Where did I say a % was 28? Why not lower income rate to match capital gains? Why is my income earned taxed at a higher rate? Would it not be better served in my pocket? Why should we get a tax credit for losing money on a house? Do I get a credit if my income goes from 100,000 to 75,000?
Kinda like what Romney is proposing. Lowering taxes across the board. I like it:D But he is suggesting leaving capital gain for the rich as is and eliminating it for the middle class. I like that even more. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
You didn't put money into your job and lose it, you had a reduction on future earnings by getting a paycut. Paying 200k and gettin back 175k is much different and you know it. Its easy to make rich people out to be the bad guys, but what about someone with 50k in total assets trying to invest? You cool with them paying much more too? Vendettas mindset of class hate is exactly the problem with America today IMO and I'm not sure it can be reversed as wide spread as it is.
Good luck Cooter! My only "debate" at that point will be internal. Bring on the cold mornings and cruising bucks!!!!
Alright Finch! Mine begins Nov 1st. I will be the happiest man alive when I can slip off in the darkness into some remote area for an entire day. I have not had a vacation since November of 2010.
I'm begrudging him because he makes money on investements? No, I don't begrudge him. I'd love to be in his position. If I were, I'd still hold the sentiment that the rich can afford to contribute more towards this country.. why? Because I believe we're a nation, for the people, by the people. Not a "every man for himself" piece of land where if you do well it doesn't matter how the rest of country does. Maybe it's just me being naive for thinking that coming together as a nation means contributing to the greater good, and for those more able, they should be more willing. If I made $10mil a year, or even $1mil a year, I wouldn't care if half went to taxes, because I can live really nice on $500k a year. If my $500k would mean that more kids got quality education, that our roads were in good condition, that our country was being protected, that our bridges were safe, that our public service industries were available to those in need (such as police and fire dept) all while being productive as a nation, I'm all for it. Class hate? Where exactly do you get that from? Because I believe that the rich can afford (and they CAN) to pay more towards putting this country right? Again, as I've said before, rich do not spend their money, they save it. The republican spin word is Job creators, but what are the jobs he's creating? Why must I be a class-ist because I simply believe that the rich can afford to pay more so that the middle don't have to suffer? Do you deny that they can afford it? Or is it that you think they just shouldn't have to care about America because they're rich? Or is it that you think the middle do nothing for our country? If any class hate is being spread on this board it's the hate towards the 47% as labelled by Romney. This board continually speaks of how the unemployed are lazy, and just want a check. While that does exist, it's not 47%. People rely on government because they have to, not because they want to. Believe it or not most people want to work. But, even as the rich have seen their wealth increase over the years, the job creators aren't creating jobs. They're sending them to where the cheap labor is to make more money. Why, because money is what rules them. Profit is the name of the game. This is why I don't think a "businessman" is the right person for president. The United States of America is NOT a business, it's a country.
Ever been to a social security building? Ever worked a free health clinic downtown in a major city? Your views are so out of touch with reality I often wonder if you (or other liberals for that matter) have ever even been in contact with these people in "need". I likely won't ever be rich or wealthy, but if I do I sure hope I don't have a government taking 50% of my money to give to charity as they see fit when I could very well do the same with my own money and put it to use as I see fit. Can the wealthy live more like us and contribute more? Sure they COULD, but why on earth should they? Because they have what we don't have? They worked hard, sacrificed, and gambled to be in the position they are in. Kudos to them, hopefully the businesses they own will hire me some day. As for unemployed people being lazy.. IDK if they all are, I just DO know that I have yet to be to a town where no work was available. On the flip side, nearly EVERYWHERE I go it is more profitable to NOT work than to take the majority of jobs available, and that is messed up.
Sorry, very late... The argument goes something like this...the tax basis for the investment was already taxes at the ordinary income rate (either payroll withholdings for pay or fair vaue for stock awards). By nature of an investment, the company/government/entity of the investment (e.g Acme inc for stock; Michigan for a bond) secures $ instead of borrowing from a financial institution. Dividends or gains from the investment are your reward for investing. Why then is interest, a parallel 'reward' for investment, taxed at ordinary rates when dividends or capital appreciation taxed at a lower rate? Again, the argument is there was economic growth or public benefit which while noble, also provided some real/tangible benefit to either produce more economic benefit (a factory was built, business expanded which will generate more widgits and employ more workers) or for the public good (a municipal water supply, a sewer so more folks can live/work in a community). Loosely, the argument is it fuels the economic engines. Well, the laymans argument is: if more is being produced outside the country now than in the past, you're actually benefitting the foreign entities that produced the goods/services. But aren't finished goods and services taxed anyway prior to being sold? And don't the profits first need to pay expenses for manufacturing them like raw materials, taxes for the company oh and labor before the company benefits and eventually expand? And why should the wealthy or those with more income, pay (proportionately) more taxes anyway? Its really an ethics based argument. Though with the convoluted tax system, the wealthy can and do leverage the tax breaks and opportunities, which are legally provided and available. Playing by the tax rules really does nothing to benefit the economy or for the argument, short of the fed has to close the $16.2T (and growing) spending problem...which is a bipartisan problem and was created by both parties over the years.
My Argument is Ronald Reagan said income is income, we all know Ronnie could do no wrong.:D Good points by all thanks
I forgot you know it all. Sorry. I'll go talk to the people I know that are making $500k+ a year. Surprisingly, most of them get it more than you.
Gary is right about one thing, Ronald Regan was a great president. He loved this country and the people that make it great. That being said this thread clearly shows what is wrong with America today, the finger pointing from both sides shows the ignorance we have about the Constitution, the bill of rights and the very roll the government should play in our every day lives. For any one to believe that the government is the solution to problems means that they don't realize that the government is not in place to solve anyones problems. The freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were written to allow you the freedoms to solve your own problems, to allow you the freedoms to create your own wealth and the freedoms to seek out and find happiness with out the threat of government intervention. To many Americans have lost the drive and convictions to climb above mediocrity and obtain a better life style for them selves and their families, to many look to government as the answer to their very own short comings, the availability of education and the opportunities that education avails to all Americans is the key to prosperity. Ignorance is plague that destroys an individuals path to prosperity, and this thread is a great example of the blissful ignorance that todays America has become. For America to once again become great Americans need to look into a mirror and see greatness, no one else can change your life if you don't see the change in your self, and if you think that change is going to happen because of who is in the white house you are a member of the growing class of the blissfully ignorant.
This is the best political post I have ever seen.... thank you for ***** slapping the cult mentality that is so prevalent in America's political parties and kool-aid drinkers that follow them..... Now ....everyone .... get out there and KILL!!!
He governed in a different time. The average middle class citizen at the time wasn't an investor. He was a great president, but not perfect. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
IMHO, revenue and spending need to be addressed and for this particular topic, I think one of the two candidates is better equipped than the other. I hear elements of the following in Romney's thinking and as I've heard some allude to this, I'll tee it up... What's wrong with a flat tax like model? A la, if some/most deductions/credits were reduced/eliminated for individuals and companies, and there was a flat (or even a slightly graduated income tax rate), what's wrong with this approach? Coupled with the above would be some fixed rate of tax, (presumably ~15-20% for individuals and something less than the 39% corporate); though the #s themselves aren't the point.
