@Cinci & Scott… I suppose that those that will not study history can still pull a 3.0 if they ace their other subjects. Or something like that. Historically, the way it works is that with higher taxes, businesses pump the money back into the company with subsequent higher employment and productivity. With lower taxes, they pull the money out and employment goes down. It’s a proven repeatable pattern.
My money’s on the rich surviving this unspeakably horrible, crippling crisis. In fact, they are going to do quite well. No … they’re going to keep being and getting filthy rich and keep trying to not pay taxes forever..That’s what “REVENGE” is, amigos.
@cinci steve,what you have here is a specious argument (look it up). Let’s assume everything you say is true, it will only fund the government for 8 days. that’s 8 days more than right now. So it’s a move in the right direction. If you were starving to death, and you could only get 1 cookie a day, but were still free to look elsewhere, you would starve to death a lot more slowly (it’s amazing what little food humans can live on).now what you have is a matter of fairness. the framework of the republicans talking points is supurbe. no one is talking about taxing the rich more, we’re talking about TAXING THE RICH THE SAME. the republicans LOVED to scream about special interests. your argument is FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS. by definition, if you are giving 1% (certainly a special interest), special treatment – paying LESS taxes, then you are holding up the whole country for a special interest.
I’ve been hearing that for some time from multiple posters with no substantiated reference."
I’m not completely satisfied with the explanation given here, but it does provide pertinent data and I will pursue this until I can find a really thorough explanation.
brietbard.com is just another part of the rightwing echo chamber, along with Fox News, Rush, Beck, etc. Not a source of anything other than biased opinion.
My guess is that the 1% is not so concerned about their marginal rate going up from 35% to 39%, and are much more concerned about the loopholes that allow guys like Romney to pay 14%. For Romney, the difference between 14% and 35% is an additional $4 million in taxes (an additional 20% of his $20 million income). And Romney is small change compared with billionaires.
I heard a quote on NPR radio where it was suggested if a tax of one tenth of one percent was placed on every stock trade, the deficit would be paid off in an amazing fast time. I do want small businesses protected and to that end I feel that the combined income of a married couple should be raised to 500k rather than the 250k currently used. I also want the legal definition of a small business to be changed so that International corporations and companies are unable to make themselves small on paper while the actual size and profits of the company is anything but small.If the government were to charge mining and chemical companies harvesting resources from public lands a price that truly reflected the value of what was being taken, it would go far in decreasing the deficit and future costs.There are so many things we can do, from simplifying the tax code to temporary fees or temporary increases on taxes for luxury items, or amusements. But such a fee or tax would have to be set to end the moment the goal for which it was created is met. For example, Pay off the Social Security Pension fund so it’s like it was never raided by Congress, then end the temporary luxury tax on boats, jewelry, and paintings over $100k that helped pay it off. Just an example and not the best one. But one of a plethora of things that could be done as part of a fair and balanced plan. Years of stories about fraud and waste in many of the entitlement programs convinces me better organization and oversight would go a LONG way towards reducing expenses without punishing those who are in need.There are many thing we can do if people of good character work together do do so.Respectfully,& Happy Holidayze.C.
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Sir Winston ChurchillI do not know how to reply to your replies, Ima. You are so partisan in your defense of conservative rights and persons, I have rarely seen an objective comment. I also can’t recall seeing links to objective web sites from you.That said, I have seen comments from you with which I agreed and which convince me that you are a good person. You seem angry and uncompromising, and you are as adept with the use of sarcasm and barbed irony as any one here.I think you are wrong, and, under the right conditions, and on specific issues, could show you objective proofs. This forum doesn’t allow for that.I do appreciate the tone however, and truly wish this discussion could be properly extended.Respectfully,C.
“…..People would just stop trading in the stock market until the tax was taken off….”.If my math is correct, one tenth of one percent on a $20,000 stock trade is $20. The fluctuation in the value of the stock could be way more than $20 every minute after the stock has been bought. In other words, the amount of risk $20 adds to the value of the stock trade is negligible.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
So, they’re standing under a cliff in the Caymans???
Cinci Steve over 11 years ago
He knows it will only pay for 8 days of government spending and will do nothing to help the economy, but it doesn’t matter. It’s “revenge” time.
Random Nick Premium Member over 11 years ago
@Cinci & Scott… I suppose that those that will not study history can still pull a 3.0 if they ace their other subjects. Or something like that. Historically, the way it works is that with higher taxes, businesses pump the money back into the company with subsequent higher employment and productivity. With lower taxes, they pull the money out and employment goes down. It’s a proven repeatable pattern.
Chillbilly over 11 years ago
My money’s on the rich surviving this unspeakably horrible, crippling crisis. In fact, they are going to do quite well. No … they’re going to keep being and getting filthy rich and keep trying to not pay taxes forever..That’s what “REVENGE” is, amigos.
dannysixpack over 11 years ago
@cinci steve,what you have here is a specious argument (look it up). Let’s assume everything you say is true, it will only fund the government for 8 days. that’s 8 days more than right now. So it’s a move in the right direction. If you were starving to death, and you could only get 1 cookie a day, but were still free to look elsewhere, you would starve to death a lot more slowly (it’s amazing what little food humans can live on).now what you have is a matter of fairness. the framework of the republicans talking points is supurbe. no one is talking about taxing the rich more, we’re talking about TAXING THE RICH THE SAME. the republicans LOVED to scream about special interests. your argument is FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS. by definition, if you are giving 1% (certainly a special interest), special treatment – paying LESS taxes, then you are holding up the whole country for a special interest.
comprehend english?
Mickey 13 over 11 years ago
“Where did this “8 days” figure come from?
I’ve been hearing that for some time from multiple posters with no substantiated reference."
I’m not completely satisfied with the explanation given here, but it does provide pertinent data and I will pursue this until I can find a really thorough explanation.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/11/28/Obama-Tax-Hike-On-Rich-Will-Fund-Govt-For-8-Days
Marty Z over 11 years ago
brietbard.com is just another part of the rightwing echo chamber, along with Fox News, Rush, Beck, etc. Not a source of anything other than biased opinion.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
My guess is that the 1% is not so concerned about their marginal rate going up from 35% to 39%, and are much more concerned about the loopholes that allow guys like Romney to pay 14%. For Romney, the difference between 14% and 35% is an additional $4 million in taxes (an additional 20% of his $20 million income). And Romney is small change compared with billionaires.
chazandru over 11 years ago
I heard a quote on NPR radio where it was suggested if a tax of one tenth of one percent was placed on every stock trade, the deficit would be paid off in an amazing fast time. I do want small businesses protected and to that end I feel that the combined income of a married couple should be raised to 500k rather than the 250k currently used. I also want the legal definition of a small business to be changed so that International corporations and companies are unable to make themselves small on paper while the actual size and profits of the company is anything but small.If the government were to charge mining and chemical companies harvesting resources from public lands a price that truly reflected the value of what was being taken, it would go far in decreasing the deficit and future costs.There are so many things we can do, from simplifying the tax code to temporary fees or temporary increases on taxes for luxury items, or amusements. But such a fee or tax would have to be set to end the moment the goal for which it was created is met. For example, Pay off the Social Security Pension fund so it’s like it was never raided by Congress, then end the temporary luxury tax on boats, jewelry, and paintings over $100k that helped pay it off. Just an example and not the best one. But one of a plethora of things that could be done as part of a fair and balanced plan. Years of stories about fraud and waste in many of the entitlement programs convinces me better organization and oversight would go a LONG way towards reducing expenses without punishing those who are in need.There are many thing we can do if people of good character work together do do so.Respectfully,& Happy Holidayze.C.
chazandru over 11 years ago
A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject. Sir Winston ChurchillI do not know how to reply to your replies, Ima. You are so partisan in your defense of conservative rights and persons, I have rarely seen an objective comment. I also can’t recall seeing links to objective web sites from you.That said, I have seen comments from you with which I agreed and which convince me that you are a good person. You seem angry and uncompromising, and you are as adept with the use of sarcasm and barbed irony as any one here.I think you are wrong, and, under the right conditions, and on specific issues, could show you objective proofs. This forum doesn’t allow for that.I do appreciate the tone however, and truly wish this discussion could be properly extended.Respectfully,C.
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Over three billion stock trades a day on NYSE, charge 10 cents on each trade, in tax, and it ads up to a lot of money, fast.
Gypsy8 over 11 years ago
“…..People would just stop trading in the stock market until the tax was taken off….”.If my math is correct, one tenth of one percent on a $20,000 stock trade is $20. The fluctuation in the value of the stock could be way more than $20 every minute after the stock has been bought. In other words, the amount of risk $20 adds to the value of the stock trade is negligible.