Well duh, Obama's speech writers are just copying other speeches. But the point is, when Reagan said he he was saying it for decades and it was part of his policy. When Obama says it, he doesn't even know what he's saying. He just reads it because his controllers tell him to read it to get elected. Its like when he bailed out the banks and they didn't help anyone or when he bailed out car companies and they didn't help anyone. You can't just talk the talk...you have to walk the walk.
just so everyone understands this: paying more taxes is not the same as having a higher tax rate, just in case you missed that day in 6th-grade math class. welcome to costco, i love you.
Who cares what Obama says anymore? He has lied to us since before becoming president. He promised to cut the national debt with "no more deficit spending." Remember? Why does his wife have a staff of 22 that costs taxpayers $1.5 million last year? In case we weren't paying attention, Obama IS a millionaire. His adjusted gross income last year (with book sales) was $1.7 MILLION. I don't believe ANYTHING that falls out of his or Nancy Pelosi's mouth....or ANY politician for that matter.
@alekscourt that has nothing to do with Obama. it has to do with the republicans not allowing him to do those things. learn your facts before your opinions.
Why should workers saccerfice so much of their life energy just so the 1% can have all the profits and works are not even paid enough to buy a home or feed their kids and keep their family safe, and save for the future??? Only jobs pay minimum wage no one can live on minimum wage.
@ottomarcos He doesnt, his point is that even reagan who republicans praise also beleived that the rich werent paying enough and were shitting on the middle and lower class.
@ckernan And by closing the loopholes, they would pay more. What is your point? Do you even have one or has Faux broadcasting not taken you to that level yet?
@wangsta25 If Reagan actually meant what he said, his party might play the class warfare card; however, he lowered taxes on the rich, just like his protege G.W. Bush did.
Arizona tried passing a flat state income tax. An Arizona newspaper worked out the numbers that the flat tax would wind up raising taxes on the bottom 88% of Arizonans. I don't understand how the Republicans can talk about how much they hate taxes, but how badly they want to raise taxes on a vast majority of Americans.
I remember when Reagan's policies were far right and scary and how much I disliked him. This country really HAS swung further to the right over the last 30 years!
I will do ANYTHING for 500 000 Dollar! ANYTHING FOR A WEEK!!! Please Contact me if you are not poor.. Need to save my dads life!!! eliasdiet@hotmail.no Please if you are rich and want to help me!
#1)Now, some Republicans in Congress, they’re already dusting off the old — their old records. “That’s class warfare.” Let me tell you something, 26 years ago — some of you may have seen this on television, clips have been circulating — 26 years ago, another President said that some of these tax loopholes, and I quote, “made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.”
@imaginarythings #2) You know the name of that President? It was Pres.Ronald Reagan. “So was that class warfare? By the way, taxes are much lower now than they ever were when Ronald Reagan was President. I know a lot of folks have short memories, but I don’t remember Republicans accusing Ronald Reagan of being a socialist — (laughter) — or engaging in class warfare, because he thought that everybody should do their fair share.”
Obama is being more than a little dishonest here. Yes, Reagan wanted to end tax deductions. But it was part of an overall strategy to simplify the tax code, lower tax rates and broaden the tax base. The result was actually less tax burden for most Americans, and increasing tax revenues.
What Obama is proposing is just straight tax hikes with no corresponding rate reductions. This is exactly the sort of thing Reagan would have opposed.
@imaginarythings Which is exactly what we need... a straight across the board no loopholes tax, such as 10% for all no matter how much you make is they fairest way for everyone.
@imaginarythings The most fair tax would be a 100% estate tax combined with an elimination or great reduction of the income tax. That way folks would be able to keep what they earned but not pass it on to others who didn't earn the wealth. Lots of technical problems with that, but it's clearly the most fair.
@MsStevil Low income Americans are more likely to use 100% of their income on living expenses, a flat 10% tax on them would place a heavy tax burden. On the contrary, you would lower Mitt Romneys taxes by 33.3% if you enacted a 10% flat tax. With such a vast wealth disparity in this country, your flat 10% tax would be highly regressive, unfavorable to the bottom 70% or so of AMericans, and highly favorable to the wealthiest 1%
@sirscrotum I agree, and it would only get worse as the value of the dollar decreases and cost of living expenses continue to rise. Just doesn't make any sense.
I'm from Poland and I'm not quite sure if Reagan was our president in 1985...{joke} And question: higher taxes in percent? If millioners pay the same tax rate in percent like others they still pay more in $ : 10%x10000000000 > 10%x10000 Cheers.
So basically...Regan never closed those loopholes since Obama wants to still close them....or are they new loopholes?.....lol....and in 30 years still another politician will want to close those loopholes....
Soooooo.............................. since Reagan is the "Messiah" of the conservative movement if you will, how can such things come from his lips? Its sacrilege talking about the sacred taxes of the uber rich!!!!!!!!!! Grover Norquist just slit his wrist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@ryalsboy85 Reagan did what he said he would do. Increased the SHARE of tax revenue paid by the rich. This was accomplished by reducing the tax rates. Higher tax RATES do not necessarily result in more tax revenue.
@OccupyIdeas I will. From "Congress Of the United States, Joint Economic Committee", April 1996, "The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988." Reduced tax Rates, stopping some loopholes, increased share of tax revenue paid by rich, reduced it on poorest.
@luvcheney1 Reagan was in favor of broadening the tax base and eliminating loopholes (one of the reasons he grew the IRS substantially). What are you contending? That poor people did better under Reagan? 1980-1990 - top 1% wages increase 80%, bottom 90% increase 3%. Bottom 20% of American families' income shrunk 4.4%. 1989 income gap biggest since 1947. This helps explain some of your tax burden figures.
@OccupyIdeas No source, but I will make a general statement about this kind of comparison. They come from IRS form 1040`s, & "income" in the lower quintiles doesnt include In- kind transfers of money (safety net, welfare, medicaid, etc). Their incomes are FAR higher than calculated. Top personal rate was 70%, went to 50% close to corp rate of 46% at the time. This tax shift shifted income onto personal 1040`s, off of corp expenses, as Perks change into income. See post 2)
@OccupyIdeas No source, but I will make a general statement about this kind of comparison. They come from IRS form 1040`s, & "income" in the lower quintiles doesnt include In- kind transfers of money (safety net, welfare, medicaid, etc). Their incomes are FAR higher than calculated. Top personal rate was 70%, went to 50% close to corp rate of 46% at the time. This tax shift shifted income onto personal 1040`s, off of corp expenses, as Perks change into income. See post 2)
@OccupyIdeas So perks of higher income people were sheltered on corp income tax forms, because of high personal rates (better to pay corp rate of 46%, than 70% personal), but when top personal rate went to 50%, its a toss up, and execs prefer it be wages, that perks. These factor then overstate income of rich, understate incomes of poor, and thus are fucking bullshit. I know everyone buys this nonsense, but nonsense it is. Income inequality is no worse than it ever was.
@luvcheney1 So, according to this logic, when the CBO comes out with a report on income inequality, they're either 1) not good enough economists to measure income correctly, 2) not nonpartisan, even though both dems and reps say they are? As scientists and social scientists we enjoy our discussions with you because we WANT to be proved wrong, and you gen have stats to support your positions. Please let us know whether number 1 or 2 (or both) is the case here.
@OccupyIdeas CBO backtracked on ObamaCare shortly after its initial estimates of the 10 yr cost, adjusting it by around $100 bill, within a year. CBO estimated during Clinton Admin that his cut on the Capital Gains tax rate would generate $8 bill more revenue, in the next 4 years, but the result was almost $80 bill more revenue, from cutting Cap Gains from 28% to 20%. As for being a scientist, please note AGAIN, you wont debate the logic. You routinely will not either. See post 2
@luvcheney1 You're comparing CBO projections here to the CBO report. CBO estimates, like many other finance estimates, are routinely wrong. The October CBO report, however, was not a projection. Why would you use these in your argument? It doesn't make sense. You're usually more on top of it! :)
@OccupyIdeas I see your point, but the issue here was of your making, that is, that the CBO is qualified. Everyone cites CBO about ObamaCare, I would enjoy thrashing the shit out of their estimates there. Everyone knows it is all pure lies. The main problem with estimates of income inequality is the impossibility to exactly estimate and back on out the extra income of the rich, from the tax policy changes, as well as adding onto the incomes of the poor credits, safety net incomes
@luvcheney1 We're not citing any CBO estimates because noone makes good estimates. But isn;t this qualitatively different? An estimate is an unknown. This was simply a report on known figures. We completely agree with you: any adequate report of income inequality would have to measure those variables you articulated. That makes sense. We're just not sure tht 1) the CBO did not take those into account in their report; 2) that you or we really know better than them how to measure income inequality
@luvcheney1 (2) Though, as we said, we would not rule that out. It's possible they are incompetant. It just doesn't seem likely. Please expand on your last point: that greater income inequality is good. And if you can, please use more corralative values than US v Europe pop/GDP. As you know, GDP is the outcome of an equation with 1000's of independent AND dependent variables, so any arg about 1 of those and its putative effect is lacking. like when dems argue...
@luvcheney1 (part 3)...like when dems argue that Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the 90s. We never understand why they do that. Economic growth / stagnation is the result of many things, executive policy being but one. (BTW, if you don't have more correlative values (or whatever the hell term it was we used), no worries. If brilliant economists Left and Right cannot come to a concensus, we may not either:) (even among our small group here in Oakland).
@OccupyIdeas Regarding the calculation of income inequality. The figures the left uses are NOT lies! The computation is not incompetence. The IRS is the definer of WHAT constitutes income, and also the source of the totals. So, math based on what IRS says is income, is true. CBO, and many folks, see the economy as static. Like, "If someone gets rich, we must be getting poor". And, "If we tax the rich more, they will pay more". Sorry, these views are common, but silly. see 2)
@OccupyIdeas 2) If a group of rich has $1 Trillion income, and we raise tax rate on that group 5% higher, folks calculate another $50 billion in tax revenue. If we reduce taxes 5% on the group, they calculate a $50 billion loss of tax revenue. Now, with both top corp tax and top personal being 35%, any increases in personal tax rates will shift personal income back into corp income. But we have highest corp rate of OECD, any increase in corp shifts corp income OUT of the US. see 3)
@OccupyIdeas 3) before you say corps pay 17%, not 35%, I am happy to destroy this at a future time, but suffice it to say that economy is NOT static! The changes i outlined earlier, cause income as defined by IRS to understate lower incomes ( relative to the past), and overstate upper ( relative to the past). No lies, miscalculations, its a definition problem. WE know why. Everyone blames Wall st. Everyone thinks rich are at fault. Everyone thinks income inequality growing. see 4)
@OccupyIdeas 4) do you really think that everybody knows what is happening? The truth? Do you believe that the media knows? I watch media right wing, and some left, but the truth about so many issues is seen by neither. Most people, in and out of media are in the dark. What is the issue of today? EU bailouts. Save Europe, print money. Fed printing money, to save US. Everyone agrees! Everyone thinks printing money creates wealth? More debt cures debt? Everyone is stupid.
@OccupyIdeas 5) Why income inequality is good. Bad decisions in life must have consequences. Good decisions in life must have consequences. If the consequences between positive behavior, and negative behavior are the same, why would hard work, long hours, the sacrifice of self denial to accumulate capital be worth it? Why not just sleep late, drink beer? Why incentivize bad behavior, punish the good? That is the way to reduce living standards.
@luvcheney1 (1) Givens: 1) total misery all the time for all humans is the ultimate bad (UB); 2) political and economic systems should be judged by the degree they provide distance from this UB. We think, given this, that you're painting yourself into an untenable position with your income inequality=good argument. 1) In countries where IE is greatest, UB is highest; 2) In IE+ nations people are lucky to work. If they do not, there is no safety net; they and their whole family simply starves...
@luvcheney1 (part 2)...So, people in IE+ nations work harder, longer, in less safe conditions, for less $. Other than staving off starvation, their good behavior is not "incentivized." They are the "good" in your equation, and they are punished. And this has been going on for some time now, at least since the 1st indus. rev. provided the means and motive for colonialist ventures.
@OccupyIdeas The GINI Coefficient is a measure of income inequality widely used. You can get world maps of it. "Equality" doesnt correlate exactly to living standards. US and Mexico in same range, yet obvious wide differences in living standards. Iran, Libya, Russia rated higher too than US! EU area higher, but lower productivity GDP PPP. I maintain inequality is a good thing. Ultimate Bad, ( misery, "UB") ( I like this wording of yours!) is something we want distance from. next 2
@OccupyIdeas 2) If a nation strives for very high equality, through redistribution of wealth, it may end up more equal. But it does so at a cost. This is so obvious as to seem silly to warrant an explanation of it. At low end, paying unemployment ( and other safety net) enables folks to not take $300 week jobs. So those jobs filled by illegals (11.5 million NOW). Economy supports illegals AND safety net folks, when some degree of reducing safety net would have kept illegals OUT.
@OccupyIdeas 3) "Good" intentions in providing safety net put the illegals into our economy, in addition to the rest of us, an extra, unnecessary burden. In 40 yrs of working with, and hiring illegals (legally), I assure you I have seen many hundreds of illegals making $500 wk in a couple months, and $900 wk in 4 yrs. No English at arrival, 5th grade educations. NO possessions! ANY able bodied person can be median household income, in 4 yrs, without language, or education.
@OccupyIdeas 4) So while illegals find work, move on up the economic ladder, into the 3rd quintile mostly, after 4 or 5 yrs, we have generations of folks in our inner cities, who live under Govt support. Occupiers, convinced there are no opportunities! Today! I had major back surgery 2 yrs ago. No unemployment, MediCaid, disability, as I was self employed, ineligible. Our tiny business bad, from economy. 6 months ago, better finally, I looked for work, hired in 3 DAYS! next
@OccupyIdeas 5) How? I sold cars. The job means some nights, till 9PM, and every other weekend, 9am-9pm, Fri, sat, sun. We have HUGE electric sign on a major FWY, in CALIF, for salespeople, and nobody applies! I saw 4 people apply, in 5 months! The POINT? People will NOT take existing jobs that arent "perfect". I hired for 28 yrs, dont tell me they do. Used to be mostly Mex men dishwashers, cooks in fast food. Not now. Mex WOMEN. Why? Far higher pay for Mex men, in OTHER jobs. next
@OccupyIdeas 6) Restaurant work cooks, bus people, dishwashers ALL were mostly men, now cooks 50% women, rest Mex women. Why? Too many BETTER jobs exist, for illegal Mex men. I know Mexican women bringing down $900 week, cooking 65 hrs week. The system we have, rewarding those who fail, causes the vacuum that sucks illegals into the US, to succeed, all the while politicians, Occupiers, media CLAIM there are NO JOBS. This is total bullshit.
@OccupyIdeas 7) I`m way too long in my post, but I meant to show you how damaged the US is, because of "good" intentions. Both emotionally, and financially. How EVIL have the "good" intentions become! DESTROYING any incentive to work! Generation after generation totally CONVINCED any effort isnt worth the trouble! Meanwhile, thank GOD Illegals arent smart enough to KNOW work isnt worth the trouble! They just ask around, until they find one, and move up the ladder, drive a Ford truck
@luvcheney1 No worries. We like your longer posts. Entitlement is one problem, but it is drastically overstated by the right wing. Shouldn't people feel "entitled," however, to a fair wage for their labor. Your anecdotal info on illegals, while powerful and no doubt true, does not account for the fact that the great majority of illegals do not in fact move up into the middle class within one generation but instead remain a core body of the working poor. One reason for this?...the lack...
@OccupyIdeas Entitlement is NOT overstated. Once illegals BECOME legal, things change. Some families continue to move up, but becoming "legal" removes the "work or starve" situation, because legality means you become ENTITLED. The work ethic becomes diluted, and inner cities are FULL of an underclass of folks of Mex heritage too. What MAKES illegals self sufficient, compared to the legal underclass, is LACK of entitlements. Entitlements are a large REASON generational poverty exists
@OccupyIdeas 2) Fed Reserve study indicated 70% of the bottom 20% were able to move into a higher 20% bracket, over 9 yr period of the study. ( quintiles). Also it found that 15% of the bottom quintile had moved all the way to the top quintile. They also noted that the top quintile had rich moving lower as well, they are not necessarily able to stay there. US has high opportunities to rise easily. With proper behavior. next
@OccupyIdeas It isnt a study, it is just facts. "Supply Demand" model is just a simple graph of two axis, S&D, where they intersect, is "equilibrium", or market price. If price of labor is increased (wages), more people seek (demand)the job, and vice versa. If price of labor falls, business can hire more, if it rises, less. So, the graphs have different slopes, one up, one down,( like an X) but meet at center point. If you try to move the price up, or down, ( off equilibrium 2)next
@luvcheney1 haha, no, you said: "Fed Reserve study indicated 70% of the bottom 20% were able to move into a higher 20% bracket, over 9 yr period of the study." Can you point us to the study? We thought it was interesting. No explanation required for S&D.
@OccupyIdeas Obviously there IS a need for supply and demand understanding, on your part. Your views indicate it strongly! Or, are you are happy that the UAW has been gutted of membership? Those jobs and industry destroyed. I think you define "market" wages as a living wage, or somehow some wage you approve of. It isnt. Market may be millions a year, for a basketball star, movie star, and could be $7 hr for a cashier.
@luvcheney1 These are all good points. We don't agree with your correlations, (ie UAW's fair wages caused UAW demise), and we've heard them before, but that does not mean that we don't take them into account as variables. as per price controls, we think you're confusing our conversation with the one you're having with srmailbox. We 1) asked for your fed study, not evidence of your S&D points, and 2) did not suggest price controls on the market.
@OccupyIdeas But you most certainly DO talk as if it is just a matter of Business paying more, and everything will work out better. 1st, corps will NOT pay over market voluntarily. So, you must MAKE them. How? Unions, or Obama using the FRLB to force Boeing into new union agreements, Force IS being used. As for UAW, OK, ignore it. Look at the total union members in US, over last 50 yrs. Jobs KILLED. Success for auto plants, in Right to work states. No bailout needed.
@luvcheney1 (part 2) and if you're up for it we'd welcome an article suggestion from you. 2) "Corps do not pay over market voluntarily." Corps do little voluntaurily. Strange arg. You'd have us go back to the working conditions we had before US Labor fought and died for regs? US auto died for many reasons. Choosing 1 like you did is below your normal arg standard. It'd be like us saying it died solely because Japan had a national healthcare system so Toyota didn't have to pay for worker health.
@OccupyIdeas Toyota makes a hell of a lot of automobiles, profitably, in the US, with our present healthCare system. Note your mention of Krugman neglects to actually state a point. You keep a reasonable "tone" in your comments, but say little. I will increasingly call you out on each time you just dismiss an entire line of logic, with just Krugman"? I TOLD you the reasons i felt income inequality are exagerrated. You can disagree, but note you wont build a case.
@OccupyIdeas 2) If labor wasnt the reason, and it was some other national reason, like our healthcare system, the US wouldnt have growing manufacture of automobiles anywhere in the US. But we do. And the remaining Big 3 corps are financial zombies, doomed to die. Ford survived bailouts, only because it had financial agreements finished, before credit dried up. Big 3 have massive retirement expenses, which eventually will be unpaid, or paid for by those who get less.
@OccupyIdeas 3).Capital builds the stores, and factories, plants where jobs exist. Capital is put at risk, with eye toward % return, for risk. IF they are FORCED to pay over market, that return will be less, and value of the corp is contigent on profitablility. So, the corp is worth less, if profit is lower, the risk taking investor loses. Capital will look around, and move, to somewhere else, where profit is reasonable. GM became worth 50 cents, couldnt raise another nickel.
@OccupyIdeas 4). So, you can FORCE WalMart to pay more, but there WILL be consequences. Namely, you destroy some of WM`s value. Capital will flow where it is happier. Another sector, another country. Or perhaps they can just pass the cost of the higher wages through, to customers. BUT, that doesnt make any net improvement in living standards overall. WM workers richer, by amount customers get poorer.
@OccupyIdeas 5) so, after looking at Krugmans article, he never addresses the reasons my source claims he never addressed. I feel much better, now that I took the time to see why is isnt to be believed. Note you dont even say WHY his thoughts work. I gave you many before you even mentioned him, why the entire concept is absurd. AND, still comb over that dunces work, which is juvenile.
@OccupyIdeas part2) Google this, there are lots of differrent US Govt studies. "INCOME MOBILITY IN THE U.S.: EVIDENCE FROM INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1987 AND 1996 by Gerald E. Auten and Geoffrey Gee
U.S. Department of the Treasury"
I assume actual real world surpluses, and shortages from messing around with prices (wages) is of NO interest? Same issues, and same silly Govt responses now, and 1800 years ago? Same lack of following logic through, to see consequences?
@OccupyIdeas Part 3) from US Treasury, "Approximately half (61 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of the households initially in the bottom 20 percent of the population moved to a higher quintile within ten years. In addition, this study finds that the largest percentage increases in real incomes were for those initially in the lowest income groups"
@OccupyIdeas Part4) "Economic policies to reduce the growth of income inequality
may work, in part, through their effects on income mobility. Reducing income
mobility may reduce the rising trend in income inequality, but it could also increase inequality of longer-term income" CRS Report For Congress, April 4, 2008 Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Finance" Great, if govt makes people get stuck in a quintile, in the short run its better, but in the long run youre fucked. Ha
@luvcheney1 We like you "ha." We looked at R and Lwing articles on this. Your arg is reflected and expanded upon in the Rwing articles, but then it's refuted directly in the Lwing ones - and all of these have been written by intelligent people. We assume that, thoughyou disagree with him, you're not among those who think Krugman's an idiot. His article: "The Rich, the Right, and the Facts: Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate" really lays into some of the exact args you're making.
@OccupyIdeas 5) Krugman, I went THROUGH the article. Feel free to review my past posts on the matter, I dont want to do it again. I can NOT find any references in his article to dispel the reasons for income shifting of the rich into personal, out of corp earnings from the reductions in personal rates. Nor 401K, Ira`s effects. Or the in-kind payments to lower classes, not counted as income. These items are the core of the argument.
@OccupyIdeas 2) if you move price off of equilbrium, you now intersect the S&D lines at 2 points, not 1. This "gap" is either surplus, or shortage. The model indicates if you raise a price OVER market, you will have a surplus. In case of labor, that is unemployment. If you pay too little (under market), you cant get enough workers to work, a shortage. UAW succeeded in wage/benefit over market. Model suggests surplus, and UAW jobs fell, members far fewer today. see3)
@OccupyIdeas 3) I really suggest strongly you google up a simple, S&D model graph, and play with it in your mind, using a commodity, such as corn, apples, etc. Labor, at least to me, was easier to confuse S&D at first. In 3rd Century, Emperor Diocletian made a law, "Edict on Prices", price control law, to attempt to stop inflation. 15,000% in 3rd century Rome! Massive shortages, fields not plowed, goods not coming, hoarding, frigging disaster. see 4)
@OccupyIdeas 4) Nixon made price controls, I recall supermarkets with NO MEAT in the cases! They were removed before excessive damage, but left on OIL.I dont know your age, but surely you heard of the oil crisis`? US oil controlled in price, but people DEMANDED more oil that we made, so we had $27 US oil, and bought excess from Arabs, at $50! Stupid! Reagan decontrolled oil, Libs screamed, but price of oil FELL, until $9 in 1999. Oil "shortages" result then of price controls too. 5)
@OccupyIdeas 3) Note you dropped discussion of entitlements from govt ( indefensible, since paying people $300/wk to not work, importing illegals to do work those paid to stay home wont do). Now, the issue is to have business pay higher wages, to fix it. You fall prey to common problem. Easy to say, "pay more, business can just do with lower profits". This is idea with unions, minimum wages, etc. I ALSO want highest wages, and living standards for the poor & middle class! see next
@luvcheney1 we didn't drop discussion of entitlements. you brought it up, not us, but we do feel the safety net is important. we DON'T need to ignore market prices to pay fair wages. we only need to reduce the distance between highest and lowest paid workers in these corporations, and we agree, this won't work if done nation by nation(unless nations can provide some other offsetting incentive for corp to stay, as some do), it has to be done on a much larger scale. It's not being done because...
@luvcheney1 the multinats have too much sway over govts. This clearly works to tthe detriment of all of us, since their 1st concern (per legal responsibility to their shareholders) is the bottom line and not env. or community (large or small) welfare. 2)The "thinking" does not stop there. Your thinking simply diverges from ours. Intelligent people have been debating this for quite some time. We could just as easily say "you fall prey to a common problem," believing the market to be a panacea.
@OccupyIdeas 4) so you go on, why a middle class is good, etc. Lets raise living standards. How moral! Just pay more! The problem with this particular idea, and many other ideas is this: THINKING stops right here. Not very easy, and is a long, boring path to follow the trail of consequences of "just raising wages". Most wages set by market forces. You are unhappy with market wages. Me too! But I see consequences of ignoring the market price of labor. Ignore them, at your peril.
@luvcheney1 part 2)..of good jobs (where good means living wages, safe conditions etc.) and the inability, due to their status, to organize for better conditions. As IE increases working people il/orlegal have less power to fight for fair work conditions, and if the goal is to reduce..what was it?...UB? then this is not the right direction to go in. IE- does not nec. mean SoL+, but extreme IE+ regimes always mean SoL-. for most people...not to mentn., an edu. middle class is good for democracy.
@OccupyIdeas 5) How about us taking on prices (wages), Supply- Demand Model? Historical use of forcing prices higher, or lower, than market prices? 1800 year ago price controls in Rome? Nixon`s price controls? Same stupidity, same results. Union power in achieving wage/ benefit packages above market? All attempts to ignore market prices result with same consequences, eventually. That is why "pay more" needs looking at. Why minimum wage is BAD. (unless you enjoy hurting poor people
@OccupyIdeas Let me sum up. The US DOES have income inequality, and it is BIGGER than Europe, in general. My point with the reasons is NOT to claim it doesnt exist, or is not bigger than Europe, but to completely disprove the lie that this is a growing problem, far greater than in the past. I also maintain, that greater income inequality in the US is GOOD. RESULTS are better, than in EU. EU has 60% more people, but only 5% more GDP. Wheres the other 55%? (hint: sleeping on the beach
@OccupyIdeas Earned Income tax credit max at $5600, Child tax credit is $1000, per kid. These credits arent just against your taxes, if you owe zero, it is paid out. But it isnt on 1040 as income. The advent of IRA`s , 401K`s also peel layers of income off middle class returns in a higher % than the rich (limited contributions). Krugman, CBO, & Piketty-Saez, all use income tax data. This MAXES income at the top, and MINIMIZES it at the bottom. 1, 2? I dont know why folks are stupid.
@luvcheney1 TY for the stats. Very interesting. So...if they have not taken these variables into account when producing their report... then the economists working at the CBO, in your estimation, are simply unqualified. This is difficult (though not impossible) to believe. You may in fact not be wrong, but your argument does seem to butt heads pretty violently against Occam's razor.
@OccupyIdeas Before the 80`s, S-corp income was very small, (s-corp gets taxed at personal INCOME tax rates), so regular C-Corp was where income for rich was more. ( Because, top personal tax rates were 70%, and corp was 46%). When Reagan cut personal tax rates to 50%, corp income could move to personal, and with itemized ded, etc, not much difference. So, Incomes of rich shoot up, but not really, its just moved, from one pile, to the next pile. As IF rich WONT think!
@nogodever1 haha didn't Newt say something recently akin to "if they quote me, they're lying." Oh, here it is: "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood." Actually, Romney should take this tact.
@xaiexperience no it is not it still results in high taxes when u eliminate a loophole like yesterday when the senate did not pass the tax breaks that middle america had they let them expire,,,,hence taxes go up then they can say 'we didn't raise taxes"
@electricguitarplayr on payroll taxes the rich are not on payrolls the loopholes he closed was eliminating credit card interest deductions and car interest deductions who pays those not millionaires.....u realize eliminating a deduction is raising taxes
That is the first time I can think of that someone put Reagan and Obama together on any issue. Kind of odd... Still, there seems to be plenty of talk about it, but when we look back at those conversations there still hasn't been any measure of success in passing those laws to even the field so that everyone pays their fair share. So where's the beef?!!
I love it when Republicans want to hate on me b/c Reagan raised taxes 7 times - like it's my fault he was an old school Republican who paid his bills. BTW, Republicans, he also wanted to end ALL nuclear development in the world, so was he a wimp too? Bring it, Corp whores.
@cheguevara1970 Ending the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union was his goal, something the left agreed with him on. He achieved it through strength, not by unilaterally laying down arms. In the end, personal rates ended far lower, SS higher, but then everyone knows demographics is killing the system, as did he. Nobody since had the balls to actually do anything about it.
@newschoolflavor it doesn't fit their version of the fairy tale they have manufactured about reagan.....truth is inconvenient if it interferes with ideology...
The top 1% (listen up occupiers), account for over 30% of the money the US receives in federal income tax. While many do find loopholes around it, the rich (definition varying) still pays the majority of income taxes, which goes towards benefits for other people, who just complain more about how little the rich are taxed. Not taking sides, because both sides in this argument are wrong...
@GameTubSite while that sounds pretty their incomes rose while everyone else went down and the rich do not pay income tax on payroll etc the most receive money from stocks and investments which were drastically reduced to a paltry 15+ % that is where most of their money comes from,
I just wish Ronald Reagan would have backed it up with action. I always liked him, but his presidency was a mixed bag. Secretaries, butlers and maids of the rich should not pay at a higher tax rate than their rich masters. It is time for Wall Street to take the people of this country seriously. Rome is burning right now, and you rich dogs caused it. Do something intelligent for once.
@ctownlegend88 Percentage-wise they do not pay less, dumbass. You can look up the tax code and see that people who make more are taxed at a higher rate. That is a fact that you want to constantly ignore in your envious rants against people who make more than you do.
It is where tax credits come in and the tax code in other areas where money is made that allows for people to make money at lower tax rates. Do you not understand this? Crony capitalism is something Obama has been a part of.
Waren Buffett stated that he pays 17%, and his secretary makes $60K. You can goto the IRS website an see that someone who makes $60K/year will pay a total tax rate of about 14%. Therefore when Obama says again and again that Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary he is a liar. Moreover, that 17% doesn't count the 35% corporate rate on the 30% of Berkshire Hathaway that Buffett owns.
@pattreid Warren Buffet is a liar (he's too smart to be just wrong on this), you can look it up yourself on the irs website. He pays more than his secretary. Buffett said he pays 17%, he also said his secretary makes $60K. Even if she gets the minimum amount of deductions she only pays about 14%. Look it up yourself. 14 is less than 17, therefore Obama and Buffett are liars.
@buckeyemike81 ...as 65k a year phone man I DID the math with my own checks not including saving deductions and SS but I paid closer to 25-30% before end of year filing. BUFFET IS TELLING THE TRUTH, the liars are those who refuse to hear TRUTH even when it is biting them squarely on the ass.
@vetb882 You're either a liar or you need a new accountant. Here's the federal rates: 10% 0-8.5k, 15% 8.5k-34.5k, 25% 34.5k-83.6k So if you make 65k only 34,500 to 65k is taxed at 25%, but it's not even that much because of the standard deduction, so there is no way you could be paying 25-30% overall. It's amazing how terrible you liberals are at basic math.
The reason the income tax was implemented on American workers was to pay back the money the Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve. We are now 15 trillion dollars in debt. How can a Government that is in debt to a bunch of private bankers represent the people who elected them to office. WE ARE NO LONGER RULED BY LAW, WE ARE RULED BY MONEY
@smokescreen767 abosolutely correct, Google Rothschild conspiracy, it AINT a conspiracy, every war the world has been in since before napoleon has been instigated by these inbred swine who cause the war then fund BOTH sides of the conflict, making themselves richer by the minute.
@williejenkins666 Awww, did I touch a nerve w/ your hero, Reagan? Say it ain't so. LOL!!! And wishing me death?? Even funnier. We all will die sooner or later, Willie, just like Reagan & Che.
@cheguevara1970 You didn't say anything about Reagan, dipshit. You accused anyone of disliking this video of bieng a "corporate ass" when in fact they are simply not being moronic sheep.
Since you use the name of one dirtbag known as Che Guevara who got blown away in the jungles of Bolivia, I just said I hope you get yours the same way. Don't you want to die like your hero? OH yeah - you are a coward.
The question is, with the reference of the rich paying lower rates than the middle class, is this based on actual income or capital gains? Which one was Reagan referencing? Which was Obama referencing? If it's neglecting capital gains and calling it unfair, it's just another bumper sticker message to make the ignorant get pissed.
The statistics are completely misleading and have been cherry picked to suit the slant of the left. Obama's plan does not work the way he describes because he is an idiot.
Obama is lying as usual. He doesn't even have a plan. He makes it up as he goes and he says whatever you want to hear. Republicans pay the taxes and Republicans think they should be used to take care of the needy, not the Greedy. And surely not you in your mommy's basement when it can be going to the blind guy. If a Liberal cared a squat they would produce something or get a job and contribute- but they do not. They just whine about their own incompetence`
@play2k2000 The President does have a plan and it was actually voted on in the senate like a week ago. I guess fox news doesn't like to report on this kind of stuff. Meh.
@earth200 "Top tax rate under most of Reagan's term was 50%. "
What's the source for that ? Das Kapital ? Tax rates under Reagan were reduced multiple times with the Tax Reform Act (1986) reducing it to 28%. Oh, and under Jimmuh the top marginal rate was north of 75%. And that 35% we see today is *after* the Bush tax cuts following Clinton's tax increases.
This political bull shit is nothing but just that. BULL SHIT. how the hell does obama think hes gona do that?? OHHHH thats right! he's not.... The rich DO pay more than the poor already. about 35 % of the top 10%s income goes to taxes. Its true. The top 10 percent pay 90% of the taxes. our government is bought by corporations and ran by politicians. Of which, by profession, KNOW how to make what they are saying sound genuine and interesting to those who they are presenting to.That's not good.
@stourleyk Yea. However, if what i just said is true It would be so much easier to determine ones taxes by using a mathematical equation. That one equation could determine how much taxes Every one has to pay. AND there should only be an income tax. Taxing food is what makes poor people live in poverty. To wrap it up the equation would make it so poor people pay less taxes if any depend on their ability to Pay it. The rich and richer would be taxed increasing at a reasonable and fair rate.
Well duh, Obama's speech writers are just copying other speeches. But the point is, when Reagan said he he was saying it for decades and it was part of his policy. When Obama says it, he doesn't even know what he's saying. He just reads it because his controllers tell him to read it to get elected. Its like when he bailed out the banks and they didn't help anyone or when he bailed out car companies and they didn't help anyone. You can't just talk the talk...you have to walk the walk.
Ramubay 11 hours ago
just so everyone understands this: paying more taxes is not the same as having a higher tax rate, just in case you missed that day in 6th-grade math class. welcome to costco, i love you.
gonzobrains 19 hours ago
Who cares what Obama says anymore? He has lied to us since before becoming president. He promised to cut the national debt with "no more deficit spending." Remember? Why does his wife have a staff of 22 that costs taxpayers $1.5 million last year? In case we weren't paying attention, Obama IS a millionaire. His adjusted gross income last year (with book sales) was $1.7 MILLION. I don't believe ANYTHING that falls out of his or Nancy Pelosi's mouth....or ANY politician for that matter.
alekscourt 1 day ago 2
@alekscourt that has nothing to do with Obama. it has to do with the republicans not allowing him to do those things. learn your facts before your opinions.
asidemobilestudio 22 hours ago
Grover Norquist made 45 YT accounts to dislike this video.
MsZeitgeist85 6 days ago 4
@MsZeitgeist85 LOL Yeah, and i guess this makes Ronnie a socialist run for the hills, Ronnie is a red, Ronnie is a red :D
whedonfreak976 6 days ago
Why should workers saccerfice so much of their life energy just so the 1% can have all the profits and works are not even paid enough to buy a home or feed their kids and keep their family safe, and save for the future??? Only jobs pay minimum wage no one can live on minimum wage.
MrJapper88 1 week ago
By "fair share" did they mean progressive tax or flat tax?
CandidateRyanHidalgo 2 weeks ago
Who would have thought President Obama is a Reaganite?
ottomarcos 2 weeks ago
@ottomarcos He doesnt, his point is that even reagan who republicans praise also beleived that the rich werent paying enough and were shitting on the middle and lower class.
awesomesauceiness 20 hours ago
loopholes are different than progressive tax rates. Get a clue.
jlhoagn 3 weeks ago
REAGAN NOT ONE TIME SAID TO RAISE THE TAXES ON THE RICH, BUT TO CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES. OBAMA STATES THAT THE RICH SHOULD PAY MORE....
ckernan 4 weeks ago
@ckernan By closing loopholes which the rich use to shield income from taxes, it would make the rich pay more taxes, exactly what Obama is proposing.
meyersd66 3 weeks ago 2
@meyersd66 thats insane logic you have
sabreyow 2 weeks ago
@ckernan So when Reagen asked the crowed if a Millionaire should pay less or more then a bus driver?
torg1 3 weeks ago
@ckernan And by closing the loopholes, they would pay more. What is your point? Do you even have one or has Faux broadcasting not taken you to that level yet?
maryp1217 2 weeks ago 3
@ckernan He didn't say it, but he did it.
xsiveone 2 weeks ago
Shows how far right the republicans are these days.
PBezuhkovIII 4 weeks ago 2
If Reagan said this today he'd be accused of being a socialist who is igniting class warfare against the hard working and productive
wangsta25 1 month ago 19
@wangsta25 If Reagan actually meant what he said, his party might play the class warfare card; however, he lowered taxes on the rich, just like his protege G.W. Bush did.
heathdwatts 2 weeks ago
Well...I'm happy for all 44 of ya'll millionaires and billionaires who watched this video and disliked it.
MyEbo1 1 month ago 19
Arizona tried passing a flat state income tax. An Arizona newspaper worked out the numbers that the flat tax would wind up raising taxes on the bottom 88% of Arizonans. I don't understand how the Republicans can talk about how much they hate taxes, but how badly they want to raise taxes on a vast majority of Americans.
sirscrotum 1 month ago
I remember when Reagan's policies were far right and scary and how much I disliked him. This country really HAS swung further to the right over the last 30 years!
imabimbo66 1 month ago
This just shows us the hypocrisy of the GOP...Thanks Ronnie and Thanks Obama!!!!
toddnterr1 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I will do ANYTHING for 500 000 Dollar! ANYTHING FOR A WEEK!!! Please Contact me if you are not poor.. Need to save my dads life!!! eliasdiet@hotmail.no Please if you are rich and want to help me!
elidie123 1 month ago
#1)Now, some Republicans in Congress, they’re already dusting off the old — their old records. “That’s class warfare.” Let me tell you something, 26 years ago — some of you may have seen this on television, clips have been circulating — 26 years ago, another President said that some of these tax loopholes, and I quote, “made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. It’s time we stopped it.”
imaginarythings 1 month ago
@imaginarythings #2) You know the name of that President? It was Pres.Ronald Reagan. “So was that class warfare? By the way, taxes are much lower now than they ever were when Ronald Reagan was President. I know a lot of folks have short memories, but I don’t remember Republicans accusing Ronald Reagan of being a socialist — (laughter) — or engaging in class warfare, because he thought that everybody should do their fair share.”
imaginarythings 1 month ago
@imaginarythings #3)
Obama is being more than a little dishonest here. Yes, Reagan wanted to end tax deductions. But it was part of an overall strategy to simplify the tax code, lower tax rates and broaden the tax base. The result was actually less tax burden for most Americans, and increasing tax revenues.
What Obama is proposing is just straight tax hikes with no corresponding rate reductions. This is exactly the sort of thing Reagan would have opposed.
imaginarythings 1 month ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 1 month ago
Comment removed
imaginarythings 1 month ago
@imaginarythings Which is exactly what we need... a straight across the board no loopholes tax, such as 10% for all no matter how much you make is they fairest way for everyone.
MsStevil 1 month ago
@MsStevil What do you think about the "Fair Tax"?
imaginarythings 1 month ago
@imaginarythings The most fair tax would be a 100% estate tax combined with an elimination or great reduction of the income tax. That way folks would be able to keep what they earned but not pass it on to others who didn't earn the wealth. Lots of technical problems with that, but it's clearly the most fair.
bigapplebucky 1 month ago
@MsStevil Low income Americans are more likely to use 100% of their income on living expenses, a flat 10% tax on them would place a heavy tax burden. On the contrary, you would lower Mitt Romneys taxes by 33.3% if you enacted a 10% flat tax. With such a vast wealth disparity in this country, your flat 10% tax would be highly regressive, unfavorable to the bottom 70% or so of AMericans, and highly favorable to the wealthiest 1%
sirscrotum 1 month ago
@sirscrotum I agree, and it would only get worse as the value of the dollar decreases and cost of living expenses continue to rise. Just doesn't make any sense.
gaozhi2007 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!!!
B0vee 1 month ago in playlist Hot Political Videos (10/5/2011)
They all talk the talk, but so far - nobody has actually done this.
dmcavalier 1 month ago
OMG....Reagan was a SOCIALIST!!!
GeorgiaKev 1 month ago
hotmail.no
elidie123 2 months ago
I will do anything u want for ANYTHING for 300 000 dollar! contact eliasdiet@hotmail.com if u need a job done!
elidie123 2 months ago
wow youtube is big and i run into luvcheney1 again randomly...i guess youtube isn't that big
DanKreiger 2 months ago
Liberal Mind: Obama can't be wrong and Reagan was never right.
Conservative Mind: Obama can't be right and Reagan was never wrong.
Watching this Video: core meltdown commencing......
ThePureEast 2 months ago
This douchebag was nothing but a corporate sucking leach! Both him and his shitbag wife were latched on to big pharmas nutsack!
~
I hope the point of this video was to put two of the biggest pieces of shit in the same 59 seconds? If it was, then congratulations!
XxTheTimeIsNOWxX 2 months ago
I'm from Poland and I'm not quite sure if Reagan was our president in 1985...{joke} And question: higher taxes in percent? If millioners pay the same tax rate in percent like others they still pay more in $ : 10%x10000000000 > 10%x10000 Cheers.
manwithscaronpinkey 2 months ago
So basically...Regan never closed those loopholes since Obama wants to still close them....or are they new loopholes?.....lol....and in 30 years still another politician will want to close those loopholes....
Different Politicians, same old bulshit.
Sept11Discovery 2 months ago 2
Soooooo.............................. since Reagan is the "Messiah" of the conservative movement if you will, how can such things come from his lips? Its sacrilege talking about the sacred taxes of the uber rich!!!!!!!!!! Grover Norquist just slit his wrist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank God!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ryalsboy85 2 months ago
@ryalsboy85 Reagan did what he said he would do. Increased the SHARE of tax revenue paid by the rich. This was accomplished by reducing the tax rates. Higher tax RATES do not necessarily result in more tax revenue.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 Trickle down Voodoo fantasy!
kendrechsel 2 months ago
I say one thing like the nazis democrats are very good at propaganda and changing the past
yagermeister1 2 months ago
@yagermeister1 Can you expand on this?
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I will. From "Congress Of the United States, Joint Economic Committee", April 1996, "The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988." Reduced tax Rates, stopping some loopholes, increased share of tax revenue paid by rich, reduced it on poorest.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 Reagan was in favor of broadening the tax base and eliminating loopholes (one of the reasons he grew the IRS substantially). What are you contending? That poor people did better under Reagan? 1980-1990 - top 1% wages increase 80%, bottom 90% increase 3%. Bottom 20% of American families' income shrunk 4.4%. 1989 income gap biggest since 1947. This helps explain some of your tax burden figures.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas No source, but I will make a general statement about this kind of comparison. They come from IRS form 1040`s, & "income" in the lower quintiles doesnt include In- kind transfers of money (safety net, welfare, medicaid, etc). Their incomes are FAR higher than calculated. Top personal rate was 70%, went to 50% close to corp rate of 46% at the time. This tax shift shifted income onto personal 1040`s, off of corp expenses, as Perks change into income. See post 2)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OccupyIdeas No source, but I will make a general statement about this kind of comparison. They come from IRS form 1040`s, & "income" in the lower quintiles doesnt include In- kind transfers of money (safety net, welfare, medicaid, etc). Their incomes are FAR higher than calculated. Top personal rate was 70%, went to 50% close to corp rate of 46% at the time. This tax shift shifted income onto personal 1040`s, off of corp expenses, as Perks change into income. See post 2)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas So perks of higher income people were sheltered on corp income tax forms, because of high personal rates (better to pay corp rate of 46%, than 70% personal), but when top personal rate went to 50%, its a toss up, and execs prefer it be wages, that perks. These factor then overstate income of rich, understate incomes of poor, and thus are fucking bullshit. I know everyone buys this nonsense, but nonsense it is. Income inequality is no worse than it ever was.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 So, according to this logic, when the CBO comes out with a report on income inequality, they're either 1) not good enough economists to measure income correctly, 2) not nonpartisan, even though both dems and reps say they are? As scientists and social scientists we enjoy our discussions with you because we WANT to be proved wrong, and you gen have stats to support your positions. Please let us know whether number 1 or 2 (or both) is the case here.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas CBO backtracked on ObamaCare shortly after its initial estimates of the 10 yr cost, adjusting it by around $100 bill, within a year. CBO estimated during Clinton Admin that his cut on the Capital Gains tax rate would generate $8 bill more revenue, in the next 4 years, but the result was almost $80 bill more revenue, from cutting Cap Gains from 28% to 20%. As for being a scientist, please note AGAIN, you wont debate the logic. You routinely will not either. See post 2
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 You're comparing CBO projections here to the CBO report. CBO estimates, like many other finance estimates, are routinely wrong. The October CBO report, however, was not a projection. Why would you use these in your argument? It doesn't make sense. You're usually more on top of it! :)
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I see your point, but the issue here was of your making, that is, that the CBO is qualified. Everyone cites CBO about ObamaCare, I would enjoy thrashing the shit out of their estimates there. Everyone knows it is all pure lies. The main problem with estimates of income inequality is the impossibility to exactly estimate and back on out the extra income of the rich, from the tax policy changes, as well as adding onto the incomes of the poor credits, safety net incomes
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 We're not citing any CBO estimates because noone makes good estimates. But isn;t this qualitatively different? An estimate is an unknown. This was simply a report on known figures. We completely agree with you: any adequate report of income inequality would have to measure those variables you articulated. That makes sense. We're just not sure tht 1) the CBO did not take those into account in their report; 2) that you or we really know better than them how to measure income inequality
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (2) Though, as we said, we would not rule that out. It's possible they are incompetant. It just doesn't seem likely. Please expand on your last point: that greater income inequality is good. And if you can, please use more corralative values than US v Europe pop/GDP. As you know, GDP is the outcome of an equation with 1000's of independent AND dependent variables, so any arg about 1 of those and its putative effect is lacking. like when dems argue...
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 3)...like when dems argue that Clinton was responsible for the economic boom of the 90s. We never understand why they do that. Economic growth / stagnation is the result of many things, executive policy being but one. (BTW, if you don't have more correlative values (or whatever the hell term it was we used), no worries. If brilliant economists Left and Right cannot come to a concensus, we may not either:) (even among our small group here in Oakland).
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Regarding the calculation of income inequality. The figures the left uses are NOT lies! The computation is not incompetence. The IRS is the definer of WHAT constitutes income, and also the source of the totals. So, math based on what IRS says is income, is true. CBO, and many folks, see the economy as static. Like, "If someone gets rich, we must be getting poor". And, "If we tax the rich more, they will pay more". Sorry, these views are common, but silly. see 2)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 2) If a group of rich has $1 Trillion income, and we raise tax rate on that group 5% higher, folks calculate another $50 billion in tax revenue. If we reduce taxes 5% on the group, they calculate a $50 billion loss of tax revenue. Now, with both top corp tax and top personal being 35%, any increases in personal tax rates will shift personal income back into corp income. But we have highest corp rate of OECD, any increase in corp shifts corp income OUT of the US. see 3)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 3) before you say corps pay 17%, not 35%, I am happy to destroy this at a future time, but suffice it to say that economy is NOT static! The changes i outlined earlier, cause income as defined by IRS to understate lower incomes ( relative to the past), and overstate upper ( relative to the past). No lies, miscalculations, its a definition problem. WE know why. Everyone blames Wall st. Everyone thinks rich are at fault. Everyone thinks income inequality growing. see 4)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 4) do you really think that everybody knows what is happening? The truth? Do you believe that the media knows? I watch media right wing, and some left, but the truth about so many issues is seen by neither. Most people, in and out of media are in the dark. What is the issue of today? EU bailouts. Save Europe, print money. Fed printing money, to save US. Everyone agrees! Everyone thinks printing money creates wealth? More debt cures debt? Everyone is stupid.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 5) Why income inequality is good. Bad decisions in life must have consequences. Good decisions in life must have consequences. If the consequences between positive behavior, and negative behavior are the same, why would hard work, long hours, the sacrifice of self denial to accumulate capital be worth it? Why not just sleep late, drink beer? Why incentivize bad behavior, punish the good? That is the way to reduce living standards.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (1) Givens: 1) total misery all the time for all humans is the ultimate bad (UB); 2) political and economic systems should be judged by the degree they provide distance from this UB. We think, given this, that you're painting yourself into an untenable position with your income inequality=good argument. 1) In countries where IE is greatest, UB is highest; 2) In IE+ nations people are lucky to work. If they do not, there is no safety net; they and their whole family simply starves...
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 2)...So, people in IE+ nations work harder, longer, in less safe conditions, for less $. Other than staving off starvation, their good behavior is not "incentivized." They are the "good" in your equation, and they are punished. And this has been going on for some time now, at least since the 1st indus. rev. provided the means and motive for colonialist ventures.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas The GINI Coefficient is a measure of income inequality widely used. You can get world maps of it. "Equality" doesnt correlate exactly to living standards. US and Mexico in same range, yet obvious wide differences in living standards. Iran, Libya, Russia rated higher too than US! EU area higher, but lower productivity GDP PPP. I maintain inequality is a good thing. Ultimate Bad, ( misery, "UB") ( I like this wording of yours!) is something we want distance from. next 2
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 2) If a nation strives for very high equality, through redistribution of wealth, it may end up more equal. But it does so at a cost. This is so obvious as to seem silly to warrant an explanation of it. At low end, paying unemployment ( and other safety net) enables folks to not take $300 week jobs. So those jobs filled by illegals (11.5 million NOW). Economy supports illegals AND safety net folks, when some degree of reducing safety net would have kept illegals OUT.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 3) "Good" intentions in providing safety net put the illegals into our economy, in addition to the rest of us, an extra, unnecessary burden. In 40 yrs of working with, and hiring illegals (legally), I assure you I have seen many hundreds of illegals making $500 wk in a couple months, and $900 wk in 4 yrs. No English at arrival, 5th grade educations. NO possessions! ANY able bodied person can be median household income, in 4 yrs, without language, or education.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 4) So while illegals find work, move on up the economic ladder, into the 3rd quintile mostly, after 4 or 5 yrs, we have generations of folks in our inner cities, who live under Govt support. Occupiers, convinced there are no opportunities! Today! I had major back surgery 2 yrs ago. No unemployment, MediCaid, disability, as I was self employed, ineligible. Our tiny business bad, from economy. 6 months ago, better finally, I looked for work, hired in 3 DAYS! next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 5) How? I sold cars. The job means some nights, till 9PM, and every other weekend, 9am-9pm, Fri, sat, sun. We have HUGE electric sign on a major FWY, in CALIF, for salespeople, and nobody applies! I saw 4 people apply, in 5 months! The POINT? People will NOT take existing jobs that arent "perfect". I hired for 28 yrs, dont tell me they do. Used to be mostly Mex men dishwashers, cooks in fast food. Not now. Mex WOMEN. Why? Far higher pay for Mex men, in OTHER jobs. next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 6) Restaurant work cooks, bus people, dishwashers ALL were mostly men, now cooks 50% women, rest Mex women. Why? Too many BETTER jobs exist, for illegal Mex men. I know Mexican women bringing down $900 week, cooking 65 hrs week. The system we have, rewarding those who fail, causes the vacuum that sucks illegals into the US, to succeed, all the while politicians, Occupiers, media CLAIM there are NO JOBS. This is total bullshit.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 7) I`m way too long in my post, but I meant to show you how damaged the US is, because of "good" intentions. Both emotionally, and financially. How EVIL have the "good" intentions become! DESTROYING any incentive to work! Generation after generation totally CONVINCED any effort isnt worth the trouble! Meanwhile, thank GOD Illegals arent smart enough to KNOW work isnt worth the trouble! They just ask around, until they find one, and move up the ladder, drive a Ford truck
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 No worries. We like your longer posts. Entitlement is one problem, but it is drastically overstated by the right wing. Shouldn't people feel "entitled," however, to a fair wage for their labor. Your anecdotal info on illegals, while powerful and no doubt true, does not account for the fact that the great majority of illegals do not in fact move up into the middle class within one generation but instead remain a core body of the working poor. One reason for this?...the lack...
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Entitlement is NOT overstated. Once illegals BECOME legal, things change. Some families continue to move up, but becoming "legal" removes the "work or starve" situation, because legality means you become ENTITLED. The work ethic becomes diluted, and inner cities are FULL of an underclass of folks of Mex heritage too. What MAKES illegals self sufficient, compared to the legal underclass, is LACK of entitlements. Entitlements are a large REASON generational poverty exists
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 2) Fed Reserve study indicated 70% of the bottom 20% were able to move into a higher 20% bracket, over 9 yr period of the study. ( quintiles). Also it found that 15% of the bottom quintile had moved all the way to the top quintile. They also noted that the top quintile had rich moving lower as well, they are not necessarily able to stay there. US has high opportunities to rise easily. With proper behavior. next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 please guide us to that study. looks very interesting!
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas It isnt a study, it is just facts. "Supply Demand" model is just a simple graph of two axis, S&D, where they intersect, is "equilibrium", or market price. If price of labor is increased (wages), more people seek (demand)the job, and vice versa. If price of labor falls, business can hire more, if it rises, less. So, the graphs have different slopes, one up, one down,( like an X) but meet at center point. If you try to move the price up, or down, ( off equilibrium 2)next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 haha, no, you said: "Fed Reserve study indicated 70% of the bottom 20% were able to move into a higher 20% bracket, over 9 yr period of the study." Can you point us to the study? We thought it was interesting. No explanation required for S&D.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Obviously there IS a need for supply and demand understanding, on your part. Your views indicate it strongly! Or, are you are happy that the UAW has been gutted of membership? Those jobs and industry destroyed. I think you define "market" wages as a living wage, or somehow some wage you approve of. It isnt. Market may be millions a year, for a basketball star, movie star, and could be $7 hr for a cashier.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 These are all good points. We don't agree with your correlations, (ie UAW's fair wages caused UAW demise), and we've heard them before, but that does not mean that we don't take them into account as variables. as per price controls, we think you're confusing our conversation with the one you're having with srmailbox. We 1) asked for your fed study, not evidence of your S&D points, and 2) did not suggest price controls on the market.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas But you most certainly DO talk as if it is just a matter of Business paying more, and everything will work out better. 1st, corps will NOT pay over market voluntarily. So, you must MAKE them. How? Unions, or Obama using the FRLB to force Boeing into new union agreements, Force IS being used. As for UAW, OK, ignore it. Look at the total union members in US, over last 50 yrs. Jobs KILLED. Success for auto plants, in Right to work states. No bailout needed.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 2) and if you're up for it we'd welcome an article suggestion from you. 2) "Corps do not pay over market voluntarily." Corps do little voluntaurily. Strange arg. You'd have us go back to the working conditions we had before US Labor fought and died for regs? US auto died for many reasons. Choosing 1 like you did is below your normal arg standard. It'd be like us saying it died solely because Japan had a national healthcare system so Toyota didn't have to pay for worker health.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Toyota makes a hell of a lot of automobiles, profitably, in the US, with our present healthCare system. Note your mention of Krugman neglects to actually state a point. You keep a reasonable "tone" in your comments, but say little. I will increasingly call you out on each time you just dismiss an entire line of logic, with just Krugman"? I TOLD you the reasons i felt income inequality are exagerrated. You can disagree, but note you wont build a case.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 2) If labor wasnt the reason, and it was some other national reason, like our healthcare system, the US wouldnt have growing manufacture of automobiles anywhere in the US. But we do. And the remaining Big 3 corps are financial zombies, doomed to die. Ford survived bailouts, only because it had financial agreements finished, before credit dried up. Big 3 have massive retirement expenses, which eventually will be unpaid, or paid for by those who get less.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 3).Capital builds the stores, and factories, plants where jobs exist. Capital is put at risk, with eye toward % return, for risk. IF they are FORCED to pay over market, that return will be less, and value of the corp is contigent on profitablility. So, the corp is worth less, if profit is lower, the risk taking investor loses. Capital will look around, and move, to somewhere else, where profit is reasonable. GM became worth 50 cents, couldnt raise another nickel.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 4). So, you can FORCE WalMart to pay more, but there WILL be consequences. Namely, you destroy some of WM`s value. Capital will flow where it is happier. Another sector, another country. Or perhaps they can just pass the cost of the higher wages through, to customers. BUT, that doesnt make any net improvement in living standards overall. WM workers richer, by amount customers get poorer.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 5) so, after looking at Krugmans article, he never addresses the reasons my source claims he never addressed. I feel much better, now that I took the time to see why is isnt to be believed. Note you dont even say WHY his thoughts work. I gave you many before you even mentioned him, why the entire concept is absurd. AND, still comb over that dunces work, which is juvenile.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas part2) Google this, there are lots of differrent US Govt studies. "INCOME MOBILITY IN THE U.S.: EVIDENCE FROM INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR 1987 AND 1996 by Gerald E. Auten and Geoffrey Gee
U.S. Department of the Treasury"
I assume actual real world surpluses, and shortages from messing around with prices (wages) is of NO interest? Same issues, and same silly Govt responses now, and 1800 years ago? Same lack of following logic through, to see consequences?
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Part 3) from US Treasury, "Approximately half (61 percent by one measure and 45 percent by another measure) of the households initially in the bottom 20 percent of the population moved to a higher quintile within ten years. In addition, this study finds that the largest percentage increases in real incomes were for those initially in the lowest income groups"
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Part4) "Economic policies to reduce the growth of income inequality
may work, in part, through their effects on income mobility. Reducing income
mobility may reduce the rising trend in income inequality, but it could also increase inequality of longer-term income" CRS Report For Congress, April 4, 2008 Thomas L. Hungerford Specialist in Public Finance" Great, if govt makes people get stuck in a quintile, in the short run its better, but in the long run youre fucked. Ha
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 We like you "ha." We looked at R and Lwing articles on this. Your arg is reflected and expanded upon in the Rwing articles, but then it's refuted directly in the Lwing ones - and all of these have been written by intelligent people. We assume that, thoughyou disagree with him, you're not among those who think Krugman's an idiot. His article: "The Rich, the Right, and the Facts: Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate" really lays into some of the exact args you're making.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 5) Krugman, I went THROUGH the article. Feel free to review my past posts on the matter, I dont want to do it again. I can NOT find any references in his article to dispel the reasons for income shifting of the rich into personal, out of corp earnings from the reductions in personal rates. Nor 401K, Ira`s effects. Or the in-kind payments to lower classes, not counted as income. These items are the core of the argument.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 2) if you move price off of equilbrium, you now intersect the S&D lines at 2 points, not 1. This "gap" is either surplus, or shortage. The model indicates if you raise a price OVER market, you will have a surplus. In case of labor, that is unemployment. If you pay too little (under market), you cant get enough workers to work, a shortage. UAW succeeded in wage/benefit over market. Model suggests surplus, and UAW jobs fell, members far fewer today. see3)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 3) I really suggest strongly you google up a simple, S&D model graph, and play with it in your mind, using a commodity, such as corn, apples, etc. Labor, at least to me, was easier to confuse S&D at first. In 3rd Century, Emperor Diocletian made a law, "Edict on Prices", price control law, to attempt to stop inflation. 15,000% in 3rd century Rome! Massive shortages, fields not plowed, goods not coming, hoarding, frigging disaster. see 4)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 4) Nixon made price controls, I recall supermarkets with NO MEAT in the cases! They were removed before excessive damage, but left on OIL.I dont know your age, but surely you heard of the oil crisis`? US oil controlled in price, but people DEMANDED more oil that we made, so we had $27 US oil, and bought excess from Arabs, at $50! Stupid! Reagan decontrolled oil, Libs screamed, but price of oil FELL, until $9 in 1999. Oil "shortages" result then of price controls too. 5)
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 3) Note you dropped discussion of entitlements from govt ( indefensible, since paying people $300/wk to not work, importing illegals to do work those paid to stay home wont do). Now, the issue is to have business pay higher wages, to fix it. You fall prey to common problem. Easy to say, "pay more, business can just do with lower profits". This is idea with unions, minimum wages, etc. I ALSO want highest wages, and living standards for the poor & middle class! see next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 we didn't drop discussion of entitlements. you brought it up, not us, but we do feel the safety net is important. we DON'T need to ignore market prices to pay fair wages. we only need to reduce the distance between highest and lowest paid workers in these corporations, and we agree, this won't work if done nation by nation(unless nations can provide some other offsetting incentive for corp to stay, as some do), it has to be done on a much larger scale. It's not being done because...
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 the multinats have too much sway over govts. This clearly works to tthe detriment of all of us, since their 1st concern (per legal responsibility to their shareholders) is the bottom line and not env. or community (large or small) welfare. 2)The "thinking" does not stop there. Your thinking simply diverges from ours. Intelligent people have been debating this for quite some time. We could just as easily say "you fall prey to a common problem," believing the market to be a panacea.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 4) so you go on, why a middle class is good, etc. Lets raise living standards. How moral! Just pay more! The problem with this particular idea, and many other ideas is this: THINKING stops right here. Not very easy, and is a long, boring path to follow the trail of consequences of "just raising wages". Most wages set by market forces. You are unhappy with market wages. Me too! But I see consequences of ignoring the market price of labor. Ignore them, at your peril.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 part 2)..of good jobs (where good means living wages, safe conditions etc.) and the inability, due to their status, to organize for better conditions. As IE increases working people il/orlegal have less power to fight for fair work conditions, and if the goal is to reduce..what was it?...UB? then this is not the right direction to go in. IE- does not nec. mean SoL+, but extreme IE+ regimes always mean SoL-. for most people...not to mentn., an edu. middle class is good for democracy.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 5) How about us taking on prices (wages), Supply- Demand Model? Historical use of forcing prices higher, or lower, than market prices? 1800 year ago price controls in Rome? Nixon`s price controls? Same stupidity, same results. Union power in achieving wage/ benefit packages above market? All attempts to ignore market prices result with same consequences, eventually. That is why "pay more" needs looking at. Why minimum wage is BAD. (unless you enjoy hurting poor people
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Let me sum up. The US DOES have income inequality, and it is BIGGER than Europe, in general. My point with the reasons is NOT to claim it doesnt exist, or is not bigger than Europe, but to completely disprove the lie that this is a growing problem, far greater than in the past. I also maintain, that greater income inequality in the US is GOOD. RESULTS are better, than in EU. EU has 60% more people, but only 5% more GDP. Wheres the other 55%? (hint: sleeping on the beach
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Earned Income tax credit max at $5600, Child tax credit is $1000, per kid. These credits arent just against your taxes, if you owe zero, it is paid out. But it isnt on 1040 as income. The advent of IRA`s , 401K`s also peel layers of income off middle class returns in a higher % than the rich (limited contributions). Krugman, CBO, & Piketty-Saez, all use income tax data. This MAXES income at the top, and MINIMIZES it at the bottom. 1, 2? I dont know why folks are stupid.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 TY for the stats. Very interesting. So...if they have not taken these variables into account when producing their report... then the economists working at the CBO, in your estimation, are simply unqualified. This is difficult (though not impossible) to believe. You may in fact not be wrong, but your argument does seem to butt heads pretty violently against Occam's razor.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Before the 80`s, S-corp income was very small, (s-corp gets taxed at personal INCOME tax rates), so regular C-Corp was where income for rich was more. ( Because, top personal tax rates were 70%, and corp was 46%). When Reagan cut personal tax rates to 50%, corp income could move to personal, and with itemized ded, etc, not much difference. So, Incomes of rich shoot up, but not really, its just moved, from one pile, to the next pile. As IF rich WONT think!
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@yagermeister1 Um..thats Reagan SAYING IT!!!..How is that changing the past...he SAID IT!!!!
nogodever1 2 months ago
@nogodever1 haha didn't Newt say something recently akin to "if they quote me, they're lying." Oh, here it is: "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood." Actually, Romney should take this tact.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@xaiexperience no it is not it still results in high taxes when u eliminate a loophole like yesterday when the senate did not pass the tax breaks that middle america had they let them expire,,,,hence taxes go up then they can say 'we didn't raise taxes"
Laser4me 2 months ago
Reagan closed those loopholes but also lowed the top rate to 28%.
electricguitarplayr 2 months ago
@electricguitarplayr on payroll taxes the rich are not on payrolls the loopholes he closed was eliminating credit card interest deductions and car interest deductions who pays those not millionaires.....u realize eliminating a deduction is raising taxes
Laser4me 2 months ago
@Laser4me He also expanded the Earned Income Credit. And he cut the corporate tax as well.
electricguitarplayr 2 months ago
That is the first time I can think of that someone put Reagan and Obama together on any issue. Kind of odd... Still, there seems to be plenty of talk about it, but when we look back at those conversations there still hasn't been any measure of success in passing those laws to even the field so that everyone pays their fair share. So where's the beef?!!
dmcavalier 3 months ago
@xaiexperience Thanks for pointing that out. I wouldn't have noticed otherwise. Good, solid comment.
bradfleming88 3 months ago
I love it when Republicans want to hate on me b/c Reagan raised taxes 7 times - like it's my fault he was an old school Republican who paid his bills. BTW, Republicans, he also wanted to end ALL nuclear development in the world, so was he a wimp too? Bring it, Corp whores.
cheguevara1970 3 months ago 5
@cheguevara1970 Reagan also funded Contra death-camps in Nicaragua and then lied about it.
Grant691 3 months ago 7
@Grant691 He also moved coke here to the States via the Contras connection.
cheguevara1970 3 months ago 2
@Grant691 So?
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@cheguevara1970 Ending the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union was his goal, something the left agreed with him on. He achieved it through strength, not by unilaterally laying down arms. In the end, personal rates ended far lower, SS higher, but then everyone knows demographics is killing the system, as did he. Nobody since had the balls to actually do anything about it.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
If you have indoor plumbing and/or a car you are in the top 10% of the richest people in the world.
SacredSocietyAP 3 months ago
I'm wondering why I haven't seen any Neo-Con comments on this video?
newschoolflavor 3 months ago
@newschoolflavor it doesn't fit their version of the fairy tale they have manufactured about reagan.....truth is inconvenient if it interferes with ideology...
Mutedvox 3 months ago 3
@Mutedvox Truer words have never been spoken.
newschoolflavor 3 months ago
The top 1% (listen up occupiers), account for over 30% of the money the US receives in federal income tax. While many do find loopholes around it, the rich (definition varying) still pays the majority of income taxes, which goes towards benefits for other people, who just complain more about how little the rich are taxed. Not taking sides, because both sides in this argument are wrong...
GameTubSite 3 months ago in playlist Hot Political Videos (10/5/2011)
@GameTubSite while that sounds pretty their incomes rose while everyone else went down and the rich do not pay income tax on payroll etc the most receive money from stocks and investments which were drastically reduced to a paltry 15+ % that is where most of their money comes from,
Laser4me 2 months ago
I just wish Ronald Reagan would have backed it up with action. I always liked him, but his presidency was a mixed bag. Secretaries, butlers and maids of the rich should not pay at a higher tax rate than their rich masters. It is time for Wall Street to take the people of this country seriously. Rome is burning right now, and you rich dogs caused it. Do something intelligent for once.
Boelcke1919 4 months ago 2
There is a difference between tax loop holes and tax rates. There are few people for closing tax loop holes.
And if you think most millionaires pay less in taxes than a fucking bus driver or "Warren Buffett's Secretary", you need mental help.
williejenkins666 4 months ago
@williejenkins666 Percentage wise they do pay less. So you need help, moron.
ctownlegend88 3 months ago
@ctownlegend88 Percentage-wise they do not pay less, dumbass. You can look up the tax code and see that people who make more are taxed at a higher rate. That is a fact that you want to constantly ignore in your envious rants against people who make more than you do.
It is where tax credits come in and the tax code in other areas where money is made that allows for people to make money at lower tax rates. Do you not understand this? Crony capitalism is something Obama has been a part of.
williejenkins666 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Youtube search:
"Fiat currency explained"
and
"The federal reserve explained"
AnotherNutJob 4 months ago
Waren Buffett stated that he pays 17%, and his secretary makes $60K. You can goto the IRS website an see that someone who makes $60K/year will pay a total tax rate of about 14%. Therefore when Obama says again and again that Warren Buffet pays less tax than his secretary he is a liar. Moreover, that 17% doesn't count the 35% corporate rate on the 30% of Berkshire Hathaway that Buffett owns.
buckeyemike81 4 months ago
@buckeyemike81 WARREN BUFFET said that he pays less in taxes than his secretary. Hate on Obama if you wish, but keep your facts straight.
pattreid 4 months ago
@pattreid Warren Buffet is a liar (he's too smart to be just wrong on this), you can look it up yourself on the irs website. He pays more than his secretary. Buffett said he pays 17%, he also said his secretary makes $60K. Even if she gets the minimum amount of deductions she only pays about 14%. Look it up yourself. 14 is less than 17, therefore Obama and Buffett are liars.
buckeyemike81 4 months ago
@buckeyemike81 obviously he pays MORE than his secretary, they are talking about percentages, not sheer number of dollars. :-)
vetb882 4 months ago
@buckeyemike81 ...as 65k a year phone man I DID the math with my own checks not including saving deductions and SS but I paid closer to 25-30% before end of year filing. BUFFET IS TELLING THE TRUTH, the liars are those who refuse to hear TRUTH even when it is biting them squarely on the ass.
vetb882 4 months ago
@vetb882 You're either a liar or you need a new accountant. Here's the federal rates: 10% 0-8.5k, 15% 8.5k-34.5k, 25% 34.5k-83.6k So if you make 65k only 34,500 to 65k is taxed at 25%, but it's not even that much because of the standard deduction, so there is no way you could be paying 25-30% overall. It's amazing how terrible you liberals are at basic math.
buckeyemike81 4 months ago
The reason the income tax was implemented on American workers was to pay back the money the Government borrowed from the Federal Reserve. We are now 15 trillion dollars in debt. How can a Government that is in debt to a bunch of private bankers represent the people who elected them to office. WE ARE NO LONGER RULED BY LAW, WE ARE RULED BY MONEY
smokescreen767 4 months ago 2
@smokescreen767 abosolutely correct, Google Rothschild conspiracy, it AINT a conspiracy, every war the world has been in since before napoleon has been instigated by these inbred swine who cause the war then fund BOTH sides of the conflict, making themselves richer by the minute.
vetb882 4 months ago
None of this changes the fact that all federal reserve notes are fiat, created out of thin air.
AnotherNutJob 4 months ago
38 ppl love to suck Corporate ass. Wipe your nose.
cheguevara1970 4 months ago 13
@cheguevara1970 I hope you end up like your pal Che.
williejenkins666 3 months ago
@williejenkins666 Awww, did I touch a nerve w/ your hero, Reagan? Say it ain't so. LOL!!! And wishing me death?? Even funnier. We all will die sooner or later, Willie, just like Reagan & Che.
BTW, was Reagan a Commie? ;-)
cheguevara1970 3 months ago 2
@cheguevara1970 You didn't say anything about Reagan, dipshit. You accused anyone of disliking this video of bieng a "corporate ass" when in fact they are simply not being moronic sheep.
Since you use the name of one dirtbag known as Che Guevara who got blown away in the jungles of Bolivia, I just said I hope you get yours the same way. Don't you want to die like your hero? OH yeah - you are a coward.
williejenkins666 3 months ago
The question is, with the reference of the rich paying lower rates than the middle class, is this based on actual income or capital gains? Which one was Reagan referencing? Which was Obama referencing? If it's neglecting capital gains and calling it unfair, it's just another bumper sticker message to make the ignorant get pissed.
eldiceuf 4 months ago
The statistics are completely misleading and have been cherry picked to suit the slant of the left. Obama's plan does not work the way he describes because he is an idiot.
Remer76 4 months ago
@Remer76 Why don't you tell us what his plan is? You can't. You are just an anti Obama repigilican troll.
Would you agree that the banks and wall street have forced us into this economic nightmare?
Would you agree that a republican congress (Phil Gramm) was responsible for getting rid of Glass-Stegal which
is why we are in this mess?
Fi10Gale 4 months ago
Obama is lying as usual. He doesn't even have a plan. He makes it up as he goes and he says whatever you want to hear. Republicans pay the taxes and Republicans think they should be used to take care of the needy, not the Greedy. And surely not you in your mommy's basement when it can be going to the blind guy. If a Liberal cared a squat they would produce something or get a job and contribute- but they do not. They just whine about their own incompetence`
play2k2000 4 months ago
@play2k2000 The President does have a plan and it was actually voted on in the senate like a week ago. I guess fox news doesn't like to report on this kind of stuff. Meh.
Sp0ilTheFun 4 months ago 2
How much is "fair share"? the age old question, which is seems just an opinion. Fair share may range from 0% to 100%. It's opinion.
fabes0011 4 months ago
@fabes0011 He's talking about the 1990 rates, which would be ~39.5%. Or something lower, I forgot the exact figure.
Sp0ilTheFun 4 months ago
your all morons. P O L I T I C S. If you think it's more than that get your head out of your ass.
georgew3wire 4 months ago
@georgew3wire I love it when a right wing English major makes such eloquent posts.
Fi10Gale 4 months ago
@earth200 "Top tax rate under most of Reagan's term was 50%. "
What's the source for that ? Das Kapital ? Tax rates under Reagan were reduced multiple times with the Tax Reform Act (1986) reducing it to 28%. Oh, and under Jimmuh the top marginal rate was north of 75%. And that 35% we see today is *after* the Bush tax cuts following Clinton's tax increases.
DoubleGauss 4 months ago
and Regan was a republican. So you see, democrat and republican same fucking shit!! Vote Ron Paul
757bobwhite 4 months ago
I shouldn't be accused of class warfare when I say I think billionaires should pay slightly more than they do.
joshuaoha 4 months ago
This political bull shit is nothing but just that. BULL SHIT. how the hell does obama think hes gona do that?? OHHHH thats right! he's not.... The rich DO pay more than the poor already. about 35 % of the top 10%s income goes to taxes. Its true. The top 10 percent pay 90% of the taxes. our government is bought by corporations and ran by politicians. Of which, by profession, KNOW how to make what they are saying sound genuine and interesting to those who they are presenting to.That's not good.
enlightenmentation 4 months ago
@enlightenmentation The discussion is about rate, not absolute value.
stourleyk 4 months ago
@stourleyk Yea. However, if what i just said is true It would be so much easier to determine ones taxes by using a mathematical equation. That one equation could determine how much taxes Every one has to pay. AND there should only be an income tax. Taxing food is what makes poor people live in poverty. To wrap it up the equation would make it so poor people pay less taxes if any depend on their ability to Pay it. The rich and richer would be taxed increasing at a reasonable and fair rate.
enlightenmentation 4 months ago