Who here objects to a 50% income tax rate on earnings above $1MIL

[tonymctones]

so if you don't want to support those 2 vital social systems why not enforce a mandatory age of death for anyone with less than $1MIL of net assets?

Sound stupid?

then STFU and pay your share

right, b/c thats the only solution right?

not cut spending in other areas...

not stop creating new programs that require money....

the only solution is for the govt to take away hard earned money from ppl who worked for it.

When you actually have work and have money youre going to have a different view of the world my friend.

[whork]

right, b/c thats the only solution right?

not cut spending in other areas...

not stop creating new programs that require money....

the only solution is for the govt to take away hard earned money from ppl who worked for it.

When you actually have work and have money youre going to have a different view of the world my friend.

I didnt know you were the only person on this board that have a job and money

I guess the rest of us is jobless broke people

[tonymctones]

I didnt know you were the only person on this board that have a job and money

I guess the rest of us is jobless broke people

out of my whole post thats what you focus on?

Touche whork, I retract my previous statement.

Now respond to the other part of the post...

[WOOO]

right, b/c thats the only solution right?

not cut spending in other areas...

not stop creating new programs that require money....

the only solution is for the govt to take away hard earned money from ppl who worked for it.

When you actually have work and have money youre going to have a different view of the world my friend.

i've shared in other posts that i am canadian and work as a contact center director... i make a low six figure salary and pay a large portion of it in taxes.

my focus is on ensuring that my government is not unduly influenced by the private sector

having worked in sales in the private sector for my whole life i am not delusional about what deregulation means

regulation and government controls benefit the populace, protecting them from "profit at all cost"

[tonymctones]

i've shared in other posts that i am canadian and work as a contact center director... i make a low six figure salary and pay a large portion of it in taxes.

my focus is on ensuring that my government is not unduly influenced by the private sector

having worked in sales in the private sector for my whole life i am not delusional about what deregulation means

regulation and government controls benefit the populace, protecting them from "profit at all cost"

and what does any of this have to do with my post you quoted?

if you want to get on your soap box and rant in broad terms with no specifics start another stupid thread.

This one was about taxes not regulations on business...

so again Ill say

right, b/c thats the only solution right?

not cut spending in other areas...

not stop creating new programs that require money....

also if youre concerned about your govt wtf are you doing posting about the american govt.

[Straw Man]

50% is not necessary

just roll the upper tax bracket to where they were under Clinton and implement some of the changes recommended by Simpson-Bowles such as taxing short term capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.  

[Coach is Back!]

Seriously? Half of anything over a million should be redistributed... you can still be filthy rich if that's your ambition...

Why? It's not their money, they didn't earn it. Why are you proposing (like Obama) having an increasingly lazy society? NOW, I'm being serious. Besides, with all of the tax we're paying now, income, fed, state, sales, cap gains, etc,etc we're already close to 50% and in some cases more.

[WOOO]

50% is not necessary

just roll the upper tax bracket to where they were under Clinton and implement some of the changes recommended by Simpson-Bowles such as taxing short term capital gains and dividends as ordinary income.  

that's definitely a reasonable and balanced suggestion but with retards like the tea party crowd i think the US needs a mainstream socialist movement to help bring the populace back to the middle right

Why? It's not their money, they didn't earn it. Why are you proposing (like Obama) having an increasingly lazy society? NOW, I'm being serious. Besides, with all of the tax we're paying now, income, fed, state, sales, cap gains, etc,etc we're already close to 50% and in some cases more.

aren't you a capitalist? paying more in taxes just challenges you to earn more income... only a socialist would be afraid of the challenge

[tu_holmes]

Why? It's not their money, they didn't earn it. Why are you proposing (like Obama) having an increasingly lazy society? NOW, I'm being serious. Besides, with all of the tax we're paying now, income, fed, state, sales, cap gains, etc,etc we're already close to 50% and in some cases more.

Exactly... Why is it that capital gains is taxed so low? Why is it that returning taxes to pre-Bush rates is so bad? Why is it we can't raise a little revenue and cut spending together?

I read somewhere that if we cut spending by about 15% and raise revenue by returning to pre-bush days,staying out of needless wars, and raising the top top level a bit that we could be cutting away at the debt and would have it pretty much paid down in about 20 years.

For a country that doesn't seem like a very long time and doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

[whork]

Why? It's not their money, they didn't earn it. Why are you proposing (like Obama) having an increasingly lazy society? NOW, I'm being serious. Besides, with all of the tax we're paying now, income, fed, state, sales, cap gains, etc,etc we're already close to 50% and in some cases more.

Its not what you pay but what you get for your money.

How much is your health insurance?

[WOOO]

Its not what you pay but what you get for your money.

How much is your health insurance?

i'm canadian

$0 in direct costs.... even if i need 15 triple bypasses while having 82 pre-existing conditions

[whork]

i'm canadian

$0 in direct costs.... even if i need 15 triple bypasses while having 82 pre-existing conditions

Same here

I pay 75% of some of the income i make.

Yet im better of than most americans i have met.

[tonymctones]

Exactly... Why is it that capital gains is taxed so low? Why is it that returning taxes to pre-Bush rates is so bad? Why is it we can't raise a little revenue and cut spending together?

I read somewhere that if we cut spending by about 15% and raise revenue by returning to pre-bush days,staying out of needless wars, and raising the top top level a bit that we could be cutting away at the debt and would have it pretty much paid down in about 20 years.

For a country that doesn't seem like a very long time and doesn't seem like a huge deal to me.

I could get on board with that, the problem is you have sacred cows with spending and the reps giving in with tax cuts expiring they will wan the 15% to come from the dems favored programs.

and the dems wont cut those programs

also does that 15% number say that we shouldnt raise spending for the 20 years?

if thats the case then it wont work.

[tonymctones]

Same here

I pay 75% of some of the income i make.

Yet im better of than most americans i have met.

and youre ok with that?

what country do you live in whork?

[tu_holmes]

I could get on board with that, the problem is you have sacred cows with spending and the reps giving in with tax cuts expiring they will wan the 15% to come from the dems favored programs.

and the dems wont cut those programs

also does that 15% number say that we shouldnt raise spending for the 20 years?

if thats the case then it wont work.

Yes... the 15% number is saying we should not raise spending at all for that time frame and after the 15% cut, we hold steady with that budget and do not deviate.

Again, it was something I was reading somewhere and it was something that from a pragmatic stance made sense.

Mostly because I've been saying it for the past 4 fucking years and no one listens, but it was nice to have the numbers to just back up my opinion.

[WOOO]

I could get on board with that, the problem is you have sacred cows with spending and the reps giving in with tax cuts expiring they will wan the 15% to come from the dems favored programs.

and the dems wont cut those programs

also does that 15% number say that we shouldnt raise spending for the 20 years?

if thats the case then it wont work.

fair point... but modern republicanism isn't the answer... the tea party movement is retarded

[whork]

and youre ok with that?

what country do you live in whork?

It sucks but then again i dont have to worry about health care, we have a good safety net if you get unemployed etc..
So im ok with it i guess

I live in Denmark

[tonymctones]

fair point... but modern republicanism isn't the answer... the tea party movement is retarded

Oh Ill agree with that all day long my friend

however youre as delusional as the republicans if you think obama and the modern day liberal are the answer as well.

thats what you seem to want to push and its just as idiotic and probable to lead to disaster as the opposing plan.

you do know Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world already looked at obamas tax plan is said it would cost up 700K+ jobs

right?

[whork]

Oh Ill agree with that all day long my friend

however youre as delusional as the republicans if you think obama and the modern day liberal are the answer as well.

thats what you seem to want to push and its just as idiotic and probable to lead to disaster as the opposing plan.

you do know Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world already looked at obamas tax plan is said it would cost up 700K+ jobs

right?

I didnt know Obama had a plan to be honest

[tu_holmes]

Oh Ill agree with that all day long my friend

however youre as delusional as the republicans if you think obama and the modern day liberal are the answer as well.

thats what you seem to want to push and its just as idiotic and probable to lead to disaster as the opposing plan.

you do know Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world already looked at obamas tax plan is said it would cost up 700K+ jobs

right?

Perhaps true... but Romney's plan was no better... He really didn't have one anyway... Just some talking points... Never anything concrete.

When you have a wish in one hand and shit in the other, guess which one fills up first.

[WOOO]

Oh Ill agree with that all day long my friend

however youre as delusional as the republicans if you think obama and the modern day liberal are the answer as well.

thats what you seem to want to push and its just as idiotic and probable to lead to disaster as the opposing plan.

you do know Ernst and Young one of the most respected accounting/consulting firms in the world already looked at obamas tax plan is said it would cost up 700K+ jobs

right?

wasn't that study funded by conservative interests?

don't get wagged

Perhaps true... but Romney's plan was no better... He really didn't have one anyway... Just some talking points... Never anything concrete.

When you have a wish in one hand and shit in the other, guess which one fills up first.

the lack of political will on both sides is sad...

[tonymctones]

Perhaps true... but Romney's plan was no better... He really didn't have one anyway... Just some talking points... Never anything concrete.

When you have a wish in one hand and shit in the other, guess which one fills up first.

again agree all day on that.

Romney I believe would have been hands down better for business and therefore getting the economy going again and thats where my vote started and stopped.

you cant tax money that ppl arent making so in order to raise revenues through taxes its best to have a good economy.

Obama wants to raise taxes in the middle of a shitty economy which is just fuking moronic.

[tu_holmes]

again agree all day on that.

Romney I believe would have been hands down better for business and therefore getting the economy going again and thats where my vote started and stopped.

you cant tax money that ppl arent making so in order to raise revenues through taxes its best to have a good economy.

Obama wants to raise taxes in the middle of a shitty economy which is just fuking moronic.

I don't disagree completely... but the country does need revenue.

It ALSO needs to cut spending... It just does.

We can not continue to spend money like we are fighting the commies... It's just not realistic anymore.

[tonymctones]

wasn't that study funded by conservative interests?

don't get wagged


the lack of political will on both sides is sad...

yes it was but it wasnt conducted by them, it was conducted by Ernst and Young one of the worlds most respected accounting/consulting firms

dont be niave, if you feel the study was inaccurate please do tell but EY is beyond reproach on being biased simply b/c the funds came from sources you deem biased.

They arent one of the countries big 5 accounting firms for no reason, as a matter of fact they may be in the big 3 i cant remember.

The political will is certainly their its the lack of personal sacrifice on all ends of the spectrum that is sickening.

Ppl are voting on what will benefit them the most, not what will benefit the country the most. Short sighted idiots who want to take a quick boost in (Insert benefit here) without looking at the long term costs. This election is a prime example, ppl dont realize that if the country keeps going in the direction its in and it most certainly will with obama that taxes on everyone will have to be raised to deal with the debt.

I said it 4 years ago and its more true today.

[whork]

Considering the income the military, the infrastructure etc has contributed to the businesses is this so unfair?