U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 04-17-2015, 05:39 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,263,219 times
Reputation: 9358

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
I never said he moved money anywhere, it doesn't matter. Its the perception.
The perception of Clintons taking $16 million a year from the taxpayers, + money from overseas countries who have some nasty policies against women is far worse.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2015, 05:41 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,263,219 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
That 47% likely covers a lot of people who are working. Why is paying taxes a measure of personnel responsibility?
Even the Obama debt commission said in order to minimize the deficit we needed to broaden the tax base, but let Romney say it, "bluntly" and the left goes bat crazy..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 05:45 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,263,219 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
As to the question as to whether or not the 47% are working. 2/3rds of the 47% are paying payroll taxes.

TPC Tax Topics | Who Doesn't Pay Federal Taxes?
But thats not income taxes, keep moving the goal post to argue he said something he didnt.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 05:48 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,263,219 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Income is income.

CEO's make their take home income with capital gains. And the CEO's use their capital gains to buy houses, boats, food, clothes, jewelry, and cars.
no CEO's do NOT make their take home with capital gains, capital gains is invested AFTER their take home pay. CEO's cant use capital gains to buy houses boats etc, without first paying taxes on it when they made it, and then paying taxes again on the gains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
But in Fox news/Rush radio land a CEO's take home pay is not income.
No one said anything this stupid. Tell me, is welfare "income"? Why arent they taxed if it is?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 05:49 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,263,219 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
"The Buffett Rule would apply a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year."

Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I know what it is, but Buffet makes $100K a year as CEO of BRK.. How exactly is this going to affect him?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:00 PM
 
11,060 posts, read 3,700,389 times
Reputation: 5184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
Rather one sided to criticize the Clintons for taking advantage loopholes and not Romney, at least we know the details of the Clinton's earnings but little about Romney's offshore accounts since he didn't release anything. Should they not take advantage of tax breaks that are available, just because I am pro clean air doesn't make me a hypocrite if I drive a car and it doesn't mean she can't fight for campaign finance reform because she is wealthy.

Until something changes politicians won't win elections without the support from powerful lobbies.


do you know the details of the Clinton's earnings especially while she was secretary of state? I forgot, she erased all EMAILS while she was Secretary of State while her foundation received millions of dollars from foreigners. Any details she destroyed in her emails. She said half of the emails in her data base were about Chelsea's wedding and Yoga....whatever.



the details of Romney's earnings for over years the I.R.S. knows about it and they have NO problem with especially under 4 years of Obama controlling the I.R.S.,......if he wants to put his money in foreign banks for a better return that is his business, he doesn't have to report or pay taxes on that money unless he brings it back to the U.S.A.....MAYBE Democrats should study and learn a little more the tax code they helped write instead of throwing accusations with NO evidence about Romney's wealth.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 08:30 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, La. USA
5,904 posts, read 2,805,877 times
Reputation: 2166
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimTheEnchanter View Post

Your post is quite dishonest.

You talk about Cheney's effective rate, but you want to use the book rate for the $250k earner. In 2005, the year this return covers, Cheney's tax rate was 35% and someone earning over $250k had a rate of 33%.
Could you spin the facts any harder?

Instead of quoting book rates that no one pays look at the actual (effective) rate. Cheney has a 6% federal tax rate.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushchen05.pdf

Quote:
Everyone has the same opportunity to use deductions like Cheney did. No one in the $250k is paying the actual rate. It also depends on where the income came from as all income is not treated equally.
My non-CEO cousin is a doctor and businessman making $1.5 million dollars a year. His effective tax rate is around 36%.
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2014 and 2015

You said everyone has the opportunity to get a 6% tax rate like Cheney. How can my cousin get a 6% tax rate?
Answer: He can't because he is not a CEO.

Quote:
A flat tax rate, 19% across the board, no deductions for anyone other than a personal exemption would be the fairest tax of all, but someone the leftie mindset can't get their heads around that. They want confiscatory rates and rates that demotivate investing to punish the rich.
Secret of the Flat Tax: Middle Class Pays More So Rich Pay Less - US News

How Presidential Candidate Ted Cruz Would Radically Increase Taxes on Everyone But the Rich | Tax Justice Blog

Quote:
Warren Buffet is among the most dishonest, disingenuous men of all time. He can choose to pay any tax rate he wishes by adjusting where his income comes from and which deductions he takes. He can even voluntarily cut a check to the U.S. Treasury to make his rate 30%
Warren Buffett stands so (you) don't have a unfair tax rate.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB1FXvYvcaI



And Warren Buffett along with Bill Gates have donated 1/2 of their wealthy to charity. Buffett's charity work has already saved 6 million children from dying.
Infographic Of The Day: Bill Gates Is A Better Superhero Than Batman | Co.Design | business + design

And Buffets and Gates charity work is about to save another 8 million children's lives.
Gates: $10B vaccine program could save 8.7M lives - CNN.com


Can Warren Buffett and Bill Gates save the world? - CSMonitor.com

Quote:
It will hurt the economy because it takes money away from the productive uses that they have for it and send it to the government that wastes a good portion of it. Taxing capital gains at higher rates or as ordinary income removes the incentive to invest in new ventures. It takes a few years for the rates to effect behavior, but you can see the effects of the Reagan tax cuts on the economy that boomed for 20 years until the 2001 recession.
There is -0- evidence that low capital gains help the economy.

Low Capital Gains Taxes Fuel Inequality, Not Investment | Crooks and Liars
Low Capital Gains Taxes May Not Help the Economy - Businessweek

Quote:
Romney was already successful when his father passed in 1995. He did not inherit a lot of money from his father and what he did he donated to BYU to fund a school in his father's name. The jobs he got were on his own and his success was because of hard work and talent.
We both define success in different ways. My definition of success is doing the best you can, pulling your own weight, being honest, looking out for your neighbors, and protecting your family and friends.

But your definition of success is being a greedy CEO who calls 47% of Americans freeloaders, and then wants to hand his corporate pals $6.6 trillion dollars.

Romney's Economic Plan Includes $6.6 Trillion Tax Cut For The Rich And Corporations | ThinkProgress
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Utah
546 posts, read 323,228 times
Reputation: 674
What people forget is that when the rich (or anyone) gets a lower rate on capital gains, there is a rationale for it, and it's not just about the rich paying less in taxes.

First, funds invested in stock have had tax paid on them once, from whatever source. Second, the company pays corporate taxes, so basically, the government gets its bite from the apple again. So any gain in the value received in the sale has already been taxed twice. So then the next bite of the apple is a little lower. See, if corporate taxes were eliminated, and therefore could grow faster, it might make sense to buy into a higher corporate tax on heir personal returns

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Liberals don't have a problem with 1%ers. Liberals have a problem with 1%ers having lower tax rates than middle class Americans.

Millionaire/billionaire CEO's have 6%-14% effective federal tax rates, and single Americans making $100,000 a year have 21% effective tax rates.
Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2014 and 2015


For example, Billionaire CEO Warren Buffet has a 11% tax rate.
Warren Buffett's Effective Federal Income Tax Rate Was Just 11% - Forbes

And millionaire CEO Dick Cheney has a 6% tax rate.
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/bushchen05.pdf


The difference between Hillary and Romney is Hilary supports higher tax rates for CEO's.
Buffett Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But millionaire CEO Mitt Romney wants to keep his 13% tax rate.
Mitt Romney Made $42 Million, Paid Less Than 14 Percent in taxes - ABC News
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2015, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Corona del Mar & Coronado, CA
1,777 posts, read 1,234,649 times
Reputation: 2324
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I know what it is, but Buffet makes $100K a year as CEO of BRK.. How exactly is this going to affect him?
According to Wealth X Warren Buffet made $37,000,000 a day in 2013.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
Could you spin the facts any harder? Instead of quoting book rates that no one pays look at the actual (effective) rate. Cheney has a 6% federal tax rate.
There is a difference between federal tax rate and effective tax rate.

Dick Cheney's federal tax rate in 2005 was 35% because that was the tax bracket he was in. He reduced his tax liability by making various charitable contributions and because of deferments on the income and tax treatment of dividend. His taxable income in 2005 was $1,245,256 and he paid $409,902 on it. That is 33%. I know you'd love to use different numbers, but that is what they were.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
My non-CEO cousin is a doctor and businessman making $1.5 million dollars a year. His effective tax rate is around 36%. You said everyone has the opportunity to get a 6% tax rate like Cheney. How can my cousin get a 6% tax rate? Answer: He can't because he is not a CEO.
There are no laws that give a CEO any special tax breaks. But if there were your cousin could be the CEO of the corporation and take advantage of the special tax breaks that don't exist.

You can't compare 2013 tax rates to 2005 tax rates (which is the one you have picked to cherry pick..... well actually YOU didn't cherry pick it the incredibly misnamed Center for Tax Justice is the one that cherry picked the year and then blasted it out to the leftie blogs so all the brain dead readers who have to be told what to think could run to City Data and whine).

NO ONE, I repeat NO ONE who has a reported income of $1.5 million is paying anything close to 36%. The last tax year that data is available shows that reported income of over $1 million were paying an effective rate of 20%.

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/taxstats/prod...lbulincome.pdf

Any one IN 2005, could have reduced their tax liability like Cheney did by giving away $2.5 million to charity and having deductions of an additional $4.4 million AND if they had long term capital gains like he did.

You have to start thinking for yourself and dig in the real numbers and not be led by the nose by an activist organization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
And Warren Buffett along with Bill Gates have donated 1/2 of their wealthy to charity. Buffett's charity work has already saved 6 million children from dying.
You are so freaking funny...... Buffet has pledged half his fortune. As of today his net worth is about $72 billion, thanks to his buddy Obama driving the stock market up to make the One One Hundredth of 1%ers even richer.

If Buffet, who is 84 years old, retired and actually gave away $71 billion tomorrow and kept a paltry $1 billion that he invested in double tax free muni bonds he would get $60 million a year in tax free income. That is over $134,000 each and every day.


Now I will grant you that $134,000 each and every day is a lot less than the $37 million he made each and every day in 2013, but it still ain't bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
There is -0- evidence that low capital gains help the economy.
Thousands of economists disagree with you and the evidence shows otherwise.



http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...df/tbb-066.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad3 View Post
We both define success in different ways. My definition of success is doing the best you can, pulling your own weight, being honest, looking out for your neighbors, and protecting your family and friends.

But your definition of success is being a greedy CEO who calls 47% of Americans freeloaders, and then wants to hand his corporate pals $6.6 trillion dollars.
I understand it is entirely impossible to have a rationed discussion with a liberal because they consider themselves white knights, pure of heart, thought and deed and conservatives are evil, hateful people whose only motives have to be evil and selfish. They can not conceive that conservatives think they have a better way to lift people out of poverty than to keep them dependent on government.

I am done with the discussion until you can be civil and capable of a civil conversation.

I think you need to start reading Milton Friedman and if you can not read Friedman, at least watch his YouTube videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A

A quick visit with Maggie Thatcher wouldn't hurt either.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdR7WW3XR9c
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2015, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Gone
25,235 posts, read 13,960,091 times
Reputation: 5916
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTHokieFan View Post
I feel like it's a bit hypocritical
All the politicians in Washingtoon are 1%ers. I have no problem with them being rich I do have a problem with them selling out to the highest bidder after they are elected.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top