Stop coddling the rich

[The Troll]

According to the IRS, households making 250,000 dollars a year and up, amount to 2% of the entire population in this country. . . 2%!

By the way, that same policy would apply to billionaires. . .

  Hell, let me make $250,000 a year and I would be happy to pay the tax raise and give them 2% more.  I think I could live pretty good on the paltry sum.

  Especially since George W. and the Republicans and the Teabaggers on the national debt debacle has stolen from me $62,000.  Their such good people. 

[Henry Hawk]

Can you quantify that "most economists" believe that or are you simply pulling that out of your ass to give your statement credibility?

a majority of a panel of leading economists surveyed by CNNMoney.com said that the tax cuts should be renewed for everyone.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/19/news/economy/what_to_do_economists_survey/index.htm

[Exterminator]

A majority of a panel means most of the economists on that panel, not most of the economists in the world or even the country.  And by the way, the article you're quoting was addressing whether or not to let the current tax cuts expire last year; they didn't.

The majority of the American people believe that taxes on the rich should be increased.

[Henry Hawk]

A majority of a panel means most of the economists on that panel, not most of the economists in the world or even the country.  And by the way, the article you're quoting was addressing whether or not to let the current tax cuts expire last year; they didn't.

The majority of the American people believe that taxes on the rich should be increased.

I think if we can define RICH, we may find SOME common ground....and btw, they didn't allow the tax cuts last year for a reason.....it is BAD for the economy to raise them....and that has not change over the last 12 months.....it is STILL bad for the economy.

[Exterminator]

Correct; it is bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to raise taxes.  It is also bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to cut spending so what do you do?

[Henry Hawk]

Correct; it is bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to raise taxes.  It is also bad for a struggling-to-recover economy to cut spending so what do you do?

inspire the private sector to create jobs........at least that is the way I see it.   Temp cut captial gains tax and possible corp tax IF THAT money is invested here in the United States.

[The Troll]

inspire the private sector to create jobs........at least that is the way I see it.   Temp cut captial gains tax and possible corp tax IF THAT money is invested here in the United States.

  Cut capital gains taxes, cut capital gain taxes.  My god what a Brain Fart.  The billionaires are now paying 15% on the billions they make now.  Hell let them off of paying any taxes.  Would that make you happy and you get to pay 26% taxes on your income.  God damn it Henery, these bastards don't create jobs.  You poor, poor dumb asshole.   

[Henry Hawk]

  Cut capital gains taxes, cut capital gain taxes.  My god what a Brain Fart.  The billionaires are now paying 15% on the billions they make now.  Hell let them off of paying any taxes.  Would that make you happy and you get to pay 26% taxes on your income.  God damn it Henery, these bastards don't create jobs.  You poor, poor dumb asshole. 

Troll,.....slow down and READ what I write .... NOT what you think I am saying...

I said IF THAT money is invested HERE in the UNITED STATES, should they receive any cuts!!.....we have to play the game .... the have the ball in THEIR court....we got to QUIT trying to make laws and regulations to FORCE other into doing something....we need to INSPIRE THEM to invest THEIR MONEY........remember, like it or not it is THEIR MONEY!

[Exterminator]

I said IF THAT money is invested HERE in the UNITED STATES, should they receive any cuts

If that money is invested here in the U.S., they already don't pay taxes on it.

[Henry Hawk]

If that money is invested here in the U.S., they already don't pay taxes on it.

can you support that statement?

[Henry Hawk]

According to the IRS, households making 250,000 dollars a year and up, amount to 2% of the entire population in this country. . . 2%!

By the way, that same policy would apply to billionaires. . .

roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama's plan aren't millionaires, and 99.99% aren't billionaires....Buffet needs to quite down a little and just write a bigger check to Uncle sam if THAT is what he thinks is best...and leave the working class Americans alone...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

[Exterminator]

can you support that statement?

Yes, money that is reinvested into a business is not taxed.  For example, when your work computer breaks and your company buys a replacement, the cost of the replacement is either depreciated over the expected life of that piece of equipment or, depending on the size of the purchase, is written off the first year.  Either way, that money is deducted from the gross income; the company pays taxes on income net of expenditures.  That's how it works for pencils or paper or computers or printers or vehicles or a new building or machinery or...

[Henry Hawk]

Yes, money that is reinvested into a business is not taxed.  For example, when your work computer breaks and your company buys a replacement, the cost of the replacement is either depreciated over the expected life of that piece of equipment or, depending on the size of the purchase, is written off the first year.  Either way, that money is deducted from the gross income; the company pays taxes on income net of expenditures.  That's how it works for pencils or paper or computers or printers or vehicles or a new building or machinery or...

but does it count when you build a new building and hire new employees or create a new widget?  I'm not talking about just reinvesting but perhaps INVESTING...into new business' altogether....

[Exterminator]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903918104576504650932556900.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion

This article is such bullshit; here's a perfect example:

"What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."

The first problem with this statement is that it is assuming the original investment was made entirely with after-tax dollars.  I'm guessing that at least some of it was put into tax-deferred accounts like IRA's or 401K's but anyway...even if the amount invested was taxed, the capital gains tax only covers the increase in the value of those investments.  For example, $100.00 is invested and earns a return of 10%.  The tax levied is not on the entire $110.00 but on the difference between the amount invested and the value at the end of the period, or $10.00 which is new income that has not been previously taxed.  Does the Wall Street Journal seriously expect their readers to be that gullible?

Are those who want to abolish the capital gains tax willing to forego writing off their losses when the value of their investements decrease as well?  I'm betting not so much so...

[Henry Hawk]

This article is such bullshit; here's a perfect example:

"What he doesn't say is that much of his income was already taxed once as corporate income, which is assessed at a 35% rate (less deductions). The 15% levy on capital gains and dividends to individuals is thus a double tax that takes the overall tax rate on that corporate income closer to 45%."

The first problem with this statement is that it is assuming the original investment was made entirely with after-tax dollars.  I'm guessing that at least some of it was put into tax-deferred accounts like IRA's or 401K's but anyway...even if the amount invested was taxed, the capital gains tax only covers the increase in the value of those investments.  For example, $100.00 is invested and earns a return of 10%.  The tax levied is not on the entire $110.00 but on the difference between the amount invested and the value at the end of the period, or $10.00 which is new income that has not been previously taxed.  Does the Wall Street Journal seriously expect their readers to be that gullible?

Are those who want to abolish the capital gains tax willing to forego writing off their losses when the value of their investements decrease as well?  I'm betting not so much so...

So I should totally disregard a Pulitzer Prize winning source and simply follow the opinion of a BASE Jumper?..... k