• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pelosi wants a $300B stimulus package

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Genx87
This appears to be the political ploy of the 08 election cycle. Give away the national treasure to secure power.

This ought to be a good 4 years under Obama with Pelosi and the gang crafting spending legislation.
They are just trying to jump in the mud bath the republicans were already frolicking in, like filthy pigs. Neither party are spendthrifts in the least.
I'm glad I'm not rich because reality is they will pay for all of Obama's proposed spending.
Fact is McCain will spend AT LEAST as much as Obama if the last 30+ years of republican vs democratic administrations are any indication, and whether you pay for it with taxes now or inflation/decrease in lifestyle later, you'll pay for it, or somebody will. It has to be paid for one way or the other.
Well, under Obama's plan the 250K and up crowd is getting hiked, not us middle class peeps. Yeah, we're definitely going to shoulder some of the bailout BS as well, but just not as much.
Watching that link craig put up yesterday from paul krugman, it seems that at certain peaks in US history the upper class has paid as much as 91% and that capital gains taxes were also 28% even more recently. He says that the discrepancy in wealth we see now is as severe as that seen in the 20's.

The rich always pay disproportionately more than the poor and middle. Where is the right point? Surely it's not now. Maybe they already pay too much, or maybe already not enough.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
-snip-
Watching that link craig put up yesterday from paul krugman, it seems that at certain peaks in US history the upper class has paid as much as 91% and that capital gains taxes were also 28% even more recently. He says that the discrepancy in wealth we see now is as severe as that seen in the 20's.

The rich always pay disproportionately more than the poor and middle. Where is the right point? Surely it's not now. Maybe they already pay too much, or maybe already not enough.
IMO, Krugman is up to his typical antics of using statistics to support his highly partisan opinion.

Yeah sure, raise the heck of the tax rate for high earners and I guarantee you they'll look like they have lower income on their tax returns, and WHEEE!!!!! the wealth gap has been solved.

What a load of huey, boys & girls.

1. They'll just defer income during times of high rates, that's all. They'll wait until rates are lower before it shows up on their tax returns again. They will NOT be giving that income to other people (unless family members) during this time.

2. For the umpteenth high earners != wealthy people (necessarily). You really need to get a measurement of "wealth"; we don't have it, other countries do. There are a lot of very wealthy people with little taxable income on their tax returns.

Fern
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
All I have to say is, I hope to God nobody here makes 250K+ b/c you'll soon be the largest (involuntary) victims of this mess.
With each passing day I dont see how revoking the tax cuts for people making 250K is going to pay for all of this.
/agree, I don't either. But I do know that Obama is going to bend them over without vaseline. I don't agree with Robin Hood mentality, but at the same time I'm glad I'm not rich because reality is they will pay for all of Obama's proposed spending.
I hope you do become rich, so then we can trade incomes.
Poor people who become rich without effort end up poor again very quickly.
 

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,563
3
0
Bush borrows a trillion and half dollars to give to the richest 3 percent in the country and Republicans hail it as brilliant leadership.
Democrats try to borrow a small fraction of that and give it to people who need it to stave off economic collapse and Republicans say its the end of the world.

Get the picture?
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
-snip-
Watching that link craig put up yesterday from paul krugman, it seems that at certain peaks in US history the upper class has paid as much as 91% and that capital gains taxes were also 28% even more recently. He says that the discrepancy in wealth we see now is as severe as that seen in the 20's.

The rich always pay disproportionately more than the poor and middle. Where is the right point? Surely it's not now. Maybe they already pay too much, or maybe already not enough.
IMO, Krugman is up to his typical antics of using statistics to support his highly partisan opinion.

Yeah sure, raise the heck of the tax rate for high earners and I guarantee you they'll look like they have lower income on their tax returns, and WHEEE!!!!! the wealth gap has been solved.

What a load of huey, boys & girls.

1. They'll just defer income during times of high rates, that's all. They'll wait until rates are lower before it shows up on their tax returns again. They will NOT be giving that income to other people (unless family members) during this time.

2. For the umpteenth high earners != wealthy people (necessarily). You really need to get a measurement of "wealth"; we don't have it, other countries do. There are a lot of very wealthy people with little taxable income on their tax returns.

Fern
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Genx87
This appears to be the political ploy of the 08 election cycle. Give away the national treasure to secure power.

This ought to be a good 4 years under Obama with Pelosi and the gang crafting spending legislation.
They are just trying to jump in the mud bath the republicans were already frolicking in, like filthy pigs. Neither party are spendthrifts in the least.
I'm glad I'm not rich because reality is they will pay for all of Obama's proposed spending.
Fact is McCain will spend AT LEAST as much as Obama if the last 30+ years of republican vs democratic administrations are any indication, and whether you pay for it with taxes now or inflation/decrease in lifestyle later, you'll pay for it, or somebody will. It has to be paid for one way or the other.
Well, under Obama's plan the 250K and up crowd is getting hiked, not us middle class peeps. Yeah, we're definitely going to shoulder some of the bailout BS as well, but just not as much.
Watching that link craig put up yesterday from paul krugman, it seems that at certain peaks in US history the upper class has paid as much as 91% and that capital gains taxes were also 28% even more recently. He says that the discrepancy in wealth we see now is as severe as that seen in the 20's.

The rich always pay disproportionately more than the poor and middle. Where is the right point? Surely it's not now. Maybe they already pay too much, or maybe already not enough.
The %'s dont mean that much imo in this context. It is a matter of seeing who is paying the slice of the pie. If anybody has information on how much the rich paid as a % back in the 50's while they had a 90% tax rate on the highest bracket it is appreciated.

Right now the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 94% of the federal income taxes. That is up under Bush. According to a link Vic posted a few days ago in the first four years of Bush's presidency we saw a 42% increase in poor workers effectively paying no federal income taxes. Under Obama I would expect it to rise as much as he is going to be handing out refundable tax credits.

The question I have regarding this is do we want too hook another class on govt handouts? And what kind of govt do we get when the rich pay for it?
 

puffff

Platinum Member
Jun 25, 2004
2,374
0
0
Originally posted by: BigDH01
Someone better put an end to this quickly. It seems that the closer we get to election day, the more money people are willing to give out. This needs to end before we buy everyone new cars, homes, and helicopters. All on the next generations' tabs, of course.

Does everyone on Capitol Hill honestly think they can spend whatever they want whenever they want and there will be no consequence? Ahh, screw it. Main St does it, Wall St does it, and the government does it. I'm tired of fighting.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury..."
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
If they took that 700 trillion and just split up among the taxpayer all our mortgages would be paid off.
 

BigDH01

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2005
1,627
73
91
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Originally posted by: Genx87
This appears to be the political ploy of the 08 election cycle. Give away the national treasure to secure power.

This ought to be a good 4 years under Obama with Pelosi and the gang crafting spending legislation.
They are just trying to jump in the mud bath the republicans were already frolicking in, like filthy pigs. Neither party are spendthrifts in the least.
I'm glad I'm not rich because reality is they will pay for all of Obama's proposed spending.
Fact is McCain will spend AT LEAST as much as Obama if the last 30+ years of republican vs democratic administrations are any indication, and whether you pay for it with taxes now or inflation/decrease in lifestyle later, you'll pay for it, or somebody will. It has to be paid for one way or the other.
Well, under Obama's plan the 250K and up crowd is getting hiked, not us middle class peeps. Yeah, we're definitely going to shoulder some of the bailout BS as well, but just not as much.
Watching that link craig put up yesterday from paul krugman, it seems that at certain peaks in US history the upper class has paid as much as 91% and that capital gains taxes were also 28% even more recently. He says that the discrepancy in wealth we see now is as severe as that seen in the 20's.

The rich always pay disproportionately more than the poor and middle. Where is the right point? Surely it's not now. Maybe they already pay too much, or maybe already not enough.
The %'s dont mean that much imo in this context. It is a matter of seeing who is paying the slice of the pie. If anybody has information on how much the rich paid as a % back in the 50's while they had a 90% tax rate on the highest bracket it is appreciated.

Right now the top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 94% of the federal income taxes. That is up under Bush. According to a link Vic posted a few days ago in the first four years of Bush's presidency we saw a 42% increase in poor workers effectively paying no federal income taxes. Under Obama I would expect it to rise as much as he is going to be handing out refundable tax credits.

The question I have regarding this is do we want too hook another class on govt handouts? And what kind of govt do we get when the rich pay for it?
That's probably because the top 50% own the vast majority of the wealth. People keep touting which percentages of federal taxes the poor and rich pay, but if you look at where the wealth is going it becomes obvious why 30% of people don't pay taxes and the upper 10% pay 90% of the taxes. It has less to do with taxation than it does that wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the upper class. If the top 1% wealthy people control 90% of the wealth, then it stands they pay 90% of federal income taxes.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Nice to see the Dems are cool with the whole borrow and spend concept, looks like the next 4 years WILL be more of the same.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,660
65
91
In the end I expect that our government is going to have to inject 2 Trillion into the economy. Just look at US credit card debt and its obvious.
 

SP33Demon

Lifer
Jun 22, 2001
27,929
141
106
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
Yes, we're quite aware that Buffet should be paying taxes on his wealth, thank you for affirming what I said.

I wasn't talking about wealth, but income. How the hell are you going to defer $151,000, please enlighten me. Either way, someone who is earning 250K that seeks tax shelters is breaking the law by avoiding what the tax is supposed to do and you are the accomplice. Way to brag about that. What income tax company and in what state do you work for? My stepdad is a manager at the SEC, I'm sure he'd love to hear about this. ;)

 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
Yes, we're quite aware that Buffet should be paying taxes on his wealth, thank you for affirming what I said.

I wasn't talking about wealth, but income. How the hell are you going to defer $151,000, please enlighten me. Either way, someone who is earning 250K that seeks tax shelters is breaking the law by avoiding what the tax is supposed to do and you are the accomplice. Way to brag about that. What income tax company and in what state do you work for? My stepdad is a manager at the SEC, I'm sure he'd love to hear about this. ;)
SEC huh? Are you sure he didn't say manager at MickYDs?

If tax shelters are illegal, you better let congress know. They're the ones who set them up for themselves and their rich friends.

Come back when you get out of high school, boy.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
There shouldn't be an income tax on production or capital gains. Keeping money that you make on your labor or investments is the best way to incentivize more wealth and production for all. For hedge fund managers to make wads from stock options, people have to be blindly investing in those stocks regardless of valuations, regardless of dividends, and that basically describes the whole 401k model of investing that 90% of people follow. Deferring personal responsibility on investments begets this kind of nonsense. Look at Enron, they never paid a dime in dividends to prove they were making money. Matching funds were automatically invested in company shares. Why were internet companies trading at 300 times earnings in the 90s? Because people are sheep who defer responsibility, even with their own damn retirement. It's no one's obligation to make a company pay a dividend, it's your obligation to understand its value, and why it differentiates investment from speculation before you listen to wall street and get screwed.

Not to mention the whole collusive activity enabled by our gargantuan socialist government. There are a million ways to steal money under this system. Hell, banks can create 10x more virtual money ontop of existing money and loan it out at interest. Who does that end up with? Most likely the people at the top to increase their bidding power on already manipulated stock. SEC is bought and paid for, they weren't enforcing naked short selling for ages (not to be confused with regular short selling). If it takes money to make money on investments, then inflation benefits the top because they can use it to increase their bidding power on margin. The rest of us can't get there because we're not the ones using it, we're the ones getting our wages and savings debased by it.

If you think increasing taxes will even the score, think again. When Hoover and FDR raised the marginal tax rate to 63% and 90% respectively, anyone who had money to invest or hire people just sat on it, or put it in an offshore account, or converted it to assets like gold whose sales and purchased are not documented, or left the country altogether. Thereby avoiding the tax.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
Yes, we're quite aware that Buffet should be paying taxes on his wealth, thank you for affirming what I said.

I wasn't talking about wealth, but income. How the hell are you going to defer $151,000, please enlighten me. Either way, someone who is earning 250K that seeks tax shelters is breaking the law by avoiding what the tax is supposed to do and you are the accomplice. Way to brag about that. What income tax company and in what state do you work for? My stepdad is a manager at the SEC, I'm sure he'd love to hear about this. ;)
Just give it up, you're going against a tax professional with 30 years experience. Even if you were an Occidental college affirmative action transfer to Columbia then an affirmative action acceptance to harvard law you'd get your ass handed by Fern on this issue.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
Yes, we're quite aware that Buffet should be paying taxes on his wealth, thank you for affirming what I said.

I wasn't talking about wealth, but income. How the hell are you going to defer $151,000, please enlighten me. Either way, someone who is earning 250K that seeks tax shelters is breaking the law by avoiding what the tax is supposed to do and you are the accomplice. Way to brag about that. What income tax company and in what state do you work for? My stepdad is a manager at the SEC, I'm sure he'd love to hear about this. ;)
SEC huh? Are you sure he didn't say manager at MickYDs?

If tax shelters are illegal, you better let congress know. They're the ones who set them up for themselves and their rich friends.

Come back when you get out of high school, boy.
Tax shelters = tax avoidance = perfectly legal. Things like short sale against a box were a perfectly legal (until 97 iirc) way to defer that 151K in capital gains.

Stay in school, kid.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,062
1
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
so what happens if the tax rates never go down?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-
Is this about the time we hear you lecture us about Warren Buffet's taxable income. lol. Spare us please, we know how wealth/taxable income works, but the notion that you think every 250K+ earner is going to hide behind tax shelters is quite humorous.
Buffet is a diversion from the topic. As a fund manager he uses a loophole allowing him to tax his income as LT cap gains, a loophole I have consistantly argued should be closed. It is Charles Shumer who refuses to allow that.

If you do actually know how wealth/income works, please act like it when you post.

Much of the income of those earning above $250K comes from stock options (primarily ISO's), instead of selling (or excer-selling) they can just hold on to them until the tax rates drop. Likewise for anybody with money tied up in real extate or the stock market.

I've been doing income taxes for almost 30 years (the top rate was 70% when I started); you raise the rates enough - we defer the income. It's that simple.

Fern
so what happens if the tax rates never go down?
Transfer your security offshore to a country that has low rates.
 

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,669
1,890
126
Originally posted by: eleison
Originally posted by: digiram
They're going to have to start printing billion dollar bills. I guess we can put GWB's face on it.
Since he's leaving office, minus well put Obama's on it...
as far as i know, there has never been a living person on our money, so what are you two implying? :evil:

and what the hell is 'minus well'? is that a negitive well?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY