ with I. I do not expect this out of Obama. Clinton couldn't do it when he inherited his recession and W. couldn't do it with his either, in a single term.
So how the heck could I expect Obama to do it?
My absolute biggest fear is that Obama is going to start a trend of entitlements via "tax credits" whereby those making over X start funding the lifecycles of those under Y. Because in short order, those between X and Y will find themselves also funding those under Y.
I.e., Clinton promised to raise taxes on only those making over $100K and it ended up being only those making over $20K. Obama has stated $250K and now it's looking like not just over $100K, but possibly as low as $50K -- right at the median income.
Understand I'm not complaining because I'm allegedly rich, but complaining because -- like Clinton -- people who can not afford to have their income tax increased will see it increased. Most people between X and Y would much rather have their tax liabilities reduced, not more entitlements let alone their own money undergo a "redistribution of wealth" via the government.
My problem with Obama right now is not Obama, but more of the media calling for this stupidity. I just hope Obama "comes to his senses." Unfortunately, W. didn't either, and he listened to the media way too much. In all honesty, I preferred Clinton because he'd lie to the media, and then do the "right thing" (at least 1995-1998). In fact, the only time Newt Gingrich didn't get what he wanted from Clinton is when he made a stink of it in the media.
I don't see Iraq ending in "victory" although I do see it ending, one way or another.
In the case of Afghanistan, if you believe Obama is going to end it, then you don't understand Obama. Obama "gets it" with Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc... He understands this is a multi-decade struggle. The War on Terror is going to be a prolonged engagement.
I don't expect this to happen either, although it would be nice after over 10 years (snice 1998).
Clinton failed. W. failed. Not going to happen.
In fact, given how the W. administration pressured Israel into a policy of "appeasement" from 2001-2005, Israel has now said, "fuck this, it's only making things worse," and Obama now has to deal with it. Is it W.'s fault? Yes and no. Yes in that it now only proved that the Hezbolla and Hamas absolutely do not want peace and that has only strengthened the common Israeli attitude, but also no for the same reason.
That it exposed the "root cause" goes back to the '40s and their objectives is not a "negotiated coexistence" with Israel, but doesn't end until Israel is removed from the Middle East. Now how do you solve that?
The US can do little on that front. The Clinton administration proved that in 1994. They even questioned Jimmy Carter's tactic of 2-party talks originally, and good for reason, because everyone now agrees it was foolish. It allowed North Korea to blame 1-party, the US, whenever it wanted to change its agreement as it saw fit.
The way to get North Korea to comply is to pressure China. This is a 6-nation issue, not a 2-nation issue. The new tactic is working, although slow and with plenty of rhetoric. When North Korea wants to change its terms, it's now not only got Japan and South Korea to deal with on the US side, but it has to plead their rhetoric to China, which does not fly.
I think Obama understands North Korea quite well, and knows that this is really a diplomatic issue with China more than North Korea.
Okay, now beyond argumenative.
If you bother to read what I write, and have re-summarized here, I am behind the President as long as he doesn't start pushing certain agendas that will make matters worse.
Furthermore, I have repeatedly stated I like Obama's foreign policy focus on Afghanistan (and Pakistan) and believe it will be much more successful than W.'s, especially if he gets us out of Iraq. Unfortunately I think Iraq won't survive our pull out, and the US will focus on protecting the oil reserves while letting the population kill itself. Yet another genocide the US will be blamed for, even though it existed before the US got involved (just like Vietnam).
Obama will re-focus us on the War on Terror. We'll see what happens, but I am confident that he will do a far better job. Right now I'm watching what he's doing with the former Gitmo detainees. Maybe he'll pull a Clinton, tell the media one thing, but do the "right thing" when they aren't looking. But in the case of War on Terror detainees, I honestly don't know how you protect liberties without letting combatants go who can never be "rehabilitated" and just re-join the enemy. The war will not only be far too long to keep them PoWs, but unlike in other wars where they stop fighting after one nation is defeated, they just don't ever want to stop fighting.
He's got a damn tough job. The Presidency always is, although I don't think he can do much about the economy at this point. It's been building since the '70s. Generation Y isn't able to accept what must be done. They still want low inflation in the economy and high pay for blue collar jobs.
People who gross $100K have a liability under $10K, those $200K over $35K ...
What you eventually argued was a tax credit, which I called you on. A tax credit is an entitlement that is subtracted from your tax liability, and a direct check if and when it exceeds your tax liability.
That is not a tax cut.
Again, for the last time ...
In a progressive tax system, it is impossible to give a tax cut to those making less without also giving at least the same tax cut to those making more (if not an even bigger cut).
Simple math. If you don't understand it, it's a simple test, and you fail. No?
It's 100% rhetorical to say "tax cut for millionaires" because there is a 100% chance that millionaires will get a tax cut even if you only cut it on the 10% and 15% brackets. Hence how the leftist non-sense has a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm all for streamlining the tax code, taking away write-offs, etc... so those that cannot afford CPAs and the like will no longer be penalized. But understand I'm a person who not only runs a business honestly, but my own CPA says I'm probably too helpful to the government in that regard. So be it.
Paying for new "administrative" workers does little to improve an economy. The government can do that. Although private industry can do that as well, such private organizations do not last when they do. That's a major reason.
No offense, but the 15% tax rate easily extends up and over $100K/year for a family of 4 with their 401K contributions maxed, putting their total tax liability well under . I talked about that in this thread here:
The 15% tax bracket extends to $63,100 (net) for couples ...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=276017
It then jumps to 25% and upwards to 33-35% not long after that. If you think pushing it to 40-50% is going to "help" the economy, I think JFK, Reagan and W. would have a lot to show to support Alexander Hamilton.
In the same regard, those grossing $200K/year will have a liability well over $35K -- pushing 4x as much for only 2x the income. It only gets worse with the full effect of the marriage penalty and 33-35% bracket. In other words, it grows exponentially until you reach the flat 35% rate well over 1/3rd of a million.
A very small percentage of Americans make that kind of money, and fractionally less 7 or 8 figures. Last time I checked, although I could be dated, no American makes over 8 figures a year, even after certain stock bonuses and related gains. The only exception may be the rare case where a founder or other core, major (majority?) shareholder of a new company finds its value into 9 figures after one year from virtually nothing before. Over 90% of millionaires in the US are actually not in the 35% bracket.
Some 90% of discretionary income at those rates are used to fuel new investments. People who make that kind of income aren't dumb. They want to save. They are thrifty as fuck. They don't buy luxuries. They invest because they want to become millionaires so they can retire with a decent income at a base percent return.
In fact, it's rather interesting to see who on my block has the "big houses" and/or "big cars." I've been making over 6 figures myself for the past 5 years, and yet I have the smallest house on the block with almost almost 14 year old car. People judge me, and even on guilted me, for seemingly being poor. That's fine by me.
Understand that for my wife and I, we need 2.5M -- $2.5M @ 4% = $100K, which will be the cost of living equivalent to $30K/year today, which is what we live on now. That's why we save $40K+/year -- far more than we live on, just so we can reach that point. Even $40K/year * 25 years = $1M, so we have to hope our money compounds to 250% (+150%). In this economy, that's not really doing well, but I'm hopeful it will over 25 years.
But again finally lets put this insanity about what a "progressive" tax system is or isn't to rest.A "progressive" tax system is one is which higher incomes pay a "progressively" higher percentage in taxes,again a very simple easily applied concept that has been around a very long time.Its based on a philosophy of taxing with ability to pay in mind and again I think that is emminently a fair system.[/QUOTE] I'm not against a "progressive tax" system. I'm against people saying "tax cuts for millionaires," let alone confusing tax cuts with tax credits.
As far as my fondness for the "flat tax," understand that would:
A) Flat out eliminated taxes for many people.
My view is to fix it at the median, so anyone making median and below do not pay income tax.
B) People like myself would pay more
Those above the median would pay a 25% (or so) income tax rate. This would actually increase the tax liability for most of those above the median, but also increase overall revenue without hurting the economy with a 47%+ rate. It's about the fact that "every dollar of discretionary income has an equal chance to fund private industry." That's the "fairest" tax I know of.
One must remember that taxes are not for "penalizing" the successful. Considering how many millionaires are first generation and merely "living frugal to live when they retire," and the fact that income taxes do nothing to penalize those who have existing wealth (even capital gains don't if they do not invest and gain wealth), why do people make it about "penalizing" others?
I'm very much against the "fair tax" because it's regressive. I've never seen a good means to protect those who don't make enough. The "rebate" system seems far more ripe for abuse than our current income tax system.
Now if you want to enact a "luxury tax" of people who buy expensive cars, expensive houses, etc..., I'm all for it! I wouldn't pay jack. Unfortunately it doesn't net much income, but if you feel the need to "penalize" people who spend on luxuries, then by all means, that's probably ideal. It will not only penalize those "wealthy" people unaffected by income taxes (let alone don't re-invest their money, possibly because it was "daddies" and they don't know the firs thing).
But it will also penalize and, more importantly, deter the idiots on my block who make 1/2-1/3rd as much as I do, but drive 3x the car that I'm basically help pay for now.
You cannot lower the 15% bracket rate without higher income earners getting the same cut on that bracket as well. If you cannot figure that out, then you are mathematically challenged.
What you eventually argued was a tax credit, which I called you on. A tax credit is an entitlement that is subtracted from your tax liability, and a direct check if and when it exceeds your tax liability.
That is not a tax cut.
And yet those making over $100K would still pay 20% on the net income up to that 40K. So if you reduce that bracket's percentage, you give still give a "tax cut to millionaires."
Again, for the last time ...
In a progressive tax system, it is impossible to give a tax cut to those making less without also giving at least the same tax cut to those making more (if not an even bigger cut).
Simple math. If you don't understand it, it's a simple test, and you fail. No?
It's 100% rhetorical to say "tax cut for millionaires" because there is a 100% chance that millionaires will get a tax cut even if you only cut it on the 10% and 15% brackets. Hence how the leftist non-sense has a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I'm not a CPA, but my CPA for my business doesn't have to lift a finger when he does my business or personal filings. I know the basics of the tax code. It's elementary math!
I'm all for streamlining the tax code, taking away write-offs, etc... so those that cannot afford CPAs and the like will no longer be penalized. But understand I'm a person who not only runs a business honestly, but my own CPA says I'm probably too helpful to the government in that regard. So be it.
Bullshit. JFK, Reagan and W. all re-proved Alexander Hamilton's point that that federal revenue decreases as you pass a 47% rate. What makes up that 47% rate is always heavily debated (taxes, insurance, etc...), but the increased federal revenue that resulted in 4-6 years after a tax cut always shows a significant increase after money has flowed through the economy.
Paying for new "administrative" workers does little to improve an economy. The government can do that. Although private industry can do that as well, such private organizations do not last when they do. That's a major reason.
No offense, but the 15% tax rate easily extends up and over $100K/year for a family of 4 with their 401K contributions maxed, putting their total tax liability well under . I talked about that in this thread here:
The 15% tax bracket extends to $63,100 (net) for couples ...
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=276017
It then jumps to 25% and upwards to 33-35% not long after that. If you think pushing it to 40-50% is going to "help" the economy, I think JFK, Reagan and W. would have a lot to show to support Alexander Hamilton.
In the same regard, those grossing $200K/year will have a liability well over $35K -- pushing 4x as much for only 2x the income. It only gets worse with the full effect of the marriage penalty and 33-35% bracket. In other words, it grows exponentially until you reach the flat 35% rate well over 1/3rd of a million.
A very small percentage of Americans make that kind of money, and fractionally less 7 or 8 figures. Last time I checked, although I could be dated, no American makes over 8 figures a year, even after certain stock bonuses and related gains. The only exception may be the rare case where a founder or other core, major (majority?) shareholder of a new company finds its value into 9 figures after one year from virtually nothing before. Over 90% of millionaires in the US are actually not in the 35% bracket.
Some 90% of discretionary income at those rates are used to fuel new investments. People who make that kind of income aren't dumb. They want to save. They are thrifty as fuck. They don't buy luxuries. They invest because they want to become millionaires so they can retire with a decent income at a base percent return.
In fact, it's rather interesting to see who on my block has the "big houses" and/or "big cars." I've been making over 6 figures myself for the past 5 years, and yet I have the smallest house on the block with almost almost 14 year old car. People judge me, and even on guilted me, for seemingly being poor. That's fine by me.
Understand that for my wife and I, we need 2.5M -- $2.5M @ 4% = $100K, which will be the cost of living equivalent to $30K/year today, which is what we live on now. That's why we save $40K+/year -- far more than we live on, just so we can reach that point. Even $40K/year * 25 years = $1M, so we have to hope our money compounds to 250% (+150%). In this economy, that's not really doing well, but I'm hopeful it will over 25 years.
It's actually 0% capital gains for the same, aforementioned family of 4 grossing over $100K with their 401K maxed out, so their net income is $63,100 or under and still in the 15% bracket.
But raising
But again finally lets put this insanity about what a "progressive" tax system is or isn't to rest.A "progressive" tax system is one is which higher incomes pay a "progressively" higher percentage in taxes,again a very simple easily applied concept that has been around a very long time.Its based on a philosophy of taxing with ability to pay in mind and again I think that is emminently a fair system.[/QUOTE] I'm not against a "progressive tax" system. I'm against people saying "tax cuts for millionaires," let alone confusing tax cuts with tax credits.
As far as my fondness for the "flat tax," understand that would:
A) Flat out eliminated taxes for many people.
My view is to fix it at the median, so anyone making median and below do not pay income tax.
B) People like myself would pay more
Those above the median would pay a 25% (or so) income tax rate. This would actually increase the tax liability for most of those above the median, but also increase overall revenue without hurting the economy with a 47%+ rate. It's about the fact that "every dollar of discretionary income has an equal chance to fund private industry." That's the "fairest" tax I know of.
One must remember that taxes are not for "penalizing" the successful. Considering how many millionaires are first generation and merely "living frugal to live when they retire," and the fact that income taxes do nothing to penalize those who have existing wealth (even capital gains don't if they do not invest and gain wealth), why do people make it about "penalizing" others?
I'm very much against the "fair tax" because it's regressive. I've never seen a good means to protect those who don't make enough. The "rebate" system seems far more ripe for abuse than our current income tax system.
Now if you want to enact a "luxury tax" of people who buy expensive cars, expensive houses, etc..., I'm all for it! I wouldn't pay jack. Unfortunately it doesn't net much income, but if you feel the need to "penalize" people who spend on luxuries, then by all means, that's probably ideal. It will not only penalize those "wealthy" people unaffected by income taxes (let alone don't re-invest their money, possibly because it was "daddies" and they don't know the firs thing).
But it will also penalize and, more importantly, deter the idiots on my block who make 1/2-1/3rd as much as I do, but drive 3x the car that I'm basically help pay for now.
Re: People who gross $100K have a liability under $10K, those $200K over $35K ...
Edit :forget it,some people think they know things they obviously do not have a clue about and no amount of keying will stop their arrogance and total spin on history,tax law ,etc etc etc ,so why bother lol.
Edit :forget it,some people think they know things they obviously do not have a clue about and no amount of keying will stop their arrogance and total spin on history,tax law ,etc etc etc ,so why bother lol.
Philbert
Banned
So...someone who makes $40,000 pays $8000 at 20%, $100,000 pays $42,000; so, someone making a little less than 3 times as much pays more than 5 times as much in taxes?
I can see where a flat tax would be considered a much more porportionate system...
"Maybe they don't teach that in engineering class"...ummm...why would they? Did they teach analytic geometry in accounting class?
I can see where a flat tax would be considered a much more porportionate system...
"Maybe they don't teach that in engineering class"...ummm...why would they? Did they teach analytic geometry in accounting class?
Well at least I think you understand my point and how a "progressive system" works,even if we might disagree on how fair and equaitable it is.
Yes an earner of 40k who was in a tax bracket of 20% would pay $8000 in taxes having a net remainder of $32,000.While an earner of 100k who I in your eample is being taxed at a rate of 42% would have a net income of of $58,000.Now I think that sounds like a pretty fair tax system but I can see how some might feel differently.But what can't be argued is that you can't have a lower rate on lower incomes.The prof seems to think that the person at a 42% rate on 100k is not paying that rate on the whole 100k ,that is where he is confused and yes I guess they don't teach that in engineering classes lol.For the record the way the tax system works prof is once you are in the higher tax bracket every dime you make is taxed at that rate.Not just the amount that put you in the higher bracket.And you know what you can do with the "mathematically challenged" comments" prof cause you haven't a clue about this or lots of others things and your rhetoric deamaning your betters gets old lol.
Tax brackets (or not?) ... and Engineering is NOT the study of technology ...
I'm not kidding on that last part. My best friend was a finance major. I showed him my "management 101" book as we were both attending college at the same time. He was like, "Whoa! We never go to that depth!" I was showing him how we do. E.g., proof of formulas for amortization are Chapter 1, when he usually didn't hit that until much later, and not to the depth of proof and -- more importantly for us -- modification.
What? You thought engineering was technology or just applied science? Engineering requires extensive study and proof of feasibility, economic as much as technical, including the risk not merely involved with both, but as a reality depending on both. The foundation of engineering is application of calculus to all systems -- physical and business. Remember, calculus was invented near simultaneously by, essentially, one of the first astrophyscists as well as a German businessman. There is a duality.
Again, engineering is not technology. Engineering is a foundation of both applied economics and applied science. While we learn mechanics, we learn finance. While we are in our senior design classes, we're also covering business and project management, including the microeconomic factors of the customer as well as the cost feasibility and funding of the project, which comes down to risk management.
Have you ever heard of Industrial Engineering? Instead of their option being a civil (including environmental), electrical (including computer, but not computer science, think more semiconductor), material (and chemical) or mechanical (including aerospace) basis, they are engineers that are solely focused on business as their option. I have a couple of colleagues who majored in it and such majors are preferred over finance and other business majors for business management. Why? The sheer system of equations an engineer can build, showing how one factor can affect another in the costs, sales and other realities, all coming down to risk.
I.e., "bean counters" tend to be engineers. It's also why many economists choose engineering for their Bachelors.
Your engineering "option" is only about 45 hours (last 1.5 years) of your undergraduate. The first 30 hours is foundational (first year of calculus, physics, etc...) and then next 60 hours (advanced math/science, while taking "core" classes simultaneously with the actual "application" of the math/science) are "the meat" of the engineering discipline. Yes, engineering is typically around 135 semester hours (4.5 years) in the American system (which is modelled after the British, which is much different than others, at least historically, may be the same more recently, long story).
Never confuse "engineers" with "technologists" (aka "engineering technologists," including the separate "engineering technology" degree, which is a completely different degree path without a doctoral option, limited at BSxET or, at the highest, MSxET) or "technicians." Technologists are what most people think engineers are, because they are far more numerous and far more practical. Engineers may work as technologists, but they are trained not for technology, but to analytically explain the world -- both physical and social interactions. Technology can be learned without a degree (and is often better).
I.e., if you get a BSEET (Electrical Engineering Technology), you will come out with a full 4+ years equivalent, practical experience in your field. If you get a BSEE (Electrical Engineering), you will maybe muster a total of 1 year equivalent, practical experience from your labs. BSEET is what they teach at DeVry, ITT Tech and some "technology" programs at universities. It's not the same at all, and I cannot emphasize that point.
What I now do working in technology is very, very different from what I used to do as an engineer in aerospace. Very different, even though I used the same computing systems for much of my work in both.
For accountants, understand that the foundations of summation are integral calculus, and the rates of change (and rates of rates of change) are differential calculus.
Whether their program puts it to full effect and actually teaches more advanced finance and trends with calculus may or may not be true. For us engineers, we always build systems of equations to show interactions, including rates of rates of rates, etc...
That's not how the tax code works at all. Such a simple tax code would inhibit anyone from entering another tax bracket.
Engineering (at least in the US) has 2 years of microeconomics, business management and other courses related to finance and risk assessment. We often prove the formulas business and finance majors use on their calculators.
I'm not kidding on that last part. My best friend was a finance major. I showed him my "management 101" book as we were both attending college at the same time. He was like, "Whoa! We never go to that depth!" I was showing him how we do. E.g., proof of formulas for amortization are Chapter 1, when he usually didn't hit that until much later, and not to the depth of proof and -- more importantly for us -- modification.
What? You thought engineering was technology or just applied science? Engineering requires extensive study and proof of feasibility, economic as much as technical, including the risk not merely involved with both, but as a reality depending on both. The foundation of engineering is application of calculus to all systems -- physical and business. Remember, calculus was invented near simultaneously by, essentially, one of the first astrophyscists as well as a German businessman. There is a duality.
Again, engineering is not technology. Engineering is a foundation of both applied economics and applied science. While we learn mechanics, we learn finance. While we are in our senior design classes, we're also covering business and project management, including the microeconomic factors of the customer as well as the cost feasibility and funding of the project, which comes down to risk management.
Have you ever heard of Industrial Engineering? Instead of their option being a civil (including environmental), electrical (including computer, but not computer science, think more semiconductor), material (and chemical) or mechanical (including aerospace) basis, they are engineers that are solely focused on business as their option. I have a couple of colleagues who majored in it and such majors are preferred over finance and other business majors for business management. Why? The sheer system of equations an engineer can build, showing how one factor can affect another in the costs, sales and other realities, all coming down to risk.
I.e., "bean counters" tend to be engineers. It's also why many economists choose engineering for their Bachelors.
Your engineering "option" is only about 45 hours (last 1.5 years) of your undergraduate. The first 30 hours is foundational (first year of calculus, physics, etc...) and then next 60 hours (advanced math/science, while taking "core" classes simultaneously with the actual "application" of the math/science) are "the meat" of the engineering discipline. Yes, engineering is typically around 135 semester hours (4.5 years) in the American system (which is modelled after the British, which is much different than others, at least historically, may be the same more recently, long story).
Never confuse "engineers" with "technologists" (aka "engineering technologists," including the separate "engineering technology" degree, which is a completely different degree path without a doctoral option, limited at BSxET or, at the highest, MSxET) or "technicians." Technologists are what most people think engineers are, because they are far more numerous and far more practical. Engineers may work as technologists, but they are trained not for technology, but to analytically explain the world -- both physical and social interactions. Technology can be learned without a degree (and is often better).
I.e., if you get a BSEET (Electrical Engineering Technology), you will come out with a full 4+ years equivalent, practical experience in your field. If you get a BSEE (Electrical Engineering), you will maybe muster a total of 1 year equivalent, practical experience from your labs. BSEET is what they teach at DeVry, ITT Tech and some "technology" programs at universities. It's not the same at all, and I cannot emphasize that point.
What I now do working in technology is very, very different from what I used to do as an engineer in aerospace. Very different, even though I used the same computing systems for much of my work in both.
I would argue that accountants do take math, and often do have elementary, differential and integral calculus, including analytical geometry. Understand that integral calculus has visual representations that are very much similar.
For accountants, understand that the foundations of summation are integral calculus, and the rates of change (and rates of rates of change) are differential calculus.
Whether their program puts it to full effect and actually teaches more advanced finance and trends with calculus may or may not be true. For us engineers, we always build systems of equations to show interactions, including rates of rates of rates, etc...
I too I am not really convinced that he is a legal American citizen. But that is my personal opinion, so please people don't jump on me because I just expressed my own and personal opinion.
I'm sick of Republicans. They ruined the country through policies of warmongering and bending over for Corporations.
Obama atleast has the guts to try to make our country "grow up" at some point. We, as a nation, have matched GDP with Debt in a 1:1 ratio. 13tril to 13tril. This same debt to GDP ratio has never occurred except in 1929.
Thank you Republicans. Nice job.
Obama atleast has the guts to try to make our country "grow up" at some point. We, as a nation, have matched GDP with Debt in a 1:1 ratio. 13tril to 13tril. This same debt to GDP ratio has never occurred except in 1929.
Thank you Republicans. Nice job.
What's with this thread?
