WT69, So you admit that Obama lied?
Printable View
WT69, So you admit that Obama lied?
I admit to nothing. Just like the Republicans.
It was a Bill Maher joke that I said wrong.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;436633]WT69, So you admit that Obama lied?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;436630]The top marginal federal rate on income since January 1, 2013 is 43.4%. The top marginal federal + state + local income tax rate in California is around 56%, in New York City around 55%. And, as you know, there are also sales and property taxes, that both individuals and businesses must pay.
Fortunately the Republicans prevented tax rates from going up on everyone this year, so that total federal revenues as % of GDP are still reasonable by historical standards. Unfortunately, Tea Party Republicans were not able to prevent the federal government from continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow. So, despite the sequester, we continue to pile up massive amounts of debt for future generations to pay. Esten's and possibly your idea that this can be solved by increasing taxes on the rich is a pipe-dream. Even if some haven't already changed their behavior in response to higher rates, they don't have enough money to come close to solving the problem.[/QUOTE]You should do your homework before you post. According to the IRS, the top marginal rate for 2013 is 39.6% NOT the 43.4% stated in your post. The difference between what you say is a marginal rate of 43.4% and 39.6% is a surcharge that does not kick in until a single taxpayer earns more than $200,000 or a married taxpayer earns more than $250,000. We pay sales and property taxes no matter which party is in charge. You also conveniently neglect to mention that state and local income taxes as well as property taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, as are a host of other expenditures. If you do the arithmetic, it still does not add up to your original reason for working less. If you make more than the surcharge limits, you make a lot of money; however I still think you are lazy and no longer want to work. I do not care for Obama, but I do not blame him for everything that is wrong. I agree that Obama is inept, but so are a lot of other politicians, and there is plenty of blame for everyone.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;436636]You should do your homework before you post. According to the IRS, the top marginal rate for 2013 is 39.6% NOT the 43.4% stated in your post. The difference between what you say is a marginal rate of 43.4% and 39.6% is a surcharge that does not kick in until a single taxpayer earns more than $200,000 or a married taxpayer earns more than $250,000. We pay sales and property taxes no matter which party is in charge. You also conveniently neglect to mention that state and local income taxes as well as property taxes are deductible from federal income taxes, as are a host of other expenditures. If you do the arithmetic, it still does not add up to your original reason for working less. If you make more than the surcharge limits, you make a lot of money; however I still think you are lazy and no longer want to work. I do not care for Obama, but I do not blame him for everything that is wrong. I agree that Obama is inept, but so are a lot of other politicians, and there is plenty of blame for everyone.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Tres, You should do your homework before you post. The maximum marginal rate is 43.4%, period. You can call it a surcharge if you wish. That doesn't alter the fact that if an individual, directly or through an LLC, makes $10 million in a year, he or she is going to pay 43.4% tax to the federal government on every dollar of ordinary income over $402,200. I did take into account the deduction for state and local income tax in what I quoted for California and New York rates. What you don't take into account is the effect of the Pease Amendment, which severely limits the amount of deductions on Schedule A for many upper income taxpayers. And yes, I agree, a host of other expenditures may be deductible if you are willing to lie and say personal expenditures are attributable to your business. Or if you're willing to do things that shouldn't make business sense but reduce your tax bill. I guess I am lazy as I now only work about 40 hours a week, a good part of which is keeping up with federal government bull shit, instead of around 70 hours a week in 2012. I do strongly agree with the last sentence of your post.
P.S. You conveniently neglect to mention that when you add sales taxes and property taxes to income taxes, the total taxes paid by many unincorporated businesses (and the individuals who own them) are much higher than the net profit. And the owners typically re-invest more of that profit in the business than they put in their pockets. When the owner dies, the maximum marginal federal death tax on what he owned is 40%. In other words, the majority of the "spoils" go to government.
[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;436635]I admit to nothing. Just like the Republicans.[/QUOTE]Well played, WT69! All of a sudden, who is being self-righteous?
We should all learn to get along better since WE are all going to be neighbors!
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:8).
Probably most "good people" would agree that "murderers, and whoremongers" deserve hell—but "the fearful, and unbelieving, . . . And all liars"? Would that not include just about everyone?
This shit sounds serious!
TL.
Murderers and whoremongers!
[QUOTE=Punter127;436632] Woo-hoo Obamacare is successful in three state out of 50, baby we're cookin with gas now, it just don't get much better than this! [/QUOTE]So arrogant. If 3 states can show that they can be successful, the other 47 states should be asking themselves how come they are shooting their own feet. Stubborn is stubborn. Anything with Obama's name, yeah, got to be crap, right?
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]So arrogant.[/QUOTE]I assume that's what you say when you look in that famous magic mirror of yours.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]If 3 states can show that they can be successful, the other 47 states should be asking themselves how come they are shooting their own feet.[/QUOTE]First of all I'm not convinced they are successful, other than for medicaid, but if and that's a big if they are why can't your all knowing big government do the same thing nationwide? Are you making a case for states rights?
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]Stubborn is stubborn.[/QUOTE]More words of wisdom from your magic mirror?
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436641]Anything with Obama's name, yeah, got to be crap, right?[/QUOTE]Am I required to like him? I can't remember one time that you ever spoke out against anything with Obama's name on it, can you?
Nope, not all would be crap, his resignation would be considered a godsent.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;436638]Tres, You should do your homework before you post. The maximum marginal rate is 43.4%, period. You can call it a surcharge if you wish. That doesn't alter the fact that if an individual, directly or through an LLC, makes $10 million in a year, he or she is going to pay 43.4% tax to the federal government on every dollar of ordinary income over $402,200. I did take into account the deduction for state and local income tax in what I quoted for California and New York rates. What you don't take into account is the effect of the Pease Amendment, which severely limits the amount of deductions on Schedule A for many upper income taxpayers. And yes, I agree, a host of other expenditures may be deductible if you are willing to lie and say personal expenditures are attributable to your business. Or if you're willing to do things that shouldn't make business sense but reduce your tax bill. I guess I am lazy as I now only work about 40 hours a week, a good part of which is keeping up with federal government bull shit, instead of around 70 hours a week in 2012. I do strongly agree with the last sentence of your post.
P.S. You conveniently neglect to mention that when you add sales taxes and property taxes to income taxes, the total taxes paid by many unincorporated businesses (and the individuals who own them) are much higher than the net profit. And the owners typically re-invest more of that profit in the business than they put in their pockets. When the owner dies, the maximum marginal federal death tax on what he owned is 40%. In other words, the majority of the "spoils" go to government.[/QUOTE]As I said before, the maximum marginal FEDERAL rate is 39.6%. The surcharge kicks in at $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for marrieds. At that level of income, the top marginal rate is less than 39.6% by more than the surcharge rate, and the surcharge is levied only against "investment income", not salaries or earnings from actual work. The 39.6 bracket is for high income persons who make over $400,000 per year from work. For the marginal rate to exceed 39.6% and equal 43.4%, a person must have a combination of work income over $400,000 per year AND investment income. Those are the facts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
$400,000 per year is a lot of money, and more than most all of the posters and readers of this forum make. Hats off and kudos to you, especially if you have investment income in excess of $200,000. You have my envy, but not my sympathy.
Tres3.
[QUOTE=Tres3;436644]As I said before, the maximum marginal FEDERAL rate is 39.6%. The surcharge kicks in at $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for marrieds. At that level of income, the top marginal rate is less than 39.6% by more than the surcharge rate, and the surcharge is levied only against "investment income", not salaries or earnings from actual work. The 39.6 bracket is for high income persons who make over $400,000 per year from work. For the marginal rate to exceed 39.6% and equal 43.4%, a person must have a combination of work income over $400,000 per year AND investment income. Those are the facts, and anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong.
$400,000 per year is a lot of money, and more than most all of the posters and readers of this forum make. Hats off and kudos to you, especially if you have investment income in excess of $200,000. You have my envy, but not my sympathy.
Tres3.[/QUOTE]Tres, About the surcharge, you can call a train an orange as much as you want. That doesn't mean it's an orange. Every dollar of self-employment, interest, short term capital gains, or royalty income over $402,200 is taxed by the federal government at 43.4%. For people who get a paycheck, the marginal rate on salary income is 41.95%, with the employer picking up the 1.45% differential between two rates. I believe some part of the 3.8% Medicare / ACA component of tax on self employment income can be avoided if your business is in a Sub S corporation. But this strategy creates problems and doesn't work as well as LLC's for most businesses. I'm not looking for sympathy. I am pointing out that increasing marginal tax rates does not necessarily increase the amount of tax collected. High taxes, whether they be on people/businesses who make $20,000 a year or $20 million a year, reduce incentives and make the economy less dynamic.
[QUOTE=Punter127;436643]I assume that's what you say when you look in that famous magic mirror of yours.
First of all I'm not convinced they are successful, other than for medicaid, but if and that's a big if they are why can't your all knowing big government do the same thing nationwide? Are you making a case for states rights?
More words of wisdom from your magic mirror?
Am I required to like him? I can't remember one time that you ever spoke out against anything with Obama's name on it, can you?
Nope, not all would be crap, his resignation would be considered a godsent.[/QUOTE]I think I've gone as far as I can with this subject, anymore is not going to add additional value. It was never my intention for it to get personal. Time & elections will be the barometer for what Americans want.
For me, ACA has already achieve its purpose, and that is to change the footprint for health care in America. How it will survive in its original form does not matter to me as long as the universal mandate is present.
Buenos suerte.
Two prominent candidates for the Man of the Year, 2013 was in the news in the last 24 hours. George Zimmerman of the "Right to Carry" fame, was charged with aggravated assault (pointing a shotgun at his girlfriend), domestic violence battery and criminal mischief. Way to go, George. I know, your girlfriend was probably encroaching and looking suspicious & dangerous.
And the 2nd, none other than the king of loansharks, Jamie Dimon. Him of the "you use our services, we charge you a fee. That's all we do". I need not say more.
If it was an AP vote, both men would be top contenders for the award. Alot of supporters and apologizers here. So who should I vote for the Man of the Year, 2013? No, no, no. The name does not start with O. O is having a shitty year. Initials, BB. BB King is the wrong answer.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436648]I think I've gone as far as I can with this subject, anymore is not going to add additional value. It was never my intention for it to get personal. Time & elections will be the barometer for what Americans want.
[/QUOTE]When you're debating politics and you can't adequately defend your position it's easy to succumb to attack the messenger tactics, I think its just the nature of the beast. So if you're not thick skinned or if you wear you heart on your sleeve you should avoid this thread. I agree with you about time and elections, and if the number of Democrats running from ObamaCare and current polls are any indication it's going to be painful for Democrats. Though his tactics may not have been optimal Ted Cruz made the public very aware that Democrats own ObamaCare, and control of the Senate could well change hands in 2014.
[QUOTE=BlackShirt;436648]For me, ACA has already achieve its purpose, and that is to change the footprint for health care in America. How it will survive in its original form does not matter to me as long as the universal mandate is present.
Buenos suerte.[/QUOTE]If your goal was to see millions of Americans health insurance cancelled and have millions see their rates sky rocket, then you should be tickled pink, very pink.
In 1988 the Catastrophic Health Care Act was signed into law and it was repealed in 1989 because the people didn't like it, so don't think ObamaCare can't be repealed or changed. The ObamaCare Ponzi scheme can not support itself without gouging the American people.
Universal mandate? Sir we are citizens of a free Constitutional Republic and in our Republic the government doesn't put mandates on the people, "We The People" put mandates on the government.
My dislike for President Obama stems from his (and your) disrespect for the Constitution. In my opinion President Obamas distain for the Constitution coupled with the support of people like you has put the Republic in jeopardy. Below is links (pages 1 & 2) to an article that explains what I'm talking about, I strongly suggest everyone read it.
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/2/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Punter127;436652]When you're debating politics and you can't adequately defend your position it's easy to succumb to attack the messenger tactics, I think its just the nature of the beast. So if you're not thick skinned or if you wear you heart on your sleeve you should avoid this thread. I agree with you about time and elections, and if the number of Democrats running from ObamaCare and current polls are any indication it's going to be painful for Democrats. Though his tactics may not have been optimal Ted Cruz made the public very aware that Democrats own ObamaCare, and control of the Senate could well change hands in 2014.
If your goal was to see millions of Americans health insurance cancelled and have millions see their rates sky rocket, then you should be tickled pink, very pink.
In 1988 the Catastrophic Health Care Act was signed into law and it was repealed in 1989 because the people didn't like it, so don't think ObamaCare can't be repealed or changed. The ObamaCare Ponzi scheme can not support itself without gouging the American people.
Universal mandate? Sir we are citizens of a free Constitutional Republic and in our Republic the government doesn't put mandates on the people, "We The People" put mandates on the government.
My dislike for President Obama stems from his (and your) disrespect for the Constitution. In my opinion President Obamas distain for the Constitution coupled with the support of people like you has put the Republic in jeopardy. Below is links (pages 1 & 2) to an article that explains what I'm talking about, I strongly suggest everyone read it.
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/[/URL]
[URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/11/19/obamas-disdain-for-the-constitution-means-we-risk-losing-our-republic/2/[/URL][/QUOTE]I am speechless.
[B]CBS Poll: 84% of Democrats Want ObamaCare Changed or Repealed[/B]
[QUOTE]A fascinating number in Wednesday's CBS poll is that only 7% of the American public want ObamaCare "kept in place." A full 93% either believe that changes are needed to the law (48%) or want a full repeal (43%). This pits President Obama and Democrat lawmakers -- who thus far have refused to make any meaningful changes -- against 93% of the American people and 72% of Democrats.
Moreover, only 12% of Democrats want ObamaCare "kept as is." Another 12% want it repealed.
If only 12% of Democrats want nothing changed with ObamaCare, there is no question that Democrat lawmakers and the president are defying their own base with this ongoing refusal to make any real changes to the law. Furthermore, they are blocking proposed changes, including changes proposed by fellow Democrats.
[i]The growing narrative from the media and ObamaCare champions is that Democrats need to "stay the course." Analyzing the Democrats' political options, ABC's Rick Klein writes today:
Lost in the Democratic angst over Obamacare is a simple fact of 2014 politics: They don’t really have any choice but to own it. … No quantity of votes on “fixes” now will matter in the broad messaging wars later; no lawmaker, and virtually no Democratic challenger, will be able to seal him or herself off from potential political damage.[/i]
Klein is not alone with this advice. But how exactly is that a smart play when 84% of Democrats disagree?
A fair question to ask is, "What kind of changes do Democrat voters want?" [highlight]A poll released by ABC News yesterday showed that two-thirds of Americans oppose ObamaCare's individual mandate.[/highlight] There are definitely some Democrats in that group.
It is also safe to guess that a whole lot of Democrat voters would like to see laws passed that ensure people don’t lose the insurance Obama repeatedly promised they could keep. But those are legislative changes the president has threatened to veto and Democrat leaders refuse to even put to a vote.
As the 2014 midterms loom large late next year, ObamaCare is almost certain to have begun its rampage through the lives of the 95% of Americans who are insured through group and employer plans. The administration itself predicts that tens of millions will lose their insurance as the new employer mandate kicks in. For obvious reasons, the media is covering this fact up. But cover-ups can't stop reality from becoming reality.
[highlight]By this time next year, "stay the course" is probably going to look like a suicide pact.[/highlight][/QUOTE]There won't be any gratification in the failure of ObamaCare because so many Americans were hurt by it, but I hope it helps people realize the pitfalls of big government.