One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
up.
Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
analysis.
The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
$920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
the next ten years.
> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
> up.
> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
> analysis.
> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
> the next ten years.
The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
entitlement.
>> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
>> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
>> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
>> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
>> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
>> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
>> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
>> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
>> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
>> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
>> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
>> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
>> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
>> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
>> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
>> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
>> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
>> up.
>> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
>> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
>> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
>> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
>> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
>> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
>> analysis.
>> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
>> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
>> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
>> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
>> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
>> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
>> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
>> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
>> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
>> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
>> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
>> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
>> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
>> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
>> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
>> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
>> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
>> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
>> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
>> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
>> the next ten years.
> The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
> entitlement.
No no, you are putting it all wrong.
"People are entitled to keep their money."
Now, of course, they use resources that belong to the country. And they
want us to give them more access to OUR resources, coal, oil, minerals.
They want us to provide them with better highways, more security, and better airports. Not to mention, of course, stadiums for their favorite
teams.
But that's ok, you see, because they are SUPPOSED to have those things.
For free.
Ask Mikey Poo "Moron Boy" Flannigan.
Ask David "Be Christian or Die" Hartung.
Ask Steve "Cannot Tell the Truth" Canyon.
They are allowed these things because, well, they create jobs .. in China.
>> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
>> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
>> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
>> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
>> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
>> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
>> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
>> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
>> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
>> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
>> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
>> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
>> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
>> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
>> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
>> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
>> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
>> up.
>> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
>> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
>> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
>> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
>> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
>> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
>> analysis.
>> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
>> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
>> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
>> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
>> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
>> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
>> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
>> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
>> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
>> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
>> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
>> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
>> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
>> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
>> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
>> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
>> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
>> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
>> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
>> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
>> the next ten years.
> The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
> entitlement.
This class warfare against the rich can backfire. I knew people
some years ago when there was a tax was leveled on the purchase of luxury yachts who lost their jobs as a direct result.
What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
crafts went bankrupt. Working people in this industry lost their
jobs investors lost their money. This tax was quietly dropped later by congress, but local mfg plants in my area never re-opened.
On Nov 18, 8:27 pm, China Blue Danube <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <UGeqs.308119$Wc4.224...@fx10.am4>,
> "Wm. Esque" <"Bm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying
> > their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
> That's simple: make international deals so rich have no where to hide.
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
It's never simple, as the 1990 congress discovered.
It wasn't just a tax on yachts, it was a tax on jewelry, luxury
automobiles and furs over certain prices; and yachts costing more than
$100,000.
In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991
revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million; in reality, it
was $16.6 million. The problem was that the $31 Million was a static
calculation, a calculation that was based on previous purchases and
based on the presumption that buying patterns would not change. The
$16 Million result was what actually happened. The reason the
projected revenue was so much lower was because the taxation changed
behavior and buying patterns; Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax
destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft
industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the
government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost
income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a LOSS of $7.6
million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off
by $38.6 million.
Additionally, the repeal of the luxury tax didn't fully correct the
problem because there were companies that went bankrupt and there were
employees who lost their jobs.
Our congressmen simply aren't smart enough to create a law that
doesn't have unintended consequences.
> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and married
> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
> up.
> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate tax
> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on Budget
> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
> analysis.
> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that were
> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of one
> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether to
> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion over
> the next ten years.
> The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
> entitlement.
Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics growth, while democrats know that too, but see raising taxes as throwing red meat to their stupid base promoting their divide and conquer class warfare.
>>> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
>>> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
>>> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
>>> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
>>> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
>>> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
>>> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
>>> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
>>> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
>>> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
>>> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
>>> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
>>> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
>>> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
>>> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
>>> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and
> married
>>> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
>>> up.
>>> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
>>> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate
> tax
>>> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
>>> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on
> Budget
>>> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
>>> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
>>> analysis.
>>> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
>>> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
>>> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
>>> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
>>> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that
> were
>>> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
>>> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
>>> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
>>> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of
> one
>>> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
>>> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
>>> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
>>> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether
> to
>>> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
>>> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
>>> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
>>> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
>>> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
>>> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
>>> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion
> over
>>> the next ten years.
>> The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
>> entitlement.
> No no, you are putting it all wrong.
> "People are entitled to keep their money."
> Now, of course, they use resources that belong to the country. And they
> want us to give them more access to OUR resources, coal, oil, minerals.
> They want us to provide them with better highways, more security, and
> better airports. Not to mention, of course, stadiums for their favorite
> teams.
How are you going to do that with less money, you blind simple minded fuckwit?
> In article <UGeqs.308119$Wc4.224...@fx10.am4>,
> "Wm. Esque" <"Bm. Esque"@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What happened was the rich, to avoid paying this tax, started buying
> > their yachts from Europe and Asia. American companies building these
> That's simple: make international deals so rich have no where to hide.
> --
> My name is Indigo Montoya. \\ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> You flamed my father. \' At least I can stay in character.
> Prepare to be spanked. // When you look into the void,
> Stop posting that! `/ the void looks into you, and fulfills you.
> It's never simple, as the 1990 congress discovered.
> It wasn't just a tax on yachts, it was a tax on jewelry, luxury
> automobiles and furs over certain prices; and yachts costing more than
> $100,000.
> In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991
> revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million; in reality, it
> was $16.6 million. The problem was that the $31 Million was a static
> calculation, a calculation that was based on previous purchases and
> based on the presumption that buying patterns would not change. The
> $16 Million result was what actually happened. The reason the
> projected revenue was so much lower was because the taxation changed
> behavior and buying patterns; Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.
> According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax
> destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft
> industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the
> government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost
> income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a LOSS of $7.6
> million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off
> by $38.6 million.
> Additionally, the repeal of the luxury tax didn't fully correct the
> problem because there were companies that went bankrupt and there were
> employees who lost their jobs.
> Our congressmen simply aren't smart enough to create a law that
> doesn't have unintended consequences.
Yeah yeah yeah but they got back at the rich. Even if they had to cut off their own right arm to do it.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> wrote:
> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >growth,
> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>> wrote:
>> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
>> >growth,
>> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
>> rates---including those under Clinton.
>Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >> >growth,
> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> Yes.
Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:48:03 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
>> >> >growth,
>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>> Yes.
>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
>>>> One of the biggest political battles in decades - how to spread the
>>>> tax burden of helping to balance the federal budget - has just begun.
>>>> It's likely that not many taxpayers will emerge unscathed.
>>>> President Barack Obama met Friday with Congressional leaders to begin
>>>> work on an agreement over how or whether to raise more revenues to
>>>> help pay down the deficit. Both sides in the long-simmering debate
>>>> have until the end of the year to head off hundreds of billions of
>>>> dollars in tax hikes scheduled to take effect in January.
>>>> The White House has said the president wants to raise some $1.6
>>>> trillion in new revenues over the coming decade mainly from
>>>> top-income earners. "When it comes to the top 2 percent, what I'm not
>>>> going to do is to extend further a tax cut for folks who don't need
>>>> it," Obama said at a news conference Wednesday.
>>>> The president campaigned on a plan that would raise the current top
>>>> two tax brackets of 33 percent and 35 percent to 36 percent and 39.6
>>>> percent. Single taxpayers making less than $200,000 a year and
>> married
>>>> couples making less than $250,000, would not see their tax rates go
>>>> up.
>>>> Republican opponents of the plan argue that the higher rates would
>>>> hurt small businesses, many of which pay individual, not corporate
>> tax
>>>> rates. But the two new tax brackets would hit only 2.5 percent of
>>>> small businesses, according to a recent report by the Center on
>> Budget
>>>> and Policy Priorities, a research group focused on issues affecting
>>>> low- and moderate-income households, based on a Treasury Department
>>>> analysis.
>>>> The new rates would restore the top tax brackets to pre-Bush levels,
>>>> which were already lower than for much of the last century. Until the
>>>> sweeping tax reform in 1986, the top marginal rate was 50 percent or
>>>> more, although most of the wealthiest households paid a much lower
>>>> effective rate, thanks to dozens of loopholes and tax breaks that
>> were
>>>> eliminated by the tax code overhaul.
>>>> Now, the proposed new tax brackets would also apply to a relatively
>>>> small number of households among the top two percent of incomes.
>>>> Most of the new revenues would come from the very top one-tenth of
>> one
>>>> percent, or those making an average of $8.4 million a year, according
>>>> to a study by the Tax Policy Center.
>>>> The heated debate over whether to extend all of the tax cuts or
>>>> whether to extend merely the vast majority largely concerns whether
>> to
>>>> extend an extra $310,000 in tax relief to the wealthiest 120,000
>>>> taxpayers, wrote Tax Policy Center researcher Adam Looney.
>>>> Despite the sizeable income pool at the top, the new revenues raised
>>>> by the proposed higher rates would be a drop in the deficit bucket,
>>>> the study found, raising roughly $68 billion a year or about 7
>>>> percent of the current deficit. That leaves the White House roughly
>>>> $920 billion short of its goal to raise revenues by $1.6 trillion
>> over
>>>> the next ten years.
>>> The Republicans have decided that the Bush tax cuts are an
>>> entitlement.
>> No no, you are putting it all wrong.
>> "People are entitled to keep their money."
>> Now, of course, they use resources that belong to the country. And they
>> want us to give them more access to OUR resources, coal, oil, minerals.
>> They want us to provide them with better highways, more security, and
>> better airports. Not to mention, of course, stadiums for their favorite
>> teams.
> How are you going to do that
We have FOUR MORE YEARS to ruin your non-existent life, Mikey Poo Flannigan. And not a damned thing you can do about it. Three more Supreme Court justices. A House that will become OURS in two years.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> wrote:
> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper > >economics
> >growth,
> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> rates---including those under Clinton.
> Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
You could explain to him that after WWII and the 90% bracket we were the only game in town with no world competition, and then you could explain to him that the average top marginal rate during Clinton was even lower than Reagan, not to mention MUCH lower than the post WWII 90%, but you'd be wasting your time because Yoorghis doesn't give a shit what the truth is and is a shameless piece of shit liar whose only economic prescriptions are based on greed, envy, and being a nigger.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper >>> >economics
>>> >growth,
>>> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
>>> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper > >> >economics
> >> >growth,
> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> Yes.
> Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
> weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
> with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
> government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
> strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
> along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
> in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
Oh, so all of a sudden taking money out of the economy is a bad thing, huh, you deranged hypocrite?
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:48:03 -0800 (PST), wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" >>> >> <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper >>> >> >economics
>>> >> >growth,
>>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH >>> >> tax
>>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>>> Yes.
>>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
> Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
> need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild the entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
> On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 07:12:58 -0800 (PST), Yak <y...@inbox.com> wrote:
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" >>>> >> <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper >>>> >> >economics
>>>> >> >growth,
>>>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH >>>> >> tax
>>>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>>>> Yes.
>>>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>>>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>>>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>>>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>>>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>>>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>>>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
>> Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
>> need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
>The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild the >entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can >spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell" <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper economics
> >> >growth,
> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH tax
> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
> No, Jane, it will not
Those are the numbers from Obama's Whitehouse.gov web site.
This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
statements that only an idiot would make.
> The problem is not enough revenue to circulate into the economy during
> a massive economic disaster
> The vast bulk of society is heading downward in wages, savings,
> spending--as fewer and fewer at the top amass more and more wealth.
> The economy cannot generate revenue from the bottom---and it is
Whitehouse.gov says that you are wrong. (presuming we are very loose
with the word "bottom" and are talking about the "bottom" 98%)
This is an example of why I typically don't argue with you. You make
statements that only an idiot would make.
> transferring more wealth to the top---which (despite the failed
> rhetoric about supply-side) which has no reason to create jobs or
> generate business.
> The infrastructure (education, roads, bridges, etc) are spiraling
> downward because there is no revenue. The more it goes down--the worse
> we become. All the while we're shoveling billions to less than 240
> families by our idiot tax code.
>>>>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell"
>>>>> >> <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper
>>>>> >> >economics
>>>>> >> >growth,
>>>>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>>>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH
>>>>> >> tax
>>>>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>>>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>>>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>>>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>>>>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>>>>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>>>>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>>>>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>>>>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>>>>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
>>> Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
>>> need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
>>The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild >>the
>>entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can
>>spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
> That was a example only.
>>Dear god..
>>My dear god..
> Please don't pray to the Teabagger god Koch here.
You lost the election and destroyed the country by smearing the only people that could have saved it so instead of continuing with your stupidity I'd suggest you get down and start groveling for forgiveness for what you've done.
Here ->
Now.
Now, Hussein and the democrats want to raise the cap tax which will produced less revenue from the tax, and less revenues from the economy that will be slowed by less investment.
Republicans should comprise with this destructive act how?
MattB: Well, at least wedah got sumpin' done. Wouldn't be obstructionists like they smear us with. Never mind the damage it would do to dah country. Dats not mah concern. That's for them tea partiers. I don't wanna get criticized.
>>>>>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell"
>>>>>> >> <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will hamper
>>>>>> >> >economics
>>>>>> >> >growth,
>>>>>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>>>>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during HIGH
>>>>>> >> tax
>>>>>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>>>>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>>>>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>>>>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>>>>>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>>>>>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>>>>>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>>>>>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>>>>>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>>>>>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
>>>> Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
>>>> need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
>>>The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild >>>the
>>>entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you can
>>>spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
>> That was a example only.
>>>Dear god..
>>>My dear god..
>> Please don't pray to the Teabagger god Koch here.
>You lost the election and destroyed the country by smearing the only people >that could have saved it so instead of continuing with your stupidity I'd >suggest you get down and start groveling for forgiveness for what you've >done.
>Here ->
>Now.
>Now, Hussein and the democrats want to raise the cap tax which will produced >less revenue from the tax, and less revenues from the economy that will be >slowed by less investment.
>Republicans should comprise with this destructive act how?
>MattB: Well, at least wedah got sumpin' done. Wouldn't be obstructionists >like they smear us with. Never mind the damage it would do to dah country. >Dats not mah concern. That's for them tea partiers. I don't wanna get >criticized.
>>>>>>On Nov 19, 7:40 pm, MattB <trdell1234N...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:36:26 -0800 (PST), jane >>>>>>> <jane.pla...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> >On Nov 19, 6:08 pm, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>>>> >> On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:23:42 -0600, "Eddie Haskell"
>>>>>>> >> <tyv...@sqpcb.com>
>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>>>>>> >> >Republicans have correctly decided that raising taxes will >>>>>>> >> >hamper
>>>>>>> >> >economics
>>>>>>> >> >growth,
>>>>>>> >> Based on WHAT evidence over the last 30 years?
>>>>>>> >> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>>>>>> >> MORE economic growth since the end of WW2 has occurred during >>>>>>> >> HIGH
>>>>>>> >> tax
>>>>>>> >> rates---including those under Clinton.
>>>>>>> >Great, then eliminate the Bust Tax Cuts on EVERYONE, not just those
>>>>>>> >with over $200k income. That will bring in $3.8 trillion over 10
>>>>>>> >years rather than just $700 billion over 10 years.
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>Wow. Both of you were phenomenal failures at kindergarten math,
>>>>>>weren't you? So you want to remove $3.1 trillion from the economy
>>>>>>with its multiplier effects and just give it all over to the
>>>>>>government along with the $700 billion, huh? The crash and burn
>>>>>>strategy, right? Take everyone down, those who can afford to go down
>>>>>>along with those who can't. Brilliant madness at its excelled finest
>>>>>>in the way that only Repugnants can craft it.
>>>>> Sorry you aren't owed. Want roads help pay for them. Freeloaders
>>>>> need to remember they want something they can help pay for it.
>>>>The government has ran up enough of a deficit in past 4 years to rebuild
>>>>the
>>>>entire interstate hwy. system 12 times over in today's dollars so you >>>>can
>>>>spare the crap about the government needing money for roads.
>>> That was a example only.
>>>>Dear god..
>>>>My dear god..
>>> Please don't pray to the Teabagger god Koch here.
>>You lost the election and destroyed the country by smearing the only >>people
>>that could have saved it so instead of continuing with your stupidity I'd
>>suggest you get down and start groveling for forgiveness for what you've
>>done.
>>Here ->
>>Now.
>>Now, Hussein and the democrats want to raise the cap tax which will >>produced
>>less revenue from the tax, and less revenues from the economy that will be
>>slowed by less investment.
>>Republicans should comprise with this destructive act how?
>>MattB: Well, at least wedah got sumpin' done. Wouldn't be obstructionists
>>like they smear us with. Never mind the damage it would do to dah country.
>>Dats not mah concern. That's for them tea partiers. I don't wanna get
>>criticized.
> The Teabaggers and
> their allies the Evangelist freaks.
Romney said he likes to fire people. You cheery pick to smear an entire group - the only group that believes in the principles of the founding and could have saved this country. And you smear them because you are a fucking coward.
> The next 4 years are on you.
Like fuck it is. I told you that Romney the moderate would join the ranks of Ford, Bush I, Dole and McCain.
> Moderates and Independents will never vote Tea Party.
You don't have the balls. You're too afraid of what liberals might think of you.
> So Teabaggers
> can't ever win Presidency.
Ronald Reagan would be a tea partier, you ball-less, immoral smear merchant.
