Liberal Lunacy, Taxes = Investment

Thank you thank you thank you. All the accountants I know have told me the same thing for quite a while, but the progressives/liberals are too f’kg stupid to understand economics. But it’s the idea of “class warfare”. Those “big evil rich people”. However, I would like for one liberal to tell me when has it ever been that if you take from the rich, that somehow YOU will have more. Think about it. It has never happened.

On January 1st, we return to the tax regime of 2001 because that’s the way the Republicans wrote the law.  And they wrote it that way, because the referee hired by Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, projected ballooning deficits ten years out as result of those tax cuts.  Never mind that we already owed $5.7 trillion at the time, those tax cuts were borrowed.  Add two wars, an unfunded prescription drug benefit, a recession and we are where we are.

So, on January 1st, without Congressional action, the highest marginal rate will return to 39.6% from the “temporary” 35%.  At the bottom, the “temporary” 10% rate returns to the 15% rate.  Remember,  the CBO also estimates making the Bush tax cuts permanent will ad $3.7 trillion to our debt.

You call it a “deficit”. It is not. It is my money, my neighbors money, their neighbors money that they earned working. The fact that the government thinks it’s their money is nothing more than stealing. They shouldn’t have “counted” on money they didn’t actually have. But to say it is a “deficit”. You’re crazy, absolutely crazy. The government needs to cut spending period. And that means medicaid, welfare, congressional pay and stipends, earmarks, freebies to those who don’t f’kng earn them and make them pay their DAMN FAIR SHARE. But DON”t tell me that me earning more of MY money is causing a deficit. It’s the spending stupid!!!!!

You are another bot who doesn’t understand that the “rich” do not pay those “bad taxes”, they hire experts to hide their money. Larry showed you, but evidently you still don’t understand. The only ones who actually have to pay those taxes are hard working Americans in the form of either higher prices (passed on from raising their taxes and a cost of their doing business) or a small business who will have to decide to either continue to run their business, or make some changes in employees. It’s a LIE, God I wish people would understand.

I was a Hillary supporter with WAS being the “operative” word. And no, I did NOT agree with her on this tax stance. It might surprise you, but most people on here aren’t “one issues” voters. However, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary ever again if she was the only one on the ballot.

Jackie, It is only hard to understand if you are a total moron.  So I understand completely why you are so clueless.

Problem is, that every time (and you can look it up) in our nation’s history there has been a major tax decrease, especially on the already rich, we have gone into a recession.  When the tax on the upper 2% “earners” was 70%, or more, the country boomed.  When it was dropped to 35% we went into recession and now it’s even lower. One would think that allowing the present tax rate to rise to the 39% it was before Bush’s tax cut for the wealthy was akin to putting a gun to these people’s heads and shipping them to the poorhouse.  I’m sure there are methods to help small businesses thrive, but as for the billionaires who actually contribute NOTHING to this society, their rate should be raised back to 70%.  Closing the loopholes for companies that move their businesses into tax havens and/or outsource their “work” to overseas workers would also help bring this country out of its financial funk.  However, this is what happens when the filthy rich get a break – they screw the rest of u s.  You can bet your bottom tax-free dollar that when the repubs make any adjustments to the tax rate it won’t be to the benefit of the middle class and those even worse off.  In European countries where the tax rate is normally slightly above 50%, most people seem content; for their taxes they get free higher education, medical care, and 4 weeks paid vacation per year. Here, people bitch about their taxes, no matter how high or low and we find that the biggest share of our money goes for “defense” and un-necessary wars, while the middle class gets soaked for medical insurance they can’t afford, college costs go up and up, and if you’re lucky enough to have a job, you may get as much as one whole entire week off.  And that’s exactly how the 2%’ers, the people who run this country, want it. 

Well I’m middle class and these “tax cuts” helped me. You had better research you facts a little better. The “rich” will never pay those taxes. What part of that do you not understand? It will be passed along in either higher prices for the rest, or sheltered as West Virginia and Larry has told you. Why must people be so dense? I have to believe that it is  because you haven’t came close to running a business .

(and you can look it up)

I have.  And you are wrong.  Taxes play an important role in the decision making proces when people decide to leave the workplace and start their own business.

You also do not address the tax-free status the billionares like Buffet enjoy.  That, I think is the jest of Larry’s post.

I respectfully disagree with your argument.

I’m sure that the Huff post and Daily kos have given him all the info he thinks he needs. I’m sure he hasn’t actually looked outside the box because normally whenver he posts, he cites those in particular as gospel and a few other left leaning cites.

“I was a Hillary supporter with WAS being the “operative” word. And no, I did NOT agree with her on this tax stance. It might surprise you, but most people on here aren’t “one issues” voters. However, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary ever again if she was the only one on the ballot.”

That’s fine.  I appreciate your honesty.  It’s far more illuminating than Larry’s entire post on the subject.

“Jackie, It is only hard to understand if you are a total moron.  So I understand completely why you are so clueless.”  
 
 
It is pretty hard to understand why someone who hates Hillary’s tax policies so much spent 2 years telling the whole world they had to vote for her.  It is not at all surprising that you have absolutely ZERO explanation for that state of affairs.  It is hilarious watching you not even try.  

Explain donjo.  What is your philosophy?

Fantastic Larry.  A+.

Jackie.  YOU ARE A VERY STUPID PERSON.

I agree, but neither party ever controls spending. The try to turn us into cheerleaders to promote their tax cuts. We end up paying more when the deferred bill for the lost high tax revenue gets shifted downhill.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

So…. you want to “raise that deferred bill” so that higher costs gets shifted down to us? You can raise the rich’s tax “burden” as high as you want, they won’t be paying it. You will in higher costs. The ones who get truly hurt in this are the small business owners, farmers. And the ordinary working man who works for a living but finds his cost of living going up higher to offset the costs of those higher tax rates.

Look at the lost reveue from the tax cuts for top 2 % and the corporate tax breaks and compare it against what the middle slice is getting. While the budget bleeds over $4 billion/day. I’ll pick a few favorties, Citgroup, recipient of $45billion in tarp funds recieved $38 billion in tax breaks.  GE paid no taxes on $10 billion in profits. That lost high-end revenue stream is being deferred to people like you and me at the state and local level. We pay for it in increase state taxes, fees loss of services, and a disproportinate share of the mounting debt..

When I’m googling this topic, virtually all the people promoting
 tax cuts for the rich are republicans. Usually very rich republicans.  That’s enough to tell you right there, that it can’t be good for the rest of us.  Here’s a piece from the Christian Science Monitor that tells it like it is:

“So-called supply-side economists don’t like raising taxes on anyone, of course, and argue that raising them on the well-off will slow economic growth. They say people at the top will have less incentive to work hard, invest, and invent.
Unfortunately for supply-siders, history has proven them wrong again and again. During almost three decades spanning 1951 to 1980, when America’s top marginal tax rate was between 70 and 92 percent, the nation’s average annual growth was 3.7 percent. But between 1983 and start of the Great Recession, when the top rate was far lower – ranging between 35 and 39 percent – the economy grew an average of just 3 percent per year. Supply-siders are fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; it came in the wake of Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.
A final reason for allowing the Bush tax cut to expire for people at the top is the most basic of all. Although Wall Street’s excesses were the proximate cause of the Great Recession, its fundamental cause lay in the nation’s widening inequality. For many years, most of the gains of economic growth in America have been going to the top – leaving the nation’s vast middle class with a shrinking portion of total income. (In the 1970s, the top 1 percent received 8 to 9 percent of total income, but thereafter income concentrated so rapidly that by 2007 the top received 23.5 percent of the total.) The only way most Americans could continue to buy most of what they produced was by borrowing. But now that the debt bubble has burst – as it inevitably would – the underlying problem has reemerged.
Why make it worse? George W. Bush’s 2001 tax cut was a huge windfall for the wealthy. About 40 percent of its benefits went to the tiny sliver of Americans earning over $500,000. So rather than debate whether to end the Bush tax cuts for the top and restore the top marginal tax rates to where they were under Bill Clinton, we should be debating whether to raise the highest marginal tax rate higher than it was under Bill Clinton and use the proceeds to give the middle class else a permanent tax cut.
I’m not suggesting this, mind you, but just to get the debate started: How about restoring the top rate to where it was under John F. Kennedy (76 percent), or under Dwight Eisenhower (91 percent)?”

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/0802/Why-we-should-let-the-Bush-tax-cuts-expire

I’m Canadian, and I guess I just don’t understand Americans!
We pay somewhat more than you do in taxes, both federal and provincial. But we get a lot for it – health care, the most significant. If you pay $1000 a month to an insurance company and still pay co-pays and deductables, and we pay $5000 with none of the above and do not get turned down for anything our doctors order for us – our taxes are working for us. We get highways, police, fire departments, social service benefits and pensions.
But Canada is ‘socialist’!! We have rules and people aren’t free! Banks are regulated so they didn’t make bad loans – and there are only a small percentages of people who lose their homes. If I lose my job I don’t lose my healthcare – it will always be the same as the rich get. To value the life of a rich person over that of a poor single mother is

You’re right, you don’t get it. That’s why it’s probably better for you to stay out of our political scene and we’ll stay out of yours.

Why don’t you take a look at Greece, Britain, and a few others to see just where maybe you’ll be heading shortly.

Personally, I want the fair tax. No income tax, but a consumption tax. That way even the “poor” who seem to have direct tv, cable, the best phones, shoes, flat screens,  and so on, yet rely on my money to pay their rent, insurance, will have to now pay for their consumption as well. But no income tax and fair tax.

Example. I was in line the other night at Walmart. The people in front of us had two carts filled to the brim with groceries and I’m talking steaks, junk food and so on. They whip out their card (food stamps) and pay for their groceries. Then they pull up another cart with a flat screen tv and a blu ray and then proceed to pull out a wad of cash to pay for it. I was fuming and so was the cashier, but like he said, he sees it all the time. I do too in my office. They can’t afford to pay for the office visit or have medicaid, but will stand there and tell you about the latest electronic device or game they bought for their kid, how they paid a 100 for tennis shoes, going out to dinner. This is becoming more and more common. I’m sick of it. So instead of complaining about all the bad “rich” people, why don’t you start getting on the backs of those who abuse the system even more so at our expense.

.

It’s so easy to use an example or two to show how the poor are screwing the country blind. 

For God’s sake, Georgia, yeah.  Just look at how great the United States is doing right now with their implementation of the tax cuts for the rich over the past 8 years, their installation of endless wars, and the emptying of our treasury courtesy of Wall St and the bankers.  Not to mention the absolute devastation of their middle class. Canada should be so lucky.  

Yes, the very wealthy don’t have to worry about taxes anyway. So it’s easy for them to say raise taxes because the very wealthy don’t pay taxes like us peons do anyway. It’s class warfare from all sides against the middle class. The poor would pull us down with them while the rich would push us down. The middle class right now could use a friend in Washington.

“And yes, even Obama was “touting” a “tax cut” for 95% of Americans, which I sure hell didn’t see. So no, tax cuts aren’t “republican things” You just must not remember too well are too young.”

Yes, but we’re not talking about across-the-board tax cuts.  We’re talking about tax cuts for the wealthy.  John McCain supported them.  Hillary Clinton did not.  These two candidates were not “about the same” at all.

Because you clearly revile her tax policy.  
No, ’tis only you I hold with such regard.

Um, no, that’s not how this works….  
 
It’s disturbing enough when listening to a person speaking and begins with “um.”… but what kind of moron would actually type that?  
 
the use of the “mental interupus tool” when typing… I surmise that makes you Obama’s equal….

Jackie, I would wager that West Virginia can instantly recognize when a person is dumber than coal. I thought it was impressive too.

Well said West Virginia. Blunt and to the point.

Jackie, who was one of those who made it out of grade school with ever having to balancing a checkbook is clueless.

When the tax on the upper 2% “earners” was 70%, or more, the country boomed.  

Donjo, that is BS.

I spell my name Bond. James Bond.

I am tax free and just itching to lay down a chip on the roulette table.

“No, Jackie, Larry’s support of Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with this post. Nothing.”

I have already explained why his support has everything to do with this post, in a crystal clear fashion.  However, I’ll try again, just for you:

Why am I to take Larry seriously on the issue of taxes, when on the one hand he was one of Hillary Clinton’s staunchest supporters, and on the other, he is a virulent opponent of her very own tax policies?  I should add that tax policy is the single most important domestic policy difference between the parties.  There isn’t a single other issue that defines the parties more, than whether or not tax rates on the wealthy should be going up (Democrats), or going down (Republicans).  So the fact that Larry is talking like a Republican on taxes, but is a also huge Hillary booster, causes me to question his motives and his reasoning.  I gave him a chance to respond.  All he did was call me names. 

That’s because Larry doesn’t know how to respond to this truth:

If (as according to Larry) only idiots believe in raising taxes on the rich, then Hillary Clinton is an idiot.  And that means he was an idiot for supporting her.

I think Mr, Johnson has an exellent job and I do not need to argue the well stated factual statements he has made.

You need help.

Jackie said:
“She, of course, agreed (and agrees) with Obama’s position that those cuts need to expire. ”

Well, Jackie, that’s where you are wrong.  Obama campaigned on and still believes that the wealthy deserve their tax breaks.  It’s been two years and a bit since the primaries wrapped up.  My guess, had Hillary been elected, she wouldn’t have borrowed a trillion dollars with no way to pay it back.   And, she wouldn’t have been beholden to  Pelosi who instigated the ”recovery” bailout and the other bailouts.  So, the whole issue of taxes and who is gonna pay wouldn’t be such a hot button issue right now.  
Yeah, see, Hillary didn’t need a Pelosi to “certify” her birth certificate.  She wouldn’t have been intimidated by a Pelosi or a Reid like Obama, never worked hard, easier to get someone else to do the work aka “lazy”, doesn’t know the ropes, has demonstrated he is. 
During her campaign, Hillary did campaign on that the taxes for those over $250K would go back to the 1990′s rates.  But, that doesn’t change the reality (which brings me to the point everyone else has made but you won’t accept) - that it’s impossible to tax wealthy individuals to the point where they actually pay.  They have the means and resources, are deptly skilled and hire experts who keep them from having to pay out what middle America sees as what should be a “fair” share.  I can see how a person such as yourself might interpret  that Hillary was “for” getting that dough from those who can spare it through taxation.  She probably, as a Democrat, really believes that.  But, in life, like all things, we are all faced with what is “fair” and then what is a reality.  Had she been elected and got the rates changed as she stipulated, it would not have made an iota of difference in what the wealthy pay out.  Hillary knew that.   She is wealthy in her own right and she has lots of rich friends.

Well, I’ll try again. Larry explains in this post why he thinks the tax policy being proposed won’t work. He lays it out. If you agree or don’t agree, argue your position and take him to task on the merit of the argument.

That’s what a genuine person would do. It’s disingenuous to discount an argument being made today, in 2010, based on primary support for a candidate in 2008. Larry is entitled to be a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton and disagree with her stated tax policy in 2008, or he may not agree with your premise that her proposal of 2008 would be the same one that she would argue for today given the new conditions on the ground (no jobs.) If Hillary had been president we wouldn’t be in the dire straights we are now, and through leadership alone the markets would be showing more confidence…but, that’s all beside the point. At least that’s what many of her staunch supporters believe. And for the thousandth time, Hillary’s 2008 primary campaign speeches have zero to do with the current tax debate in DC. Are you just playing ignorant in maintaining that you don’t understand how Hillary’s tax proposals are not germaine to this discussion?

We donated food to the food bank as part of a senior class project my kid had to do.  Drove up in our worn out vehicle.  Every person there who was getting food pulled up in nearly new vehicles.  I think the food bank people had real sympathy for us and thought we were there to get food. I got a good laugh in later over that!  (It was an open loading dock style of a food bank.)  They were so surprised when we collected and donated  over 300 lbs. 

Before I hit the multi-million level my companies made around $500,000 a year.  I, unlike Joe the Plumber – who was obviously ill-advised -, set my companies up as C corps and kept the moneys separate.  I paid myself around $60,000 a year and paid taxes on that. 
Exactly WV. I have always set up American companies a C corps despite all the moaning about “double taxation” that resulted in LLCs and S Corps. There is no double taxation – as WV illustrated, you simply increase the money you take as a bonus. Wages are wages.
With a C corp you don’t feel that every penny is coming out of your personal pocket.
Larry illustrated that thinking with this: Whe the Bush tax cuts go away such a couple is facing at least $50,000 in new expenses between paying higher taxes and providing health benefits for employees.
Health benefits for employees is a company expense. If you take that personally, you will regard every paperclip as coming from your personal money.
I further separate personal and corporate by giving the C corp a June 30 year end. It is bad enough trying to figure out your personal tax planning during the Christmas holidays without having to take into account your whole company as well.
I regard LLCs and S Corps as really not a good idea. In most other countries there are not two categories of corporations – all corporations are C corps.

Seriously? Jesus, I see it everyday. I work in a Dr.s office and I see it all the damn time. They drive in with better vehicles than most of us drive. They have the name brand tennis shoes that cost a $100 or more, they sit there and “play” on their droids as they’re waiting for the doctor. Hell you can go to the poorest district of our city and you will see satelites on every house. Don’t tell me it’s “a few”. Are you one of them and need to “justify” your situation? 47% of this country do not pay taxes. Guess what group that comes from? It isn’t the “rich” or the “middle class”. It seems we now have the “entitlement” mentality and I don’t look for it to go away any time soon. What happens when you run out of other people’s money?

Oh, Teak, that’s gorgeous.

‘Preciate the mountain scene.  I spent four days in Seattle earlier this year.  Never once did it clear enough for me to see Mt. Ranier.  Hell, it hardly cleared enough to see the next block down.

Shasta’s a volcano if I recall correctly.  Is it still active?

Jackie, I suspect, like many of us here, Larry was supportive of Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama during the primaries because he knew the difference between an experienced, intelligent, indefatigable “work horse” and a shallow, callow, inexperienced, arrogant, narcissistic “show horse.” 

Clearly you didn’t get the distinction and bought into the myth of Obama hook line and sinker. 

So, now, you’re trying to pass off a “class warfare” argument as credible–it’s not–and you’re trying to claim that support for Clinton means that Larry is hypocritical because of the tax cut issue. Your argument is exhibit A for liberal tautology, since Hillary Clinton is a pragmatist, not an ideologue, and would undoubtedly agree that the $250,000 bar would undermine any recovery at this point in time.

Small businesses are the backbone of uemployment in this country, where more than 70% of our economy is based on consuming; therefore, raising taxes on anyone over $250,000 which would negatively impact small businesses, would be counterproductive to the economy and counterproductive to any administration’s approval ratings. Clinton wouldn’t do it if she were president, despite her previous views; in other words, that was then, this is now. 

Funny, that.

Really?

Because when I lived in Canada I cut my hand and went to the ER where I waited 19 hours in a dirty, overcrowded room for no service. There was some sort of general nursing strike at the time – if you Americans havent seen one, just wait until healthcare is nationalized. Its sort of like an airline strike, only much less pleasant.

Some folks waiting with me in the ER did try to (helpfully) direct me to an (I guess illegal) for cash doctor’s clinic nearby, because the cut was pretty bad.

I was sort of “fresh off the boat” so I waited, then went home and put a bunch of butterfly bandages on it.  I still have a scar today to remind me of why things that sound good on paper arent always good in life.

It reminded me of stepping on a rusty nail in France and having to DEMAND a tetanus shot, and then having to debate about 15 french nurses about it. Pasteur would be embarassed of Francecare now.

Hey donjo, Jimmy Carter is on the line for you.

Bravo! Brilliant piece.

And how does the installation of a dish compare in $$ figures to the theft of BILLIONS by your buddies on Wall Street?  You know, the ones you are defending so hard.

If they can afford dish, they can afford to pay their damn bills. If they can afford to pay 100 for shoes, they can afford to buy their own groceries. Touchy subject for you? Must have hit a “nerve”. Trying to justify your behavior of taking from those of us who you feel should carry your weight. Give me a break, seems like you’re the one who’s been getting all of the breaks. If you want to be “rich”, then do something different, go out of your comfort zone instead of whining about someone else who put it all on the line to chase their dream. So because you can’t buy a yacht, then no one should? You’re pathetic and one of the biggest problems with this country. Always wanting something for nothing.

They didnt pay property taxes? Payroll taxes? They all just worked for cash? 2 million a year?

Were they sole proprietors? LLCs? Sub S? Not even incorporated?

Turning people in to the IRS is the easiest thing in the world, just in case you wish to do so retroactively.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f211.pdf

I mean what are best friends for? Enjoy!

At my income level and lack of sophistication on how I can shelter things, I feel that my tax load never really changes. What piddly federal cut I maybe getting is taken back at the state and local level as my state and local community struggle with their budgets from the loss of federal dollars. If these tax cut were funded, I would be all for it. Since they are not, I’d rather forgo my cut to allow the cuts to expire. I’ve got one daugher heading to college next year and another two not far behind. I’d rather not morgtage their future.

My opinion is my opinion.  The view never change for the middle class. We have stagnant wages that are not keeping pace with the cost of living. Most of us have almost no expendable income after paying our expenses. We even get taxed on a portion of that when we spend it. What we get out of these deficit producing tax cuts is a disproportate share of the debt that they produce.

The country owes 94% of the GDP.  This is the biggest security risk the country is facing  Our solvency is being increasingly put into the hands of foreign lendors. What ever I and my wife are getting from the Bushs tax cut is not worth the price. If the cuts were funded, my opinion would be different.  We need to let them expire.

Some random facts.

The unfunded Bush tax cut,  cut revenue by $3 trllion over 8 years. Their purpose was to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Only 3 million jobs were created. Job loss is an entirely different issue, we lost an average of 80,000/month during Bush’s tenure. Compare that to the 23 million created under Clinton. Two thirds of all income gains for 2020 to 2007 went to the top one percent income earners.

Extending the cuts will cost $4trillion over the next ten years..

I think I would faint if you could ever write a post without resorting to name calling and personal attacks.  Make your argument and then politely STFU. And don’t assume you know even the slightest thing about me.  You don’t. 

Hey punk, I work with this everyday of the week and twice on Sunday and have so for over the last 15 years. I think I know damn well what I’m talking about. So they are NOT isolated incidents but you would’t know it since you live in lala land. Tell me what kind of insurance your “friend” had. I’m the office manager for a group of doctors ranging from oncology to orthopedic surgery. Even in orthopedic surgeries, where it “isn’t an immdeiate care” you can get scheduled in less than two weeks if need be. Now I will tell you this, we have to jump through more hoops with the government insurance albeit medicare or medicaid than we have to with other insurance. So if you’re talking about that nice government run insurance, I have quite a bit of experience with it as well and short of someone not being able to take off from work, there is no 6 month wait in this country for surgery,…..yet.

Depends on your time frame as to it being active, but no Shasta’s two volcanic peaks are dormant according to the USGS…

It is a wonder to behold…. I hear you about  Mt. Ranier.

I was hitchhiking from Anchorage to Mt. Denali State Park, and got a ride from a trucker…after a spell I asked him where he was headed and what was his load. He said “Prudhoe Bay and Dynamite…I have some caps in the glove box to keep the bears away want a few?”…..

Mt Denali is only visible 1 out of 40 days…..I looked out his his windows and there it was. Clear as a bell.

Sorry lady, not “DOCTORS” who are coming to us, but patients. I’m sure that there are some doctors who have come from Canada to practice here, but what I see are patients who come down here for care. Hell even my own cousin comes down here for his care. He was just here for a month, got what he needed done and back to Vancouver.