American Politics during the Obama Presidency

While Esten proposes the top 10% of income earners pay 100% of the taxes, the question is how much is 100%.

For liberals there is no limit to what government should provide therefore the amount needed pay that 100% from those top 10% of income earners outstrips their entire income so I guess Esten will have to expand that percentage.

As I pointed out in an earlier post if you took all the income of the "rich" in tax it would not even cover the addition to the deficit in Obama's 2011 budget much less cover the entire budget for 2011!

Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.

Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.

[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson;416842]There's your answer.[/QUOTE]You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:

[QUOTE=Esten; 414504]My response to Jackson was focused on his question of what would be a fair proportion. I [b]do not[/b] Advocate the top 10% paying all taxes. But not because it would be unfair. Not at all. They are already paying 70% of all taxes and still that only amounts to an 18. 71% rate. With a small rate hike, they could with little pain cover the other 30. That's fair because of the huge proportion of income wealth they already receive. Such a change would help reduce the extreme income inequality we have, but just a bit. The top 10% would still be earning far more than everyone else.

However there is something to be said for having some skin in the game. To Sysco's good point, people value something more when they have a stake in it. [/QUOTE]My proposal for what income taxes should be is along the lines of what I posted yesterday April 18. Not far off from the current system, but with incremental increases on those above 100K, which includes myself (broader than Obama's proposal). In fact I could be persuaded for increases on incomes <100K as well, but very slight.

Doppel, see Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

2005 US Census Bureau data:
15.73% earn 100K or more (down to 6.24% in 2008)
1.50% earn 250K or more (2008 unavailable but probably lower %)

[QUOTE=Doppelganger]If you want a waste of money by the federal government, EPA, IRS, Welfare, the list goes on. [/QUOTE]Blah blah blah. This isn't even an argument, just complaining. Be specific on how much gets cut or scaled back, and how much money we save.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger; 416733]I currently provide healthcare benefits for my employees, three weeks paid leave, paid continuing education allowance, and a 401 (k) which includes Safe Harbor contributions of 3% with an additional minimum of 3% and maximum of 9% in Profit Sharing depending on the profitability of the business year.

Well when Obama hits me with higher personal taxes here is what goes at a minimum: one week of paid leave, continuing education allowance [/QUOTE]Let me get this straight. When your personal income taxes are raised a few percent, to preserve your wealth, you are going to shift the burden onto others, is that it?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416844]Esten reminds me of Capt."Red Legs" Terrel in the movie "The Outlaw Josey Wells", when Terrel declared "there aint no end to do'in right". For the liberal there is no end to what the government should provide.[/QUOTE]What a great movie! More one liners than any other movie.

However, the title is "[i]The Outlaw Josey Wales[/i]".

Thanks,

Jackson

Good article on how much tax cheats cost you, me and America. According to the article, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes. I say we need a stronger IRS to chase down these criminals.

[i]Tax evasion has cost the USA government $3 trillion over the past decade, Callahan says, citing IRS data."It is a major contributor to budget deficits and the accumulation of national debt since 2001."

Furthermore, every individual tax filer will have to pay an extra $2200 in 2010 tax to "subsidize" the tax cheats, according to Callahan. [/i]

[i]In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income," Callahan writes at OurFiscalSecurity. Org."A more detailed breakdown of losses in 2008 by the scholar John Slemrod and IRS analyst Andrew Johns found that the single biggest source of lost revenue was from proprietors of businesses who don't report the full amount of their income. Other big cheaters include professionals whose income comes through S corporations, partnerships, and real estate.[/i]

Full article:
[url]http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/tax-cheats-cost-uncle-sam-3-trillion-cost-173224779.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Esten; 416849]Predictable, one conservative posts something out of context, and his pals jump on with erroneous conclusions.

You conveniently omitted my followup comment on 12-13-10:

[QUOTE=Esten]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]Esten,

I didn't post your statement out of context, it stands by itself, and...

I am [u]NOT[/u] A Republican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] A conservative.

- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of recreational drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]INSURANCE[/u] reform.
- I am [u]for[/u] health [u]JUSTICE[/u] reform.

I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.

Thanks,

Jackson

Yes Esten, ogre that I am as my income diminishes I will reduce the BENEFITS I VOLUNARILY provide to my employees. They receive three weeks paid leave. 12 paid holidays, generous contributions to their 401 (k) and healthcare.

When I have employment openings they are filled quickly since I pay much better than my competitors in addition to the excellent benefits. Guess I'm not such an ogre after all. By the way, all my senior staff are in your defined 'well off' category.

Did I mention my state unemployment taxes tripled last year? I ate that one but there is a limit to how many cuts to my income I am willing to absorb. While we are talking about taxes, Federal income taxes are just part of the picture, there is employers matching Social Security & Medicare, state and federal unemployment tax, state sales tax, state property tax (no income tax in Texas) , state franchise tax and the list goes on. When you add them all up you have reduced your net income to about 50% or less of your gross!

By the way since it is my company, I founded it, I paid for it, all my assets are at risk in it and I will run it the way I see fit, which thank God I am permitted to do in this great country. I don't have to put up with the Esten's of the world telling me what to pay my employees, what to cut, what benefits to provide and what I should make when it's all said and done. Last time I checked, I have the American Dream. Seems you got a problem with that.

I f you feel motivated to build a company and give your profits away, please feel free but don't tell me how to run mine nor denigrate me for making a living.

Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten!

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416855]Even Standard & Poors agrees we have a SPENDING problem! Get a grip and get real Esten![/QUOTE]In truth, S&P didn't say we have to cut spending problem to fix the problem. That would be too political for a ratings agency. They just said we need a solution. It is obvious the problem is spending, just as it was obvious in Greece and Portugal. But, the ratings agencies won't prescribe a cure; they just report that the patient is sick.

Nevertheless, the S&P shift to a negative stance [b]is[/b] The elephant in the room. If there is a downgrade over the next couple of years, all hell will break loose. This is a much bigger deal than all the blather you hear about the debt ceiling. If we get a significant rise in the interest we have to pay on all the debt this administration has floated, which is what happens when the bond vigilantes ride in and the ratings agencies take action, then we are in serious shit.

Thanks to all the debt the Obama administration has larded on the public, there will be no easy fix for this. Through its misguided policies and prodigious spending, we have both a record deficit and a recovery that's going nowhere. Unfortunately, even voting this menace out of office won't fix things. The scales have been tilted for years to come. And, if interest rates rise significantly over the course of the next few year as most investors are betting, then even the Ryan and deficit commission plans won't be satisfactory.

It is against this backdrop that Obama's continued failure to show any semblance of leadership is particularly appalling. I understand he's between a rock and a hard place. His constituency are hard core tax and spend liberals who will not countenance a reduction in the dependency state. But, that's what leadership is: The ability to defy these nincompoops and make the right decisions. Clinton had it. Obama clearly does not. And, we'll all pay the price for it down the road.

Stan you are on target as usual.

You are correct the S&P did not specifically state we had to cut spending but it's one of those "it's as plain as the nose on your face" sort of things. You are also correct in pointing out this is the first step in a possible increase in interest rates on our debt, which if it occurred would really put the country in a tail spin trying to just service the debt much less pay it down.

It is galling to listen to Obama talking about "cuts" and then he follows up with all the "investments", ie spending, he intends to do on everything under the sun. Even more disappointing was the failure of the Republicans to really cut spending in the 2011 budget deal. This is no time for 'compromise' it is a time for bold action and I doubt either party has the intestinal fortitude to meet the problem head on.

Liberal's just don't seem to understand this house of cards called entitlements could easily collapse and then people would starve for real. Liberals have watched the European countries curtail their social spending (which has caused plenty of problems in their 'nanny states') but they came to the realization they had to live within their means as there is no one left to pick up the tab.

One of the best plans I have heard coming out of Washington was not to raise the debt ceiling, prioritize spending so the debt is serviced, federal employees are paid, essential services are continued and start cutting the BS out of the remainder. EPA and its attempt to regulate 'global warming' would be a great place to start followed by a flat tax, no deductions and the near elimination of the IRS, followed by major cut backs in Health and Human Services –

Now Esten you can start your rave about how I want to kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants

I do agree with Esten about one thing: Tax cheats should be caught and punished. I could tell some stories from personal experience that would make you sick. They vividly demonstrate how absolutely, utterly incompetent the IRS is. And, no, the stories do not involve me not paying taxes.

But, the stats Esten posted probably don't back up his point. The article states: ""In estimating the tax gap, the IRS found that the largest share of tax evasion—over 50 percent—was by individuals with business income,"

Later, the article states (with no support) that "In sum, wealthy Americans "disproportionately cheat" on their taxes, he says."[They] have many ways to defer income, hide it in trusts and all sorts of fancy things the rest of us can't do.""

Lost in the article is whether those with "business income" are automatically deemed "wealthy" or what definition of "wealthy" they're using. It's typical trash journalism.

It states that tax cheats cost "everyone" $2, 200 in 2010. In reality, if this was a valid number, it means that tax cheats cost the 50% of folks who actually pay taxes $2, 200, and that the rich disproportionately pay for this, since they pay far, far more in taxes.

But, as I said, the article is bunk journalism. It's based on a Callahan survey. The underlying survey, which is linked in the article, notes that the IRS hasn't updated this data since 2005, when it used [b]2001 data[/b]. Callahan just assumes that the data on tax cheats is likely about the same as it was 10 years ago. Then, the Yahoo article Esten links relies on this unsupported assumption for its statement that tax cheats cost everyone $2, 200 in 2010. Pure crap journalism.

And, the article arrives at exactly the wrong conclusion, as you might expect when the author is that sloppy. The author infers that it makes sense to spend more money on the boobs at the IRS, so they can go after the tax cheats they heretofore have failed to catch.

Huh? The better solution by far is not to unleash the IRS on tax cheats. As demonstrated above, the IRS thinks it has known who the tax cheats are since 2001, but they are too incompetent, slow, inept and foolish to find them.

The better solution is to remove 90% of the IRS's budget and move to a simplified, flat tax structure. Lost in all of the above discussion is this issue: [i]How much does it cost us to have the incompetent, bureaucratic, inept IRS and the overly complex tax structure in the first place? [/i]

Here's the answer: About $430 billion a year. That doesn't even include the tax cheats Esten is talking about.

[url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704116404576262761032853554.html[/url]

Move to a flat tax system. Streamline the IRS so that if focuses only on ensuring that everyone files a tax return. Voila! You could seriously increase GDP, and thus taxes, while making everyone's life easier and reducing some of the bloat in our bureaucracy.

Kill Mother Earth and all her inhabitants? Seriously Doppel, where do you get this stuff.

As far as the American Dream, remember it was under Clinton's higher tax rates that record numbers of Americans prospered. And that following conservative-inspired tax cuts and free-market deregulation, that dream became a nightmare for millions of Americans. How soon we forget.

You may be surprised to hear that Dems / Liberals think small businesses are extremely important. If we have an issue with business it is usually Big Business / Wall Street.

Your hard work and success and concern for your employees is to be commended. You are correct it isn't my business how you run your business.

However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done. In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.

Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it.

Esten, the only thing I see 'special' about your post is it must have come from a 'special ed' think tank. You continue to miss the point, I am most certainly NOT 'special'. The fact is I am just like nearly every other small business owner I know. Do I feel 'entitled' to keep what I EARNED, your DAMN RIGHT I do!

As far as Democrats / Liberals liking small business, the only thing they like about small business is figuring out how they can get their hands on more of small business profits and miring them in more red tape reporting. They love big business because without it there would be neither big unions nor a boogieman to scare folks with.

Let me give you another economics lesson. In 2008 I had 30 employees but now I have 22. Why, because the clients began cutting back on the services they received from my firm due to the economic down turn. Under your theory I should have kept all 30 and reduced everyone's salary to cover the reduction in income, everyone could do less well so others could work. Of course then I would no longer be paying my staff competitive salaries and they would seek employment elsewhere. You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can.

Regarding the way you cherry pick numbers, such as using 2005 for your figures in an earlier post, the same applies to your reference to Clinton. The only reason things got better was due to the reform of entitlements (ie reduced spending / give a ways) and not the increase in taxes. Don't you remember welfare reform which was forced on Clinton by the Republicans? If you want a return to prosperity then cut the spending!

Esten can now move to the mount and continue to preach his gospel, magically making the fishes and loaves appear from nowhere to feed his dutiful followers, of course without the evil rich, big business and small business he could not produce the loaves and fishes. No way will Esten teach them to fish so they may feed themselves and become independent.

Note: Please forgive the Bibical and other comon sense references used to make my point in my closing.

[QUOTE=Esten;416864]However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement.[/QUOTE]Imagine that! The man has a "[I]sense of entitlement[/I]" towards the business that he build for himself.

Esten, the person here with the "[I]sense of entitlement[/I]" is [U]YOU[/U], who believe that [U]YOU[/U] are entitled to take from Doppelganger whatever [U]YOU[/U] feel is correct in order to fund [U]YOUR[/U] "social justice" agenda.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;416867]You can't legislate self interest out of human beings, but liberals seem to think you can.[/QUOTE][b][i]"Liberal policies will always fail because they are based on manifestly inaccurate models of human behavior."[/i][/b]

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Esten;416864]However, what stands out is that you appear to have a sense of entitlement. You've built a business and created jobs, paid good wages and benefits, and become very well off in the process. All fine and good. But now you say, that's enough. You shouldn't be expected to pay more taxes, or take a hit to your wealth, because of all you've already done.[/QUOTE]This is another vivid demonstration of how deluded this guy is. He simply doesn't understand how things work, which is obvious from his statements quoted above.

Esten, he [b][u]is[/u] paying more[/b] That's how our tax system works. Are you really this stupid?

If he made $50,000 before he became successful, and $150,000 after he became successful, he's paying [b]three times more in taxes[/b]!

But, that's only half of it. The tax system is progressive. So, as Doppel goes up the income ladder, his percentage increases along with it.

For example, at $50,000 a year he'd likely pay very little, perhaps 10% or $5, 000 after the standard deduction, if that.

At $150,000, he probably pays a blended rate of 20% to the feds, or $30,000 a year. That's $25,000 more, or 500% more. The deck gets stacked further against him as he makes more.

[QUOTE=Esten; 416864]In other words, you're special. With our current economic situation, record debt and unemployment, where higher revenue and spending cuts can both address our issues, you shouldn't be asked to chip in because you've done enough. Successful businessmen should be exempted from the shared sacrifice.

Congratulations Doppel, here's your Free Pass. You've earned it. [/QUOTE]"Special" "Free Pass" Huh? You can't really be this facile? Well, come to think of it, you can.

Sure, he's special. He's what pays your retirement and all the other freebies you're sure to load up on if you seriously believe any of the crap you spew here.

Instead of arguing with him, you ought to be kissing his ass. Without folks like that, you'd be living in squalor.