Wealth and shame: what does one have to do with the other? There must be some kind of relationship between the two, given the way wealth is used as a weapon against those who have it.
Stephen King seems to get a pass on being wealthy because he earned it through intelligence and hard work and because he is generous with it. Yet Roxanne Quimby, who built her business from a pile of unused beeswax, is derided in parts of Maine because of her wealth and her philanthropic vision.
Let’s leave it to psychologists to sort out the tangled emotions associated with money and narrow the focus to the relationship between wealth and taxes.
This election year, wealth has become political currency. Newt Gingrich and others pressured Mitt Romney into releasing his tax returns for 2010 and 2011. The former Massachusetts governor earned about $21 million each year. Using the word “earned” is itself a source of embarrassment for Mr. Romney, because the vast majority of that income would have accrued if he’d sat around all day in a smoking jacket in one of his opulent homes.
For the record, Mr. Gingrich claimed $3.1 million as adjusted gross income for 2010; President Barack Obama claimed $1.7 million. None are middle class. Wealth can mean the candidate is out of touch with working people, but that’s a subjective assessment. The issue at hand is taxes.
The president is finally getting around to acting on his campaign promise to shift the tax burden onto the wealthiest Americans. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, he said “Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires,” and urged Congress to raise taxes on the 2 percent of families with incomes above $250,000 a year. “Because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households,” he said.
It’s a policy that makes sense, given the record budget deficits and debt the federal government faces. Someone has to pay the bill, and to ignore ability to pay as a criterion in the decision is absurd.
One simple fix is to change the tax rate on unearned income. The rate on that income is lower now because it was believed that by encouraging people such as Mr. Romney to invest in businesses, the economy would thrive. Many economists say the only people thriving are the investors, such as Mr. Romney’s colleagues in Bain Capital.
Republicans are fond of calling the wealthiest among us “job creators,” even if that is not always accurate. A way to appease those worries is to tweak the Obama plan by carving out an exception for small businesses. Such a plan was offered last month by Sen. Susan Collins and Missouri’s Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill.
Wealth must be included in any discussion on taxes. The wealthy are not be envied, despised or punished. But their wealth is a logical place to start looking for tax revenue. And that’s only a start. A bigger debate must ensue this election year on how to help the middle class get its share of the pie.
..
Are you talking about wealth or are you talking about income. There is a difference. President Obama also clouds the issue with stating a quarter of all millionaires pay a lower rates then proposes to raise taxes on all those making more than $250,000 income stating the government is subsidizing them by not taking more of their money. The only clarity in the editorial is the statement that “One simple fix is to change the tax rate on unearned income.” The President does not seem to see the connection between some of the lower rates by those in the high incomes and the tax rate on capital gains & dividends which I would not classify all as “unearned income” and wishes again reach down to a $250,000 income which includes many businsesses.
The president also continues to cloud the truth by constantly saying that Warren Buffet pays less taxes than his secretary, when in fact he pays a huge amount more, but his income is taxed at a different rate. And there is a reason he does that. It’s because he believes that the majority of Americans are ignorant. And the reason he believes that is because they elected him.
I would like to see a national poll to see what percentage of Americans believe that wealth is finite, i.e if one person has more money, then that means someone else has to have less. Based on what I see in a lot of these posts, the number is probably in the 50% range.
Sadly…it’s WAY over 50%
most people simply have no concept of what wealth is or how it is created, they are fixated on money and the fact that others have more than they do…clueless
We do not know what his secretary makes or whether she has alot of capital gains and dividends income taxed at the lower rates. He would have us believe she earns all her income from wages but I would think Warren Buffet’s secretary would make much more that average and would be well advised in investment income.
No, YOU are “clouding the truth.” He and BUFFET HIMSELF both consistently say that he pays a lower RATE than his secretary on his income because like FlipRomney, he makes his money on capital gains. Everyone knows that since Buffet is a billionaire he pays more in overall taxes because he has so much more income, but the secretary and most Americans pay a higher PERCENTAGE of their income that these millionaires who “earn” only capital gains. The capital gains system has been corrupted. Those low tax rates were intended to encourage domestic investment and job growth. How many domestic jobs is Romney creating with his capital investments in the Cayman Islands? Where is the job creation? No. They shelter it.
This needs to be fixed. It is OBSCENE and the 99% regardless of party should be appalled.
Top 1% currently pay 40% of the taxes and this seems unfair to you?
Why not just tax ALL income? That would include stocks, real estate, free cars, free transportation (unless for business purposes), etc., etc.?
…
Increasing a tax rate does not neccesarily increase revenue. The income the rates are applied to are not static.
Raising taxes on the wealthy in Europe reduced tax revenues as people found new ways of sheltering their income. Many of Europe’s 1% make annual trips to Switzerland.
Most of the 1 percent have taken advantage of the Bush tax cuts and have not trickled down a single job.
Proof ?
There are less jobs now then there were in 2006, the Bush tax cutswere enacted in 2001 and again in 2003 and 2010 but yet we have less jobs now then we did in 2006. Taht sound slike proof to me that teh so called job-creators are not creating the jobs like they should be thanks to Bush’s tax cuts.
Since Bush wasn’t in office in 2010 how could they be his Tax cuts anymore?
When does Obama own this stuff?
Are you so out of touch that you don’t remember that Bush’s tax cuts were extended in 2010 as a compromise with the Republican controlled House against Obama’s wishes?
Are you so out of touch that you don’t remember when Obama had complete and total control of the House and Senate and could have undone or done anything he wanted to?
I guess you missed all of the filibusters and Senate holds put on by the Republicans?
The Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in 2009 and 2010.
Don’t confuse him with facts. The Democrats are hoping everyone forgets the size of the mandate he went in with.
Exactly right. The Ds held a supermajority and the White House and STILL couldn’t pass a budget on time.
“Are you so out of touch that you don’t remember that Bush’s tax cuts were extended in 2010 as a compromise with the Republican controlled House against Obama’s wishes?”
Obama hails extending (Bush) tax cuts as a middle-class victory
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/12/obama-biden-bush-era-tax-cuts.html
Not proof talking points from Huff Po etc
How about the fact that unemployment is still above 8.5%? Is that proof or not for you?
How about you provide proof that the top 1% or so called “job creators” are creating jobs? You ask for proof but give none of your own.
No proof that the tax breaks to the alleged “job creators” produced any US jobs.
The Bush tax cut were not just for the rich. A family of four making $40,000 paid federal income tax of $1924 in 2001. In 201o they paid no tax and receive a check for $2523 or a tax cut of $4447. $800 of that was Obama’s Make Work Pay credit in 2010. As far as trickling down the tax revenue paid by the top 1% increased and the unemployment rate decreased significantly from 2003 when most of the cuts took effect and 2008.
Hogwash. The Bush tax cuts overwhelmingly benefitted the richest wage earners, exploded the debt, and resulted in flat wages, more outsourcing, and the Great Recession. The GOPTeaNut Party needs to own its FAILED philosophy. Trickle down does not work. It has NEVER worked.
Outsourcing started when President Clinton (D) signed NAFTA into law ! A he didn’t inhale ! By the way he’s gotten pretty rich since !
So a family of four making $40,000 didn’t have their taxes cut by $4,447 in 2010 over what they paid in 2001? Tax revenue paid by the top 1% didn’t increase and unemployment decrease from 2003 through 2008?
Neither has handing out over 1T in free monies to corporations.. Talk about exploding the debt, huh?
I agree………the rich need to step up to the plate and pay the same amount of taxes that we the working class pay. Obviously the rich aren’t making jobs………….at least not around here!
You’re right its the poor people who create jobs.
Well, now we know they don’t teach elementary economics in J-school. The fact is that whatever the government takes in, from whatever sources, will be overspent by politicians trying to buy votes. Until the BDN’s editors grasp that the problem isn’t taxes but a corrupt political culture, they really don’t have anything to contribute.
I have yet to hear all the wealth bashers tell us
exactly what the govt is going to do with this
new found money they are so willing to extract from
others. When asked about EVERYONE paying the
same percentage, there is always some excuse as to
why close to half the people in this country pay nothing.
Even if you said EVERYONE must pay 1% you would hear
the whiners say that is even too much, get it from the rich.
Don’t you think it is about time those who are taking from
us taxpayers say THANK YOU for paying for me?
Please explain why a family with a yearly income of, say, $20,000 should pay federal income taxes on top of sales taxes and excise taxes they already pay–while multi-millioniares should get a tax break.
They do not generally pay federal income taxes. There may be exceptions but generally receive more than they pay in sometimes including fica/med.
What tax break are you talking about? Oh those tax
breaks that are LAWS? Laws passed by who? The rich
or the congress? And since when does one become exempt
from paying fed income tax just because they pay sales
and excise taxes? You mean those rich people don’t
pay any sales or excise taxes either? Would you think they
pay a tad more in those taxes too? Now let me guess who pays MORE in
taxes, a 20K person or a rich person whose paid taxes
subsidizes quite a few who pay no fed tax. Why tax anyone
more in the first place? Why not tax all the same and you
pay on what you EARN. Not on what you invest.
Everyone should have a stake in the game. Its like not paying union dues and you still have the benefit of the union
Please explain what you mean by “a stake in the game.”
No one is “bashing” financial success so enough of that FAKENews type propaganda. And enough of the lie about close to half paying nothing in taxes. WRONG. A RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA LIE. ALL workers pay payroll taxes to support medicare and social security. Everyone pays various local taxes and/or rent which supports local property taxes. Anyone who drives pays gas tax and we all pay sales tax. So enough of the nonsense. == We all agree with the free market system. But there also needs to be some rules of the road and some fairness. Capitalism needs to work right and work for everyone, and those at the top need to pay their fair share because they benefit from infrastructure, education, science, research, technology, communications, public health, public safety, etc. When 1% owns 40% of the wealth, something is very very wrong. Capitalism is no longer working for everyone. Trickle down is an abject failure and always has been. It is better for business when workers can afford the very products they make. Enough of this right wing race to the bottom where workers have low wages, no rights, and no benefits, and where the wealthiest become ever wealthier. Both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates even think this wrong. What we need to do is tighten up the trade laws to even the playing field, get tough on foreign currency manipulation, end the Bush tax cuts for the rich but keep them for the middle class, end the capital gains and other tax loopholes and increase those margins significantly, have a tax carve-out for small businesses, and implement a new round of tax incentives for domestic job INSOURCING and expansion. We also need to invest in education, communication, infrastructure, and healthcare, and encourage fair collective bargaining. Then you get a broadened middle class which is BETTER for the free market which needs consumers. It is BETTER for capitalism to have a progressive tax system and the right kind of societal investments. And our own history has proven it. i.e. The 1950’s.
I guess being rich and making money is not financial
success? Since when? And I don’t see attacking those
who are wealthy as “fake” news. Try reading the
Communist Manifesto, it is a page right out of it.
Maybe you better take a look at the differences in the
taxes you are referring to. Your state and local taxes
are just that…used for your state to run and to do what
it chooses to do. Fed taxes are supposed to be used for
what is mandated by the Constitution and not to fund
social programs or agencies that decide laws that shouldn’t
be. As for capitalism no longer working…THAT is LEFT
WING PROPOGANDA! It only doesn’t work for those
who don’t want to work for it. When you wait and depend
on the govt to change your diapers or to steal money from
someone else to give to you, then I can see you saying it doesn’t work.
There are many in this country who have retired comfortably and
who derive a nice income from the capitalist system. If you failed
or weren’t successful, blame yourself and stop leeching off others.
As for history, try looking at the Industrial revolution, as for Buffet
and Gates, if it wasn’t for capitalism, neither would be where they
are today. One making money off his investments and the other
form his capitalist risk taking. Wonder how they would have fared
with a society that didn’t promote wealth or a chance to be inventive?
Maybe you should also look at the REAL figures on who in this country
does pay taxes and NOT what your libber socialist organizations tell
you. Heck, most of them are non profit and pay nothing as well.
I’m sure that the editor would agree that it is time to end the sales tax exemption that is now afforded to periodicals. All must pay their fair share, so we must now charge sales tax on newspapers.
I’m not sure why the state needs to post legal notices in a newspaper either. There is the web and I feel sure more people go on line each day for news than buy the BDN.
To quote the editor “Wealth must be included in any discussion on taxes.” This is the central issue and one that Democrats do not want to discuss.
By speaking only of taxes on income, Obama and the rest of his party continue to deflect attention away from their natural inclination toward confiscatory wealth re-distribution policies.
When Obama, his party, Warren Buffet and this editor call for higher taxes on investment/capital gain returns, they show either their ignorance or a willful disregard for the fact that taxes have already been paid before those returns are distributed.
One might just as well declare that all investment profits must be taxed at a 90% rate before any return is given to an investor. The effect will be the same: fewer investors.
The plain reality is that all of our current discourse on “fair share” has less to do with income inequality than with an unspoken envy of yachts, art collections and 10,000 square foot homes and an unquenchable hunger for more and more revenue to support some view of utopia.
Its stupid. Even if we all paid 100% of wage to the federal government it could not come close to paying of the debt. Its just jealous class warfare. No other rhyme or reason is available.
You’re math work could use revising……
Out of one side of Obama’s mouth comes the words, I am going to tax millionaires and then out of the other side of his mouth, he defines a millionaire as anyone making $250,000 or more. At $250,000, you pay payroll taxes, federal and State income taxes of approximately $98,844. That works out to 39.54% of your earnings to pay tax. If you make $250,000 on investments (long term capital gains and qualified dividends) then your payroll taxes are Zero, federal income tax is $37,500 and State income tax is $21,250. Total tax is $58,750, a whopping decrease over the first example of $40,094.
To make $250,000 of investment income, you need significant capital, probably about $10 to $12 million minimum. To earn $250,000 in a job, you need a car to get to work and a house or apartment to sleep in. Putting these two taxpayers in the same group is ridiculous yet that is exactly what Obama wants to do. He wants the person going to work every day to pay even more than the 40% he already pays. What needs to be done is the payroll tax needs to apply to all income, all income needs to be taxed equally, and the so called rich job creators that don’t really create jobs need to stop whining or move away.
I believe you’re in error. I calculated the taxes on earned income (taxable, not gross so after exemptions, deductions etc) based on a single person living in Maine in 2011 as that would yeild the highest rates and therefore taxes paid. I came up with the following which totals approx. $85,000 dollars. The effective tax rate on that net taxable income is 34%. Again, since this is after itemized deductions, personal exemptions etc your actual effective tax rate is lower.
59954.50 FIT20577.25 SIT
4485.60 SS&Medicare
All that said, I don’t necessarily disagree with you but I also don’t see any major shifts by the republican party which would let them discuss, much less vote on or approve a tax increase on the wealthiest in this country, no matter how you define it or what the source of their income.
As for Obama, I think he’d get a lot more support across the country if he set the threshold higher. Far too many people see $250K as an attainable goal whereas if you bumped it to say $400 or 500K the detractors would fall away … at least I’d hope so.
I wonder if Bill Gates would consider himself asa job creator for the huge number of employees Microsoft has? Nah, let’s take more from the wealthy…Obama says it is ok.
You have destroyed your own credibility with the utterly ridiculous and racist “boat back to Kenya” comment. This is exactly why the TeaNut Party is going to be CRUSHED this year at the polls. The rational majority has had it with such irrational nonsense.
I was able to read just the information provided by that poster in the first 2 sentences. Other than mispelling the president’s name the info seems factual. If you would care to , have a look at the award winning documentary at http://www.insidejobfilm.com.
So the only thing you got out of my post was the boat comment, totally gave Oblamer yet another free-pass on his class-warfare hypocrisy and then you have the nerve to call me ridiculous? This pretty well sums up the leftists in this country in one post. Thank you Mr. Race Police for perfectly illustrating my point. By the way, which part to you was “racist” the boat or Kenya? Or could it be that given you have no other defense for Oblamer you just pull out the race card automatically now? You and those like you are truly pathetic.
One other thing Im wondering about and Im sure a race-baiter like you can answer for me. Was Solyndra “racist” for going bankrupt? Was the IOC “racist” when they didnt give Oblamer the Olympic games for Chicago? Is Gitmo bay still open because its “racist”?? While we’re at it will the Supreme Court be “racist” when it shoots down Oblamercare? Everything to idiots like you is “racism.” If it snows tomorrow it must mean mother nature is racist too right? I mean, covering everything in a blanket of white is right up there with a KKK lynching in your sick mind isnt it?
Since someone flagged it I will repost it. Oblamer should be on a boat back to Kenya. Go ahead and flag it again for your imagined racism and I will immediately repost it again. I can do this all day. But since you flagged my post I’ll flag yours. I find race baiting to be very offensive, so thusly I have flagged YOU.
I had no hand in flagging your original post and I won’t flag this one, even though it deserves it. OK, I’ll shift to prejudiced–blind prejudice. Is the constant insulting name calling/alteration a publicity stunt? Headline grabber? Think it validates your rants (I won’t even call them opinions)? The effect on most people is the exact opposite. I won’t go into what you can be called as result, I don’t want to get branded the same as you.
Oh yes, BDN is not the only party up for being called biased here.
Shouldn’t that be “put Obama on a boat back to Hawaii”? I assume that you are advocating sending him back to where he is from. Maybe you would like to put me on a boat back to England, where my ancestors are from?
The article says this: …….” The wealthy are not be envied, despised or punished.”…..
But all the rest of the article is devoted to doing just that. “These old rich meanies must be made to pay their share”.
Class warfare is alive and well at the BDN, picking up the Dems “tax the rich agenda”.
The stupidest part of the whole thing is that most people who advocate this have no clue just how portable wealth is these days. Sam Walton’s family is wealthy by any reasonable measure. Much of that wealth was acquired as a direct result of moving millions of American manufacturing jobs overseas. They had no problem with that at all, and don’t now. Petroleum companies in America are selling more and more of their refined products to China and other places for more money. They have no particular allegiance to America anymore. Is obamba going to stop that……..and keep the profits in America, so the tax man can get them? I don’t think so!
So what is it that leads one to believe that we can just send the “rich” a lots higher tax bill……..and they will just pay it?
In this electronic era, money can be moved anyplace on earth with just the stroke on a keyboard. Money does not have to stay in America, and it won’t. Is the American tax man going to march around the world forcing compliance with American tax laws……….in foreign nations?
Obama and his henchmen are a pretty big deal. They marched into Auckland, NZ, a friendly nation and shut down a website, “megauploads”. He did pretty well in this world police action. But I want to see him and his goons march into Moscow and try that, or Tehran maybe? Is this where we are going to end up, a worldwide manhuntfor more ‘wealth” to tax?
People need to understand the realities here. Corporate execs, accountants and lawyers, in the private sector are professionals at creating, and moving around, and hiding, said wealth……..from the American taxman. Against that, government bureaucrats have little chance.
Tax laws only work up to a certain level of taxation, as they are essentially “voluntary”. Beyond that point “evasion” is encouraged by the owners of the wealth, and revenue drops. We are there!
We do NOT have a “revenue problem” we have a spending problem, and nobody wants the spending on themselves to stop, so they look for more ways to rob taxpayers, the logical “endgame” of a decliining culture!
I say why cant we all be RICH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —– HEALTHY —– AND HAPPY —– AND GET ALONG — :)
So the real question is – Why doesn’t a “flat tax” make sense? Set a percentage and that is what everyone pays on their income. If the tax laws were some incredibly complicated and convoluted, there wouldn’t be anyway for the wealthy to get around it. By the same token, we wouldn’t have people getting back more money than they pay in.
Because a flat tax benefits only the top wage earners. In fact, if you made 40K with a 25% flat tax, you would be paying about twice as much because remember, there is still a payroll tax, Social Security, etc., that the top 5% of earners do not pay because they either receive their pay in shares or deferred interest bearing accounts. A flat tax would be disastrous to what’s left of the middle class and those making less than 20K would see there taxes raised to an unbelievable level related to their income. Do some reading. Get educated. Don’t listen to the radio.
Tha’ts not true if it is handled right.
Try exempting the first 40k of income from any income tax then a flat tax on any remaining income.
That would exempt nearly the bottom 50% of all earners from any income tax.
Corporations and the very wealthy have lobbied and gotten many exception and loop holes in the present tax code. Why would a flat tax be safe from manipulation. Those that advocate for the flat tax seems to think it is some how safe from tampering. It’s not.
But nothing ever is.
At least this way we might wipe out a whole generation of loopholes.
What this article fails to tell is that in order to have investment income of 250,000.00 you would have to made money in order to invest. Income that would already have been taxed at a rate of 30 to 35 percent. the investment would have been made with aftertax dollars or net income.
So in reality a person has already paid income tax on the money he has invested and then he pays 15% tax on the investment income.
35% first on income then 15% on investment income is a lot of tax money to the government.
So if you want to tell the story tell the Whole story otherwise it becomes just another example of class warfare.
What you failed to report and realize is that any large amounts such as what you mentioned, or CEO bonuses, is deferred income which can lay in state for years collecting interest on the balance without having to pay any taxes.
For example, a company may owe $1,000,000 US Dollars (USD) in taxes on income earned. Due to tax regulations, however, the company may only be required to pay $900,000 USD in taxes for the fiscal tax year. The remaining $100,000 USD of income is generally categorized on the company’s books as a deferred income tax liability. Taxes are then paid at a later date.
In Romney’s case, he receives as part of his “retirement” plan, 21 million in deferred income every year. This is not “earned income” and can be deferred for years. Once matured it becomes subject only to Capital Gains, or the 15% rate on the original amount. Again It is truly not Earned Income, and it is not taxed twice. So you are wrong. Why are you defending these people? Unless you are above the $100,000 threshold, then I understand why you’re dishing out misinformation.
I work seven days per week (my choice), have invested/risked my already taxed earnings in rental properties and pay 21% in federal income tax. In addition being a law abiding US loving citizen and parent.
Then after all that I have a President telling me I am not doing my “fair share”. That is BS and I am sick and tied of Obama trying to divide the US.
I guarantee that I will not be voting to continue this style of Presidential leadership. Something that others should ponder.
Unless you earn a net income over $1,000,000 President Obama is not speaking of you.
Rewatch the State Of The Union address. There is an obscure reference he made about taxes increasing after $250,000.00. He talks millionaire billionaire to get public approval, but knows full well the 1 percent starts at $346,000.00. He knows the lions share of revenue will come from 250,000 to 1 million.
That is correct, $200k if single.
Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.The problem in a nutshell is this: Inequality in this country has hit a level that has been seen only once in the nation’s history, and unemployment has reached a level that has been seen only once since the Great Depression. And, at the same time, corporate profits are at a record high.In other words, in the never-ending tug-of-war between “labor” and “capital,” there has rarely—if ever—been a time when “capital” was so clearly winning.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1#ixzz1khh2Dt3C
Just a point of information. I own a commercial property, have for some time. It has depreciated to the point that if I were to sell most of the revenue gained would be in ordinary income. 35% or higher tax rate depending on other things, plus whatever the state takes.Is that fair after 25 years of planning for my retirement?
If you were to tax all profits of the top 0.1% at 100% of their income you would still not
have enough money to make a real dent in the annual deficit much less the national debt.
That is why they have to move down the income brackets.
There are really only three choices move down the brackets, taking more money from the middle class or cutting spending or a combination of both.
Thanks for the refresher provided by your link. The other post war high unemployment rate you mentioned was created by the economic policies of President Jimmy Carter and was a deciding factor in Ronald Reagan getting elected.
One last thing. I know that the left thinks there is this great struggle between capital and labor. It feeds nicely into the narrative of our Dear Leader. Even as he fills the coffers of his corporate buddies.
Stop for a moment and consider that business needs people to buy their product. Business needs and wants a flush consumer. There are other issues at play and the meme from Washington is just that a meme.
The rich are the great oppressors? Really. It seems that Obama is channeling Karl Marx more overtly all the time. Classic redistribution of the wealth of the middle class. I know I’ll hear ‘you’re bringing up that communist card again.’ That’s right. If the shoe fits, wear it.
To Obama, the target of his comments are apparently the rich that didn’t contribute to his campaign slush fund. Didn’t Timothy Geithner, Obama’s esteemed Treasury Secretary, fail to pay income taxes to the tune of $35,000. Just a small oversight, I’m sure. Wasn’t it under his watch that huge cash bonuses were given to the executives of AIG out of the billions in bailout funds allotted to them? It seems that Obama and Geithner were contributing to the rich who they’re in bed with.
What exactly, is your point. Your comment has nothing to do with anything relevant to this conversation. I’ll bet next week’s paycheck that you receive a monthly SSI check and use these pages just to pop off and get a reaction. If you absolutely have to feel validated on a daily basis, go volunteer somewhere, perform random acts of kindness, or start commenting on something you have the ability to fathom.
My reply has everything to do with this article. Are you literate? Did you read the article?
To quote:
“The president is finally getting around to acting on his campaign
promise to shift the tax burden onto the wealthiest Americans. In his
State of the Union address Tuesday, he said “Washington should stop
subsidizing millionaires,” and urged Congress to raise taxes on the 2
percent of families with incomes above $250,000 a year. “Because of
loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires
pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households,” he said.”
The point is that Obama talks about taxing the wealthy, when his Treasury Secretary, the man ultimately in charge of taxation, and who is wealthy, failed to pay his own taxes, and who allowed huge amounts of taxpayer redistributed money, in the form of bailouts, to make rich executives richer. What part of that don’t you understand?
I’m sure you understand it, you just don’t like the facts. Your savior, Obama, the self-proclaimed arbiter of change, is trying to eliminate the middle class.
your taxes under obama are lower than they have ever been, get a clue
Pretty ironic for the media to speak of shame. Perhaps they had to look up its definition in the dictionary as they have none themselves.
Tax year Taxable income Charitable donations Donations as % of income
Mitt Romney
2010 $21.7 million $2.98 million 13.73%
2011 (est) $20.9 million $4 million 19.14%
Obama
1% of his income to charity.
Since President Obama has taken office the number of Americans that have renounced citizenship annually has tripled. Most of those say the US tax structure and its rules are too confusing and punitive.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html
A primer on how its done, just to show what people have to go through to renounce.
don’t let the door hit you on the way out
In case you haven’t figured it out the rich are moving out. Who is gonna pay for your food stamps, the guy with the swastika tattoo on his chest?
They don’t have a clue.
oh, you’re one of the deluded ones that think conservatives don’t use any services.
i’ll compare my income to yours anytime
and food stamps? you seem to know all about them. never had them,or any other services
If you have an income over $200k and you don’t know that Obama has painted a target on your chest, you are in for some rude awakenings.
aww, you conservatives love reagan, want to go back to the tax rate he had?
perhaps you didnt read a couple of previous posts
“David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, explained in an op-ed piece, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” exactly how the economic decisions of the GOP over the past 40 years, is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream”
Obama’s proposed 30 percent tax rate for millionaires is “totally fair and it’s absolutely necessary” according to noted left-wing liberal leftist anti-American communist Ben Stein
looks like some of the perps of this welfare inequality obscenity get it
uh, you do know that is a ironic description of ben stein? ( i felt I had to explain, some have a definite lack of comprehension
“Using the word “earned” is itself a source of embarrassment for Mr. Romney, because the vast majority of that income would have accrued if he’d sat around all day in a smoking jacket in one of his opulent homes.”
How very Marxist of the BDN. No class envy here.
How about this? It’s his money, he can wallpaper one of his “opulent homes” with it if he wants. It’s his property. Yes, that’s right, money is property.
A question for the author(s) of the editorial. Do you lock your doors when you go out? Why? Are you afraid of having your property taken from you? In the interest of fairness, shouldn’t you allow free access to your property in case someone else claims they “need” it?
Obama’s goal is the old Communist goal of ‘wealth redistribution’. “Soak the rich” is the rallying cry of Class Envy. It is just a way to keep us distracted from how our politicians are feathering their own nests (Hey, did you ever hear of a politician dying in the poorhouse…?) Those living under Communism learned early on that ‘some are more equal than others’. So too will our politicians end up more equal. Look at congressional salaries, perks, and pensions. There is no reason – other than schlepping for votes – for ALL citizens not to pay income taxes. Heck, the poorest among us consume by far the greatest resources via demands on police, medical and fire services, not to mention public assistance. How about EVERYBODY pay his/her fair share? Demanding that “The Rich” pay most of the load is asking for them to decamp to Liechtenstein or somewhere. Then they can truly enjoy the fruits of their labor. Beware of anyone who goes on and on about “tax the rich”; they are up to something skullduggerous! Even if we could take away all the “excess” wealth of all The Rich, Obama would just give it to his base in exchange for votes. Then everybody would be equally poor, but, somehow, our politicians would be doing very well for themselves, as usual…
baloney
only a fool would try to defend the increasing wealth inequality .
from a previous report, guess I’ll listen to one of the ones that started this mess rather than you economic geniuses “David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, explained in an op-ed piece, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse,” exactly how the economic decisions of the GOP over the past 40 years, is destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream”
do you look under your bed for commies?
Obama’s proposed 30 percent tax rate for millionaires is “totally fair and it’s absolutely necessary” according to noted left-wing liberal leftist anti-American communist Ben Stein
Not once in the entire article are spending cuts even raised.
What happens when the money runs out or the rich start voting with their feet. Top 1% already pay 40% of the taxes but the Dems want even more of their money to redistribute to others and use the money to buy votes.
Changing the tax rates in the U.S. is a waste of time. We need to change the tax rates in the Cayman Islands where people put their money to avoid paying taxes here. What? No mention of this in Washington? Go figure.
From the article:
~”Stephen King seems to get a pass on being wealthy because he earned it through intelligence and hard work and because he is generous with it. Yet Roxanne Quimby, who built her business from a pile of unused beeswax, is derided in parts of Maine because of her wealth and her philanthropic vision.”~
Maybe Stephen King’s “pass” has something to do with his compassion for Maine People. I don’t recall that he has been known to kick people out and burn down their camps on leased land; block access to Maine’s interconnected 14,000 mile snowmobile trail system (a major tourist attraction); coerce and bribe small clubs, town officials, and small organizations to “vote for a cause” with false promises; and above all else, he doesn’t ignore the homeless, the cold, the hungry and desperate situations of the less fortunate in Maine, in favor of the cultured elite.
…