http://moneymorning.com/...ou-ready-for-taxmageddon/

I'll make it short and sweet. It's about the bush tax cuts.

Most of your "business / money" news letters are Republican run. This article here tries to scare We The People into believing they only have our best interests at heart when in fact they're only worried about paying their fair share.

Bush tax cuts only helped us toward the financial cliff we're faced with right now. If the tax cuts are not allowed to sunset / expire we will be driven over that cliff. How can you justify people like Mitt Romney paying less in taxes a year than his secretary? Especially when he rakes in 10's of millions of dollars while his secretary only makes less than $75K per year!

yeah I hear that. TAX THE RICH! leave me alone :P

Trickle-down economics simply do not work.

The more I think about it, the more I think perhaps keeping the rates low (or even making them lower), but taking away most deductions/closing loopholes would be far more effective.

Simplify the tax code so that there are no loopholes for the wealthy to exploit. I don't necessarily think the super-rich should pay a crazy amount of the taxes, but they ought to be paying more than their secretaries, to use the Warren Buffett rule.

I also find some of the other aspects of the tax code pretty awful as well though. I'm not necessarily against social programs like welfare, but someone in what I could consider my extended family makes very little, makes no attempt to better her life, and on her taxes, because of tax credits, etc., she actually gets MORE back in taxes than she put in. I'm fine with people in the lowest levels getting all their money back. I'm a little dismayed at the idea that even on their taxes, there are many people who actually drain money out of the pool. Fix the loopholes for the rich, but also for the poor.

Twain;
I agree with you about closing the loopholes. I also agree with you on the people that are doing nothing to improve their position in life. I would add that if you increase the minimum wage to at least $10 per hour you will make it more "profitable" or "attractive" than staying on welfare. It could, not saying it absolutely will, remove a lot of people currently on welfare and take less taxpayer dollars in the process. It's a very viable alternative to cutting "benefits" to those that absolutely need them to survive.

Twain has it about exactly right.

The root of the problem is up on Capitol Hill. While maybe the Wealthy could pay more in taxes, the Central Government needs to spend less.

Actually, WarTime, this issue isn't as cut and dried as the "Bush Tax Cuts". It's a Hydra. There are multiple heads that have to be cut off to begin to right the ship.

1. On the order of 30 million Illegals are in America and not paying taxes. At all. They get essentially free health care and send what should be tax money home to Mexico. They are a net DRAIN on America's Balance Sheet.

2. When considering increasing tax on the Wealthy, we need to identify exactly WHAT "wealthy" is, and exactly how much more Revenue the Government can count on every year by increasing their taxes.

2a. I invoke Newton's Third Law. For every additional dollar and every less deduction the wealthy are subjected to, there will be a relatively equal reduction in Philanthropy. In 2009, Americans, via cash and also volunteerism donated $500 BILLION to Philanthropic endeavors. From Opera Houses, to Food Kitchens, to Free Clinics, to Endowments for the Arts and College Scholarships ad a million other things, by raising taxes/eliminating deductions, Half a TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR worth of Philanthropy is put at risk to benefit a Central Government that thinks it can spend money more efficiently and better knows where it should go.

3. Myth-conceptions. While "the rich" really don't create a statistically meaningful number of jobs, neither does the President or Congress. There ARE ways the Government could create sustainable jobs at a relative revenue-neutral level. The New Deal is a perfect example of NOT doing so. Make some work that lasts 10 or 20 years and the hope for the best. I have real ideas.

4. Reality. We are already off your cliff. You just don't know it because you're in free fall. Over the last 3 years, we have INCREASED our National Debt by 50%. The interest alone on that Debt is now over 30% straight off the top of the annual Federal Budget before the first Social Security check is written, the first food stamp is printed, the next soldier is trained and outfitted or the first pot hole on I-90 is filled. INCREASED Federal Spending is not an option.

5. Proactivity. In their own ways, Republicans and Democrats have been buying votes by appealing to the emotions of their constituencies. Voters (taxpayers) need to proactively eliminate candidates who simply tell them how much Federal Money will come their way, and Government needs to proactively spend money that eventually ends up back in control of the Private Sector. The Energy Industry is the first stop on that bus line and I know how to do it.

I hope you read this, WarTime. I hope you think about it. Our reality is far more dire than what the Bush Tax Cuts have done to us. We gotta ditch the bullfluff and get busy fixing stuff before it's too late. Well, it's already to late. What we should be doing NOW is damage mitigation.

How bout taxing everyone/company equally?


lol. just needed my post bonus

problem is our government is good at doing nothing and spending too much.

until both of those are gone this is unlikely to get fixed!

Let's just eliminate all pvt companies and let the Gov support us all while we stay at home watching tv...

-the left.

If tax cuts for the rich created jobs, the US would be drownings in jobs. The theory behind this makes sense, but lets be honest, its not working...

And if taxing the fluff out of the Wealthy created jobs, I might find it a viable option.

You can hate the rich all you like, but in a country of 300 MILLION PEOPLE that allows 10% of its working population to not pay taxes and drain our economy of resources, there will never be enough Rich People to make a dent in what the Government wants to spend to buy votes for the next election.

You wanna increase the tax on the Rich, fine. Show me exactly how much you are willing to cut from each and every line item of the annual Federal Budget to balance the books and also promote prosperity and economic growth.

When Canadians are against Republicans and openly supporting Democrats, its very clear that Democrats are closet Socialists, I love it! Keep exposing the Dems for what they really are!!!!

Honestly I didn't realize I was "rich" making $50k/year, but I must be since I got a tax cut from Bush, I can't wait to tell my sister that she's rich too ($18k/yr) cuz she also got a tax cut from Bush!!!!

You're pathetic, Libs!!!!

Isn't money at this point in time actually a figment of the imagination anyways?

All this talk about the Bush tac cuts is meaningless. All it is about is the same old "fair share / tax the rich". These cuts are a pittance of the deficit when compared to the wallop Bush's Medicare part D put on the deficit.

Cut out the smoke screen, and attack the real problem: runaway entitlement spending.

Oh wait we cannot do that can we? Not and stay in office.

The last prez that did the job right was Clinton. Balanced the budget and reduced entitlement spending. I'd vote for him again.

This makes no sense at all but ok lol

Also, I find it funny that republics bash socialism so much, when a lot of socialist countries are far far ahead of yours in fields like, all education, infant mortality, murder rates, ect ect.

Also find if funny when idiots assume canadians are all socialists lol

And namecalling is a sign you're losing an argument. The Bush tax cuts were across the board, not just for the wealthy. However, the current arguments aren't about whether the Bush tax cuts should be taken away, they're about whether the Bush tax cuts should be taken away from households making more than $250,000.

No one is defining $50,000 a year as wealthy, and there's no reason to think that the tax rates for people of your level of financial success would lose their tax cuts, KoH.

Let me clarify one thing: There's no reason to think that the tax breaks of people outside the highest brackets will lose their tax cuts UNLESS WAshington truly does decide to do nothing.

However, my guess is that every incumbent, Democrat or Republican, who is seen as hindering the process of keeping tax cuts alive for the middle class, will be punished by the voters come next election, so I can't see the vast majority of Congressmen doing this.

Pocom, I never said "all" not saying so just implies majority, plus I'm not an idiot, I'm a Xtreme Idiot :p

KoH - You're my boy and all, but all the right-wing rhetoric is kinda lame. :P

And explain to me, how does Canadians supporting the Dems equate to the Dems being closet Socialists? You're not one of those cats who're glued to Fox all day long, are you? :P

There's the whole drug argument also... "I have to pass a drug test to work, so people getting welfare should also have to pass a drug test to collect."
Save a whole buncha money right there. :P

that is starting up bradman

i believe there are 7 states that drug test for welfare benefits now

they need to get that fluff going in California, would save 10's of millions

CX, I come from a Socialist country, I can smell them miles away, doesn't take much analizing to determine Democrats being Socialists, unless you're blind, then I can't help...

Which country would that be?

Bleh, my tax return was $36 last year :( lol

I'd venture to say that the country KoH came from was France under Mitterand. Perhaps he would have been happier if we (USA) just let Hilter keep it.

There you go Bradman that is a great idea. Weekly drug test to receive your weekly benefits!!

I'm from the land of the best footy player in the world, hat-trick vs Brazil last Saturday on the 4-3 victory

Let's just eliminate the jobs of about say... 30 million Americans in the name of keeping ourselves out of the red, slash our overhead costs of production, marginalize the pay for those we still have working for us, blame these guys (Democrats) for the mess while everyone knows we created the problems in the first place, spend the next four years distracting everyone and their dog that there are more pressing concerns to be dealt with, all the while engaging in a war of bickering in Congress every time those guys (Democrats) come up with something that could actually *start* to fix things. And when it's time to put up or shut-up on our own "brilliant ideas", we refuse to compromise or make some changes, and start another war of bickering and blame everyone else for being un-American, anti-capitalist, Socialist or Communist... while proclaiming that things were better off during the administration of GWB, regardless of the fact his administration was where the isues started, while Congress was controlled for BOTH of his terms by the Republican party.

- The Right.

If I can't afford to pay for it, I don't buy it. There is no reason that the government can't live by the same rules.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to expire when he was still president. The economy was booming so he exteded them, then the economy started to fall and as you have seen from our current presidetn, when the economy is falling, its political suicide to stop tax cuts.

Obama had 2 years of complete control of both houses of congress and he got next to nothing done, blaming the republicans for "blocking" every bill put forth, the only issue with that is that the republicans could have stopped 0 bills, they didnt have enough to even slow a bill down. the reason some of them didnt pass, and the reason the healthcare bill didnt pass witha simple vote is because they didnt have all the democrats on board. but ALL you heard was that the republicans were the "party of no"

if you dont like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, or even budgets at all (Dems STILL have not yet produced a viable budget to even get voted on in the democratic controlled senate) and if you want the government to take care of everything in your life, PLEASE move to Europe and let us do our thing here, I hear Spain and Greece are doing quite well with their govt spending issues.

ya know, Wartime.....it's the lies people you like spit out that keeps the masses befuddled as to what a good path to fix things is

wealthy pay their "fair share"
wtf is a fair share?
the top 10% of income earners are already paying almost 70% of all taxes
http://www.usatoday.com/...x-millionaires/50480226/1

and as the article show, the bottom 46% are not only not paying fluff, but most are PULLING OUT of the tax system

and the bold face LIE that romney's secretary pays more in taxes.....
http://content.usatoday.com/...-romney-releases-taxes-/1

i seriously doubt she/he even makes 6 million a year, let alone pays that much in taxes

how about you tell the frickin truth....he pays a lower tax RATE than she/he does, because investment income is taxed lower than work wages are


and a quick response to the $10 hour min wage....what a crock, would solve nothing, and here's why

when you raise min wage, the desire is for the worker to have more, but do they? i say no
but they keep raising min wage, and that means somebody is winning...so who is it?

is it the companies? no...thier payroll goes up, so they raise the price of their products to compensate....they exist to make profit, so it has to stay

is it the worker? no....they end up paying more for their goods and services, therebye staying in the same basice situation they were in before

is it the govt? absolutey....because the worker is grossing more money, and getting taxed more....the companies are grossing more money, and getting taxed more

how bout we just work harder, and EARN more....ya know, the old fashioned way

your almost as bad as wartime..really

lets eliminate 30m jobs?....pull fluff out of your ass much?

republicans created the problem? LMAO
fair housing act was passed in a dem congress, and signed by a dem president......Jimmy Carter
it forced banks to make loans to people who couldn't frickin pay the damn thing
and BOTH parties just made the rules progressively worse since
so the banks came up with the bundling morg. thing
since the clinton years, congressmen have been warning folks of the coming implosion, and Barnie Frank, among a few others, saw to it that such things never came out of committee
so BOTH parties are guilty....and technically the dems started the process

president Obama, in 2008 campaign, called Bush jr., irresponsible and unpatriotic, because of the 4 trillion in debt over 8 years
so what's that make our sitting president?

and congress was NOT controlled by the repub's for bush's 8 years, learn NOT to lie
Pelosie became speaker of house for the last 2years of bush's second term...so house was 6 years repub
and senate was for half...or 4 out of 8 years

and finally, LOL

the repub's spin fluff to their liking
the dem's gave up on that, and just outright lie
their both bad, anymore...it's really just about keeping their power now, not about making our nation better

the only detectable difference i can come up with, is that the repub's are willing to destroy our country slower than the dems' want to

one of two things will end up happening, because i frankly think it's too late to fix the mess

the US becomes multiple smaller countries, or we economically collapse, and make greece look like a simple house party

Democrat...

Republican...

They all work for the same corrupt bankers

Wow. Do you not remember the whole supermajority filibuster discussion? The Republicans pretty much threatened to filibuster every single bill that the Democrats were trying to push through.

And the last part of your statement is pretty ridiculous. I hate the whole "If you don't like it here, move" statement. First off, it's a cop-out to actually ever make things better. Unless you want to go back to the late 1700s/early 1800s agrarian society America, then this is a BS argument. There obviously is a place for the private sector. There are also many things where a profit-driven ideology cannot be the motivation and government needs to take over or regulations must be implemented (unless of course you thought it was good when people worked 60 hours a week and child labor was okay).
Secondly, if YOU don't like the way things are changing, why don't YOU move?

And Celeborn: There is a difference between taking a booming economy with a budget surplus and turning that into a huge deficit and taking a struggling deficit economy and trying to pump more cash into the economy to prop up the private sector. One IS irresponsible, the other isn't. If you're willing to go back to Carter for your history lesson, then let's go back to the Great Depression. FDR's deficit spending was a major part of what brought the country back (I'm not so foolish to say that's the only thing, because obviously the economic effects of World War II were equally if not more important).

The last part is the point. WarTime was never trying to imply that Romney only pays $5,000 in taxes. The point of this discussion both here and in other places started with something Warren Buffett said, that he should be paying a higher tax rate than his secretary, even though that wasn't true due to the different loopholes the wealthy can afford to use that most middle-class people don't have an accountant or tax attorney to figure out for them.

Your response here is virtually right out of the Rush Limbaugh playbook. Accuse the other side of skewing the facts and be more obnoxious and self-righteous than the other side. Heck, you're doing the typical "I'll leave out what doesn't help my cause" strategy, as the article YOU even posted about Romney states he's only paying 13.9% and 15.4% in 2010 and 2011 respectively.

The article also brings up the original source of the discussion, stating "The rule says, 'People making more than $1 million a year should not pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than middle-class families pay.' Buffett wrote in a recent piece for The New York Times that the tax rate he paid last year was lower than that paid by any of the other 20 people in his office."

The data you've posted shows that perhaps this isn't quite as common, but should it ever be happening? Why should investments be taxed at a lower rate than actual labor? Investments are obviously important, they do allow for small businesses to hire more people, for entrepreneurs to get started, but ultimately, the people that are actually DOING something shouldn't be shouldering higher tax rates on their income than those that simply throw some money around and then sit back. I think it should be part of the same tax bracket as labor-based income.

People just don't get it.

Administrative assistants 'pay more' because their income is typically taxed on the 'progressive' tax table. Wealthy have more income coming in based on capital gains and dividends with only marginal income based on the progressive tax table.

The capital gains taxes are low, because there is an arguement that this income is double taxed. Taxed on the corporation and then taxed again on the people.

On the surface this is a valid arguement. But really you could say the same thing about your paycheck. So just make dividends an expense like labor is an expense and treat income like income regardless of its source.

End of problem, move on and get over it.

And a balanced budget amendment with a line item veto will take care of the rest.

Line item veto makes the executive branch even more powerful and was considered unconstitutional. I know you mention an amendment, which would of course fix that, but constitutional amendments obviously don't happen very often.

I agree with your last statement as well, about "treat income like income regardless of its source." I don't want to tax investment at a HIGHER rate because I don't want to discourage investment. It's too necessary. However, taxing labor at a lower rate than investment seems like it's punishing people who don't derive most of their wealth from investments.

and if you know how GOVT works, you would know that all they could do for the first 2 years is threaten. because they didnt have the votes to do anything about it. the dems had super-majority but couldnt get all thier guys on the same page. THAT is why not many bills got passed, because a few democratic senators didnt wanna have their name attached to some of those bills.

and while the dems were trying to circle the clusterfluff they had going on, they dropped a seat to scotty brown and lost super majority, but until that point, the republicans could do nothing about the bills but threaten if they passed with 100% dem support. the problem the dems had is that they couldnt get that support, which is why they had to hand out pet projects/cornhusker kickback to buy the votes on obamacare and drop the "party of no" bomb.

I take a risk on every dollar I invest that it will grow. That is not always the case. Before you go on blasting your horn about unfair tax for people who earn a portion of their income from investments why don't you make a few investments and see how much you are already taxed on income, you earn on YOUR money, that you chose to set aside, instead of spend to live on.

How about instead of going around looking at what other people have earned and trying to find a way to take it from them you go out and find a way to earn your own?

God, I stood in line at Comcast/Xfinity store for an 75 minutes. 16 people in line, 2 people working at windows. 4 comcast workers were at their windows moving at the pace of turtles with their sign "window close, see next rep". Made me late for work. Get this, their hours, 9am-6pm M-F. Sweet. So I have to miss work to get a cable box and for you to send it is $15. Cool beans. So glad I have options for internet provider. Private company but might as well be like standing at the DMV. FML. I needed to vent.

Don't fret. When all companies are owned by the govt and are govt employees, today's line will look like the express lane.

So we add a balanced budget amendment with a line item veto
Treat investment income as regular income
Lower the rates for everyone including corporate
Get rid of loopholes in the tax code to pay for all of the above.

Problem solved. Let's go to lunch and have a beer. We'll need it, world hunger is next on the list.

Nothing better than a bill where "you have to approve it to find out what is in it"

Rofl

is that the typical case at the dmv? i know the rep, but in my experience, i've never had to wait for more than a couple of minutes.

You clearly do not live in NY state. Where you have to stand in line to get your number to wait for your deli number to be called. But at least the hard wooden benches are better than just standing in another line.

lol, i did live in NY state but i've always held a MA drivers license.

bad, bad Twain

I did, in fact, point out that romney paid a lower tax rate, read the last sentence of what you quoted, LOL

my whole point wasn't what wartime "meant"
it's what he said....

Mitt Romney paying less in taxes a year than his secretary?

and that, sir, isn't just a lie, it's a fluffing lie, commonly spat out by the left to stir up the class warfare line


and, as someone already pointed out, the investment rate is allegedly lower, because that money has already been taxed once

wether or not i believe that's fair.....bah, doesn't even matter anymore
there is no income tax system that will ever be fair
we need to get rid of it, and go with a consumption tax instead
then we can soak the piss outa the rich:P
we also need a balanced budget amendment.......but congress will never ever pass one

additionally, nobody "took" a booming economy and trashed it
9/11 "trashed" our economy, then add the burden of two wars, and then the housing bubble bursting, followed by the inevitable financial bust
and pumping a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, helped the state and local PUBLIC workers keep their jobs for a time, but it did diddley squat to help the private sector
japan has been stuck in a malaise of stagnation for almost two decades, DESPITE the govt pumping trillions up trillions in so called stimulus into the economy
how in gods name can you claim it actually works, when time and again it's historically been proven otherwise?
no...FDR's new deal did NOT, in fact, pull us out of the depression
we were STILL limping along economically, until ww2 started, and private industry became desperately needed on a world wide basis to provide, first general goods, and once we entered, military supplies

I'll just copy and paste quotes instead of using the quote, since I'm going to break up your last post a lot.

"I did, in fact, point out that romney paid a lower tax rate, read the last sentence of what you quoted, LOL"

I said that myself in my FIRST statement. We have no disagreement here.

"Mitt Romney paying less in taxes a year than his secretary?

and that, sir, isn't just a lie, it's a fluffing lie, commonly spat out by the left to stir up the class warfare line"

No. It isn't. RATE is a common way of judging things that are otherwise not equal, just as much as counting stats are. Anyone with half a brain would realize that the income disparity between Romney and his secretary is so great that clearly what is to be interpreted out of this is tax rate, not total tax dollars. You're getting worked up on semantics that are no where near as unclear as you seem to think they are.

"and, as someone already pointed out, the investment rate is allegedly lower, because that money has already been taxed once"

The PROFITS from the investments HAVEN'T been taxed already. I'm in no way saying principle investment should be taxed again. I'm simply saying that the profits should be taxed like any other income.

I'm also on record saying I think tax rates should be lowered if it is accompanied by getting rid of most deductions and making sure that no one is actually getting a refund of greater than the amount of taxed they've put into the pot (they are other social welfare programs out there, the annual tax bill shouldn't be another one).

We're really probably not nearly as far apart as you believe.

"we also need a balanced budget amendment.......but congress will never ever pass one"

And no, we don't need a balanced budget amendment. Some years, we SHOULDN'T run a balanced budget. We should be running a balanced budget during prosperous years in order to have the cash to stave off disaster during problem years.

"pumping a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy, helped the state and local PUBLIC workers keep their jobs for a time, but it did diddley squat to help the private sector"

Tell that to the banking and auto industries. I concede that the stimulus turned out far less effective than most hoped, but to say that the stimulus had no effect on banking and investment industries, when the stock markets actually in general seem to be doing quite well, and the auto industry, which, outside Ford, was basically dying off quickly, is certainly short-sighted.