Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and News' started by Chris A, Nov 7, 2012.
Lol easy to rail against taxes when you count expenses as taxes. Fight the powa!
Good. That's a step in the right direction. Those are the people who SHOULD be paying more taxes.
After WWI and II we had a tax rate of over 90% for some brackets.
Sometimes we forget that business owners aren't a different breed of human who are all intelligent and hard working. Half the time they're as dumb as this guy's friend.
2012 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000:
2013 total CA + federal tax on single person with taxable income of $270,000 if Bush tax cuts expire for incomes greater than $250,000 and new CA tax rates for high-income individuals are in effect: $97,505 ($800 higher).
So you're telling us that if your take-home pay declines from $173,295 to $172,495, you're closing your business???????? You're claiming that you'd rather make NOTHING than make $172,495????
You're a fvcking liar, and should be banned by the mods.
people out there are this stupid
Your numbers look fake and made up sorry. Sounds like fear mongering from a republican in CA.
so people with shitty businesses are using Obama as an excuse to save face and quit, I can't say I'm surprised.
go talk to the UAW where people make 60-70K to park cars for a living
wow that guy seems like a douche
EDIT: And yes, after researching their business, it was fairly obvious that it was not being profitable or be profitable without some serious oversight and effort. I guess that's Obama's fault too because Romney would be giving out free smallbiznophones to small businesses and their rent would be free. j/k
Folks will "get by". The folks I know on the left who are very determined about others having their taxes raised follow the same token you've noted, shelter all their money and then claim others need to pay more. I understand the desire to keep more, but the double standard is obnoxious.
Biggest issue with raising taxes to pay for governement is that it's not a linear equation. Laffer curve shows what happens. Other than that the taxes being raised on the wealthy as Obama implores us to do under the farce that it will answer to our debt problem, is pulling the veil over the real problem. You simply can't tax your way out of the countries debt, and Obama is indicating taxes are the most important thing, clearly they are not.
There needs to be some real discussion about the debt with just numbers and no political spin bullshit used to garner support for some sides ego. We have been accelerating and an acclerating pace on our road to an insurmountable debt. What we are getting is not a reversal of debt, or a revesal of the accleration of debt, ... we are getting a promise that the rate of accleration will go down. So while driving into a brickwall at 75 mph today approaching 120mph impact, we are now being told we will hit the wall at 110mph if we raise taxes on the wealthy.
Anyone care to factor the difference in loan payments on 20T of debt if our interest to service our debt goes up by one percent (real possiblity by the time we get to 20T). If we run that difference over 10 years as politicians like to do so with tax "leverage" for their proposals what matters more a tax shift to the wealthy or a sum of money simply to service a portion of the interest on a debt that is increasing?
Quality of life is going to suffer, that's everybodies debt and everyboddy owes more money than they have. Folks should be pissed, you've been indebted to a staggering degre by your elected officials and you're being swindled in regards to what it means.
We know the national debt will incease, likely at an increasing pace if we go by history (stuff we hear today regardling lipservice to solving debt issues is not new) and we know as a result of our growing debt that interest to service that debt will more than likely go up, particularly as that increasing debt will put pressure on our credit worthyness. If we keep debt at 16T we'd be fine, which is the number folks are fixated on, we can service 16T and survive, the issue is that our momentum is frankly unstoppable and we are going to blow right through 20T and accelerate through it to an immediate point of 25T-30T where simply servicing the debt (not paying it down) is going take a larger portion of tax revenues than any other item on the budget.
Cliffs: Honest debt debate is needed, but not going to happen by politicians and taxes are a veil used by the left in order to keep their base happy. The debt will hurt the poor more than the wealthy, just like QE sent tons of money to the .1 percenters and saw real wages deflate for everyone else and will continue to leverage financial power to the .1 percenters. You can also thank the trillion dollar QE campaign for BO's relection.
Yes. Add in that almost everyone bitching about raising the rates on the upper bracket has NO FUCKING CLUE how marginal rates work.
I remember back when my wife and I started making over $65,000 a year jointly. THAT fucking sucked. I think our tax income bracket increased 10% or something crazy. And to hear people bitch about this shit....
The tax increase is not the answer, They need to cut spending and taxes. Otherwise its not going to work
I feel Romney is not a serious candidate when it comes to servicing the debt either. When you propose 4T increased military spending and taxcuts on top of the Bush Tax cuts to trickle down than is that something people really believe in. Yes spending cuts are absolutely necessary but Tax cuts are not going to grow us out of this whole otherwise the Bush Tax cuts should have paid for the two wars and medicare part D right?
Formula equals steep cuts to medicare, steep cuts to Defense, increased taxes and increased revenue from growth and raising SS retirement age.
The only thing I see from Romney on that list is steep cuts to Medicare and his increased spending on Defense negates all of that.
OP is either a liar, or his friend is an idiot.
You don't hire/fire based on tax rates (you MIGHT change how much you personally work/don't work though), you hire/fire based on demand for your business.
Your "points" have been destroyed in this thread with simple 3rd grade math. Time to stop digging the hole deeper.
Lol, did CA pass more tax increases. They've already seen. A bunch of business move out, doesn't take much foresight to see that aa point in the not distant future would be reached where such actions become too detrimental to overcome.
Guy sounds like my cousin. Whines about taxes and government handouts while his wife sits on unemployment for 99 weeks then uses government assistance to go back to school.
This is just another sob story concocted to make people hate Obama but it doesn't hold any water.
OMG dee guboment is stealing all mah taxes! D:
Dey only let me bring home $25 from my $5000 paycheck. Oh lawdy wat my gonna do?
Jumping in on the "unemployed-OP has no concept of how progressive taxes work" bandwagon.
Who cares people complain so much. I pay more in taxes than someone else making more money than me right now. It won't affect those people by that much. Once you make 60k+ is when your tax bracket goes up and you pretty much get used to it after a while. My take home pay should be 2300 every two weeks but with taxes and everything else out its about 800 less. People making over 200k shouldn't complain they probably have no student loans or any other major bills but who cares.
No way someone makes 250k and takes home 75k. Looks like you need to go back to school.
The argument doesn't stand up to logic and/or math
It's rare or impossible for someone making 250k to have a taxable income of 250k.
As stated already business hire based on demand for products or services, not because they have less or more tax expense.
The Margin of the laffer curve where raising taxes hurts revenue is thin.
And we are not within those margins.
I just don't understand how some people can be do blatantly dumb about the math involved here, I also don't get how people think others are dumb enough to get sucked into it.
Raising taxes is the answer as is cutting spending. You do both.
Tax rates are historically low while spending is at an all time high.
The election is over, the majority has spoken and they want to president to follow through on a balanced approach.
The Laffer curve doesn't show jack. Supply-side economics has been totally discredited, except in the minds of those who base their economics on faith rather than actual numbers.
The CBO did an analysis in 2005 of the effect of a 10% cut in taxes. Here's the Wikipedia summary:
But you go right on telling us what "Laffer shows."