Joe Scarborough Goes On Huge Rant Over Obama's Tax Rate

[bears]

and don't any of you even get me started on the articles written on Facebook.  It's authors like this who answer the question, "why is journalism dead?"

[avxo]

Do you even know what social security is?  it's YOUR money for retirement.

No. It's money taken from me by force today, in lieu of future payments I may not want and may not collect. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of being able to plan my own retirement how I want to?

It's NOT a tax.

What you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.

Unemployment insurance is money that is there to insure YOU against unemployment.

No. It's money taken from me by force today, to insure me for an eventuality that may never materialize and against which I may not wish to be insured. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of me being able to insure myself against risks I consider important?

it's NOT a tax.

Again, what you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.

[Straw Man]

Everybody knows the tax system is extremely unlikely to change - and everybody acts like that's a big secret. We might cut taxes a bit here while raising them a bit there. We might raise a tax rate here and add a loophole there. And so on...


I've no idea if he made a million dollars or not - it's irrelevant. If he really believes he's undertaxed (he said he is) and is rich (he said he is) and he believes that the rich ought to pay their fair share (he has) then he should prove it by voluntarily overpaying.

The argument "Well, I feel like I ought to pay more and make the argument that it's my moral duty to pay more, but I'm not required to under the current tax code so I won't" doesn't hold water. Either you believe what you say and stand by your convinctions, or you either don't believe what you say or don't stand by your convictions.


It's hypocritical to argue that you don't pay enough in taxes and to not lead by example by choosing to pay enough today even if the law doesn't mandate it.

I don't "know" that the tax code won't change.

I posted a link to Obama's taxes on the first page of this thread (which is about Obama's 2012 taxes)

Again, If Obama had ever said people should voluntarily overpay then I would agree with you but since he didn't I don't.   I also have a strong suspicion (though I won't say I "know") that if Obama did choose to voluntarily overpay that we'd see even MORE criticism from the right.  They would probably say it's all a show or a gimmick or that it's easy for him to do that since he is POTUS's and his living expenses are covered etc...

All I see in this thread is a bunch of phony outrage (not from you)

[bears]

No. It's money taken from me by force today, in lieu of future payments I may not want and may not collect. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of being able to plan my own retirement how I want to?


What you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.


No. It's money taken from me by force today, to insure me for an eventuality that may never materialize and against which I may not wish to be insured. It's money that is unavailable to me to use or otherwise invest. Why should I be forced into such a system, instead of me being able to insure myself against risks I consider important?


Again, what you choose to call it is irrelevant. It's a tax in the sense that I'm forced to pay it at the point of the Government's proverbial gun.

can't help but agree.  but what you're doing is making a case against the taxation system as a whole.  thats a whole other subject for another day.  and you most probably share the same opinion as myself.  

[Straw Man]

um... maybe the fact that the author included things like Social Security and unemployment insurance, which are payroll taxes in order to inflate his numbers to spin it in the direction he wanted it to go. Do you even know what social security is?  it's YOUR money for retirement.   It's NOT a tax.  Unemployment insurance is money that is there to insure YOU against unemployment. it's NOT a tax.  and i'm just gettiong started.  again, it would take me teaching you basic tax policy and showing you how a tax return works for you to understand any further points that I may have.

so the author is picking and choosing what he wants to include in his numbers so that he can trick fucking idiots like yourself into buying into this shit.  the sad fact is you just browse the internet for articles that reek of liberalism and it empowers you to go spread that misinformation elsewhere.  now stop posting about this.  you're out of your element.

social security is not "your money"
you don't get out what you put in
I hope you know this (I have to assume you do)

If you want to make  specific point about the article I posted then make a specific reference.

Why don't you start with the section titled: "Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all". since that corresponds to my statement (which you chose to change yet pretend it was the same) which said "Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes."   

[bears]

social security is not "your money"
you don't get out what you put in
I hope you know this (I have to assume you do)

If you want to make  specific point about the article I posted then make a specific reference.

Why don't you start with the section titled: "Many of the very richest pay no current income taxes at all". since that corresponds to my statement (which you chose to change yet pretend it was the same) which said "Obama (and others like Buffet) have criticized the SYSTEM that allows the super wealthy to often pay little or no taxes."   

do you get out 100% of what you put in?  no.  still doesn't change the fact that the author is picking and choosing numbers that fit his argument and discarding all others so that lemmings like you will read it.  again.  what the politicians are debating relates to INCOME TAX.  Buffett and Obama are talking specifically about INCOME TAX.  and you're pulling out an article that is talking about something other than INCOEM TAX and using it in a debate on INCOME TAX. what about this don't you get?  seriously.  stop.  put down the shovel.

[Straw Man]

do you get out 100% of what you put in?  no.  still doesn't change the fact that the author is picking and choosing numbers that fit his argument and discarding all others so that lemmings like you will read it.  again.  what the politicians are debating relates to INCOME TAX.  Buffett and Obama are talking specifically about INCOME TAX.  and you're pulling out an article that is talking about something other than INCOEM TAX and using it in a debate on INCOME TAX. what about this don't you get?  seriously.  stop.  put down the shovel.

that's exactly what I said

way to ignore the specific point that I made earlier in this thread

payroll tax (aka social  security) IS an INCOME TAX and not a deposit into an individual retirement account ( I know that you know this)

If you want to talk about something specific to the article I posted then cut and paste the exact point you disagree with so I know exactly what you're referring to

I'm more than happy (and contrary to your belief quite capable) of having this discussion with you

[bears]

that's exactly what I said

way to ignore the specific point that I made earlier in this thread

payroll tax (aka social  security) IS an INCOME TAX and not a deposit into an individual retirement account ( I know that you know this)

If you want to talk about something specific to the article I posted then cut and paste the exact point you disagree with so I know exactly what you're referring to

I'm more than happy (and contrary to your belief quite capable) of having this discussion with you

um...social security and medicare taxes are not income tax you fucking idiot,  it is a payroll tax.  two different things.    again.  all you're doing is taking a debate on INCOME TAX and using arguments regarding payroll taxes in the debate.  the author of the idiotic article you posted is simply diluting the issue by bringing in arguments (valid though they may be) and using it in the debate on INCOME TAX.  you simply do not get it.  i can't help you. 

[bears]

here is a link to his tax returns:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/complete_return_president_obama_2012.pdf

tell us which deductions he shouldn't have taken

I'm not a CPA but it looks to me that his primary deduction (outside of mortgage interest and property taxes) is charitable contributions

Also note this his income in 2012 (before any deductions) is not even 1 million so he's not even in the millionaire category in regards to his income this year (not net worth).  As you know many millionaires and billionaires pay close to ZERO taxes through various schemes and loopholes

oh also since you are the consummate pragmatist with regards to your Obama's tax return why don't you share with us some of the "tax loopholes" (i fucking hate this expression because 99% of the people who use it have no idea what the fuck it even means) that those evil millionaires take advantage of that you think are unfair.  go ahead give it a whirl.

[bears]

the bottom line is this article is all smoke and mirrors aimed at lemmings like straw.  The math is rigged for the article.  I can throw numbers at you all day long and twist them in any way to prove a point.

It seems to me in this article, anyone who is not in the top 4% is considered poor.  Of course 96% of the population would have a higher tax burden than the top 4%...Could it be the additional 92% of the population contributing to the total?

Fact is it's statistically inaccurate.  It mixes samples and popuation sizes and tries to compare them.  Then show correlation as a cause and effect and just because items are correlated, does not mean one causes the other.

and people like Straw take articles like this and give it to other impressionable asshats who browse the internet looking for ammunition as opposed to information and they accept it as bible when if you take a step back and look at the info with an unbiased and informed angle, you would see that this is simply a guy vomiting numbers until the vomit resembles something that makes his point. 

[Straw Man]

um...social security and medicare taxes are not income tax you fucking idiot,  it is a payroll tax.  two different things.    again.  all you're doing is taking a debate on INCOME TAX and using arguments regarding payroll taxes in the debate.  the author of the idiotic article you posted is simply diluting the issue by bringing in arguments (valid though they may be) and using it in the debate on INCOME TAX.  you simply do not get it.  i can't help you. 

if you want to split hairs go right ahead

payroll tax is paid for by both empoyee and employer (unless you're self employed) but it's calculated based on INCOME

now how about actually addressing the subject you claim to object to which is that the SUPER RICH often pay little or no income taxes (and often that means no payroll tax either)

[Straw Man]

oh also since you are the consummate pragmatist with regards to your Obama's tax return why don't you share with us some of the "tax loopholes" (i fucking hate this expression because 99% of the people who use it have no idea what the fuck it even means) that those evil millionaires take advantage of that you think are unfair.  go ahead give it a whirl.

already cited in the article I posted and I've asked you twice now to address it

[MCWAY]

how many more times do you need your fallacy explained to you

You haven't explained jack. All you've done is your standard kneepadding. The simple fact is Obama campaigned BOTH times on raising taxes on those making $250K or more.

And, he rejected Pelosi's/Boehner's plan that hiked them on those making at least $1 million.

[bears]

Oh yeah with regards to social security, it's true that the rich pay the same amount of s.s. tax as someone earning exactly $106,800.  However, he also receives the same s.s. benefits as the person earning $106,800 since the benefits are also capped.  So, they both pay the same social insurance premiums for the same social insurance benefits.  and they both receive fewer benefits per dollar paid than those at lower income levels due to the way benefits are determined, at least in terms of retirement benefits.

so the author's entire premise is faulty to begin with.  

look there are so many problems with this article its tough to do it all in one day. but i can assure that his assertions regarding the social security and medicare tax are flat out idiotic and actually detract more from his argument than help it.  but he knows his readers don't care.

[bears]

if you want to split hairs go right ahead

payroll tax is paid for by both empoyee and employer (unless you're self employed) but it's calculated based on INCOME

now how about actually addressing the subject you claim to object to which is that the SUPER RICH often pay little or no income taxes (and often that means no payroll tax either)

no its not dumbass!!!!  it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense.  if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!!  YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! 

and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax.  are there years where they don't?  yes!!  most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!!  do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t.  and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do. 

[Soul Crusher]

no its not dumbass!!!!  it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense.  if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!!  YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!! 

and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax.  are there years where they don't?  yes!!  most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!!  do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t.  and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do. 

You should give up now - arguing w Straw is like talking to a rock 

[bears]

You should give up now - arguing w Straw is like talking to a rock 

i do give up.  its like arguing with my 6 year old.

[Straw Man]

no its not dumbass!!!!  it's calculated based on a companies gross payroll expense.  if a company has a loss of $500,000 in a year they still have to pay payroll taxes you fucking idiot!!!  YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!!!  

and i've refuted your statement that the super rich OFTEN pay little or no income tax.  are there years where they don't?  yes!!  most years do they pay a shit ton of tax yes!!!  do you think that over a lifetime YOU pay more taxes than a guy with a net worth of $50,000,000!!! no you fuckien dumbass you don;t.  and the author of the article you posted is trying to make you think that you do.  

damn, doesn't take much to set you off

yes, I conceded that "payroll" and "income" are different but i was referring to income as earned by the employee as the "income" it's calculated against.   As I said, the employer pays their share of this tax based on the employees INCOME and has nothing to do with the profit of loss from the company.  You seem to have just decided that when I said "income" I mean the net profit of the company which is clearly not what I was referring to

did you actually address anything in section 4 of the article I posted

I didn't see it but I'll go back and look

[Straw Man]

You haven't explained jack. All you've done is your standard kneepadding. The simple fact is Obama campaigned BOTH times on raising taxes on those making $250K or more.

And, he rejected Pelosi's/Boehner's plan that hiked them on those making at least $1 million.

Boehner's Plan B was not supported by Pelosi

Pelosi proposed a similar plan in May 2012 prior to Boehner Plan B(to leave the Bush tax cuts in place for everyone making less than 1 million)

Quote from Steny Hoyer regarding Plan B

Democratic leadership, he told reporters Tuesday, was not in favor of the plan.

“The Leader [Nancy Pelosi] and I both agree that we’re not for this,” he said.

Pelosi authored a letter to Speaker Boehner in May, calling for an identical proposal that extended tax cuts for those making less than $1 million. Hoyer dismissed that, saying he believed that had also been a “political ploy.”

“She wanted to show that Republicans wouldn’t even vote for a million,” he explained.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/18/democrats-reject-boehners-plan-b/#ixzz2QfQi4uMX

[tonymctones]

LOL its hillarious to see straw silver line so much to defend his main man.

what issues do you feel obama has been hypocritical on straw?

[MCWAY]

LOL its hillarious to see straw silver line so much to defend his main man.

Indeed!

Now Here's The Irony Of Boehner's New Fiscal Cliff Plan.

 

Earlier Tuesday morning, House Speaker John Boehner announced a "Plan B" to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. The plan, which he intends to bring to the House floor for a vote, includes tax hikes for incomes above $1 million, while the Bush-era tax cuts would remain in place for all other income brackets.
The irony of Boehner's plan is this: Six months ago, he would have had the support of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — but not his own caucus.

In May, Pelosi sent a letter to Boehner demanding immediate consideration of a vote on a Bush tax cut extension for incomes below $1 million.

"It is unacceptable to hold tax cuts for the middle class hostage to extending multi-billion dollar tax breaks for millionaires, Big Oil, special interests, and corporations that ship jobs overseas," Pelosi wrote.
Of course, that is the exact plan that Boehner plans on bringing to a vote soon. It was a plan that Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) loosely proposed as far back as 2010.

But circumstances have changed, and today Democrats, not Republicans, stand firmly opposed to the plan. President Barack Obama won re-election and has claimed a mandate to increase taxes on incomes above $250,000, a campaign pledge. (He backed off that pledge on Monday with a new offer to Boehner that would increase rates on incomes above $400,000.) Fresh off Obama's victory, Democrats are viewed more favorably, in general, in than Republicans in fiscal-cliff polls.

House Democratic Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer told Politico on Tuesday that Pelosi was making a "political ploy" with her May letter to Boehner. He also said Boehner was doing the same thing with the new "Plan B" vote.

In a statement, Pelosi echoed Hoyer's thoughts, saying it served as a tacit admission that Republicans have conceded on raising tax rates.

“Earlier this year, I put forward a plan to smoke out the Republicans’ true position: a proposal to raise taxes on those making over $1 million per year in context of a big, bold, and balanced plan," she said.
"Republicans said ‘no’ six months ago; the President took his case to the American people to use $250,000 as a threshold for higher tax rates, and the public supported him. With the fiscal cliff just two weeks away, Republicans’ so-called ‘Plan B’ is nothing more than a cynical ploy that is harmful to the middle class and the economy."

Boehner's plan also differs in details from the Democratic-led plan in the summer, and it does not address the mandatory spending cuts set to kick in as part of the fiscal cliff.

Nevertheless, it puts Democrats in an awkward political position.

"For years, Washington Democrats — led by Sen. Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi — have been calling for a bill to stop the tax hikes except on millionaires," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement. "They even voted in favor of it. To oppose it now would make them entirely responsible for the tax hikes that tens of millions of Americans face in less than two weeks. They know that, and the President knows that.


http://www.businessinsider.com/boehner-fiscal-cliff-millionaire-tax-plan-obama-pelosi-reid-schumer-2012-12#ixzz2QgG8Js9T

what issues do you feel obama has been hypocritical on straw?

This ought to be good.

Of course, Straw has YET to answer why Obama campaigned TWICE on hiking taxes on those making at least $250K, if that minimum ain't considered to be "rich".

[Soul Crusher]

Straw would kneepad obama raping a dog on the WH lawn if need be 

[bears]

damn, doesn't take much to set you off

yes, I conceded that "payroll" and "income" are different but i was referring to income as earned by the employee as the "income" it's calculated against.   As I said, the employer pays their share of this tax based on the employees INCOME and has nothing to do with the profit of loss from the company.  You seem to have just decided that when I said "income" I mean the net profit of the company which is clearly not what I was referring to

did you actually address anything in section 4 of the article I posted

I didn't see it but I'll go back and look

straw.  let me explain somehting to you.  a person can have a year where their tax return shows a net loss.  meaning they have negative income.  meaning they spent more money then they made.  THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY PAYROLL TAXES on their wages.  so NO.  it's not dependent on the individual's income. 

[bears]

it's just mind boggling how you can't see that article for what it is.  a guy playing with numbers until he gets to the conclusion that he wants. 

[Straw Man]

straw.  let me explain somehting to you.  a person can have a year where their tax return shows a net loss.  meaning they have negative income.  meaning they spent more money then they made.  THEY STILL HAVE TO PAY PAYROLL TAXES on their wages.  so NO.  it's not dependent on the individual's income. 

I'm talking about an employee or wage earner.  His portion of SS is calculated based on his income (salary) and his employer will pay the other half regardless of whether the company is profitable or not. 

What does any of that have to do with a super wealthy person who makes millions or billions and pays zero taxes?

Isn't that what you were originally arguing about?