2012 Elections in the USA

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424978]Big Boss Man, Politicians have screwed up the tax system by jacking up tax rates and then offering all types of deductions, exemptions and tax credits to their favored special interests. They get campaign contributions in return. Examples:

1. Hedge and private equity fund managers like Romney are taxed on their fees at the rate of 15, the long term capital gains rate, instead of 35% like everyone else. This is a system that Chuck Schumer (Democrat Senator from NY) fought tooth and nail to preserve until recently, to protect fund owners in New York.

2. Companies who put in alternative energy projects, like wind, geothermal, etc, receive tax credits from the government. They turn around and sell the tax credits to people and companies who can use them. They pay for their projects with tax credits.

3. Companies and homeowners deduct interest expense. O. K, maybe this is reasonable, maybe it's not. But it encourages a culture of debt. People are rewarded for borrowing instead of saving, especially with interest rates close to zero. After inflation and taxes, you're losing money big time keeping it in the bank or money market funds.

What you seem to favor is a system that makes the economy less efficient and gives politicians, Republicans and Democrats, chips to buy off special interests. It makes dealing with the tax code extremely cumbersome. Tens of billions of dollars are flushed down the drain annually doing the accounting work to prepare tax and information returns for the IRS. People and companies do all kinds of things that don't make economic sense, except to lower their taxes by taking advantage of loopholes.

In any event, if elected, it's unlikely Romney will succeed in lowering tax rates significantly, just as, I hope, it's unlikely Obama will be successful in jacking the federal income tax rate up to 40%+. Obama's emphasis on high marginal rates and the opportunities that provides politicians to hand out special favors shows why Esten is wrong. Politicians with no knowledge of how business works can screw up the economy royally.[/QUOTE]

Prior to investing your money in an investment that the gains will be taxed going forward at 15% WHAT WAS THAT MONEY TAXES AT PREVIOUSLY. You wild-ass liberals kill me! At current 2% of the tax payers pay 70% of the US taxes. So whats your number Tiny? 80, 85, 90 100! Please just let us know and we can settle this once and for all! All us in the 2% just want to know WHAT WILL SHUT YOU IDIOTS THE F$CK UP! Us 2% just HATE to pay our share, don't ya know. GIVE ME A BREAK! It is obvious that you have never made any investment in anyone or anything BUt yourself and have never owned a small business. DEDUCTIONS! What the heck are you talking about! Idiots like you make me sick! Happy Mongering all. Toymann

This discussion segues perfectly into a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top 1% of income earners in the USA pay 40% of all income taxes.
The top 5% of income earners in the USA pay 60% of all income taxes.
The top 10% of income earners in the USA pay 70% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners in the USA pay 2.7% of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: [b]What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners? [/b]

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson

Your right Esten, Running a Successful Business does not equal Running Government.

Any business which was run as our Federal Government is run would be bankrupt in the first year if not in the first quarter!

After $5 Trillion in spending with little to show for it perhaps it is time to start running the Federal Government as a Business!

Some form of Flat Tax. I know there are some problems, but we need to start somewhere.

[url]http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-flat-tax.htm[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax[/url]

Even some Republicans want it.

[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/25/perry-says-plan-will-free-americans-from-lengthy-tax-code/[/url]

[QUOTE=Jackson; 424986]This discussion segues perfectly into a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top 1% of income earners in the USA pay 40% of all income taxes.
The top 5% of income earners in the USA pay 60% of all income taxes.
The top 10% of income earners in the USA pay 70% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners in the USA pay 2. 7% of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: [b]What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners? [/b]

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

Toymann, YOU IDIOT, I agree with everything you wrote. Look up carried interest on the internet. The 15% tax on carried interest is a tax on fees received by hedge fund and private equity fund managers. It was a gift of the Democratic party to Wall Street. Remember that Wall Street used to support Democrats. After four years of Obama, it's swinging Republican. If fund managers were taxed like everyone else, they'd currently be paying 35% federal income tax, which I agree is higher than it should be.

If Romney wins the presidency and the Republicans get 60 seats in the senate, there's a good chance you'll see marginal tax rates go down and loopholes like carried interest disappear. This is what you'd expect from Romney's and Ryan's tax plans. This would be good for the economy. BTW, based on his flat tax post, WT69 sees wisdom in the idea. WT69, I'm proud of you for being willing to take ideas from both sides, and I'm not being sarcastic.

I'd prefer a progressive consumption tax to a progressive income tax. But that's not going to happen. So if we can reduce marginal rates, eliminate loopholes, and simplify the tax code all will come out ahead.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;424995]Look up carried interest on the internet.[/QUOTE]My post had nothing to do with Carried Interest dude. Where did you come up with that idea? Let me spell it out. My point was that the money I invest in the US market has already been taxed at the maximum level prior to my investment. Thus, whats is so terrible that when I reinvest, my already taxed hard earned cash, that I am rewarded with a lower rate on the gains that I may make. Are we clear now. The rest of my post about paying one's far share should be clear, even to you Tiny. Your statement that WT69 is a wise man? IALOTFLMAO. Wt69 is a great guy, but putting him the wise man category is a stretch, for sure. Some of us are planning an intervention if he ever gets back to BA. Hope you now understand my previous post. Monger on all. Toymann.

Ps. Like I don't understand carried interest, please!

[QUOTE=Tiny12;424995]I'd prefer a progressive consumption tax to a progressive income tax. But that's not going to happen. So if we can reduce marginal rates, eliminate loopholes, and simplify the tax code all will come out ahead.[/QUOTE]I agree, but you can also make a flat tax progressive by exempting a certain amount of income, which might help sell the idea to the libs.

[QUOTE=Jackson;424997]I agree, but you can also make a flat tax progressive by exempting a certain amount of income, which might help sell the idea to the libs.[/QUOTE]How about making the size and acope of government so small it requires neither an income nor a consumption tax? Just get rid of the socialistic welfare and warfare state. Big Government requires big taxes. Lets get the Federal Government back to doing the few things it is supposed to do, ie Constitutional Responsibilities. What this election between MR and Bo is about is who going to run big government better, vs making it dramatically smaller, less bloated and less intrusive. Heck, with all the taxes the confiscate from us now, the major parties still can't even balance a budget. (Unlike Governor Gary Johnson, who got his state in a mess, then left it a surplus after being reelected)

This election-think Libertarian Gary Johnson. There is a difference. Mitt Romney is just another big government Republican.

His plan is not good.

[url]http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/ryan_tax_plan.html[/url]

How can you tax the middle class anymore? There are almost none in existent.

[url]http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-04-07/news/30029211_1_paul-ryan-budget-proposals-plan[/url]

[QUOTE=Tiny12; 424995]Toymann, YOU IDIOT, I agree with everything you wrote. Look up carried interest on the internet. The 15% tax on carried interest is a tax on fees received by hedge fund and private equity fund managers. It was a gift of the Democratic party to Wall Street. Remember that Wall Street used to support Democrats. After four years of Obama, it's swinging Republican. If fund managers were taxed like everyone else, they'd currently be paying 35% federal income tax, which I agree is higher than it should be.

If Romney wins the presidency and the Republicans get 60 seats in the senate, there's a good chance you'll see marginal tax rates go down and loopholes like carried interest disappear. This is what you'd expect from Romney's and Ryan's tax plans. This would be good for the economy. BTW, based on his flat tax post, WT69 sees wisdom in the idea. WT69, I'm proud of you for being willing to take ideas from both sides, and I'm not being sarcastic.

I'd prefer a progressive consumption tax to a progressive income tax. But that's not going to happen. So if we can reduce marginal rates, eliminate loopholes, and simplify the tax code all will come out ahead.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;424995]Toymann, YOU IDIOT, I agree with everything you wrote. Look up carried interest on the internet. The 15% tax on carried interest is a tax on fees received by hedge fund and private equity fund managers. It was a gift of the Democratic party to Wall Street. Remember that Wall Street used to support Democrats. After four years of Obama, it's swinging Republican. If fund managers were taxed like everyone else, they'd currently be paying 35% federal income tax, which I agree is higher than it should be.[/quote]Well, Mr. Genius, maybe you could explain to all of us what a carried interest is and how management fees magically turn into carried interests. I do not think you know what the term means. The income that partners receive via carried interest is their percentage participation in the profits of the fund. Management fees are not paid to the fund, they are paid to the management company. In a typical mirror-onshore/offshore structure, with an offshore master fund, there could be two management companies and the management would have carried interests in both the domestic and offshore funds. However, 100% of their income is taxable, regardless of it is on or offshore, in the tax year during which it is received by the employee. Carried interests are treated like investments (very similar to how founder's stock is treated) and salaries and bonuses paid by the management company to its managers are taxable at the corresponding marginal rates. By the way, the reason for having two funds (one onshore and one off) is to protect foreign investors from the US Treasury and double taxation, not to help US investors avoid taxes.

If put to a vote of the American people, a flat tax would have a pretty decent chance of winning. That is precisely why the people in Washington, who oppose a flat tax (because it might de-fund some of their massive graft) will never let it get that far (I. E. To the point where the people would get to opine via ballot, on the subject.

[QUOTE=Silver Star;424999]This election-think Libertarian Gary Johnson. There is a difference. Mitt Romney is just another big government Republican.[/QUOTE]Silver Star, I prefer Gary Johnson to Mitt Romney. In fact, I prefer him to just about any US politician. However, he has about a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I may vote for him anyway, as there's about a 99. 999% probability that Romney will win my state. If I lived someplace like Ohio I'd definitely vote for Romney, as Obama is a far worse choice.

[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;425017]Well, Mr. Genius, maybe you could explain to all of us what a carried interest is and how management fees magically turn into carried interests.[/QUOTE]PERFORMANCE fees magically turn from ordinary income into capital gains with the wave of a politician's wand.

In your post, you fail to note that another reason for foreign funds is because U.S. tax exempt investors can't invest in domestic hedge and private equity funds. The U.S. Congress has screwed up the tax code so bad that our pension funds have to invest offshore!

[QUOTE=Toymann;424981]You won't be collecting any PRIZE till we are in town together dude. What are you thinking. I come to BA on a set schedule like clockwork. Suggest you adapt your schedule after November. Like I am going to just leave you 2000 pesos to spend without me as a wingman. IALOTFLMAO. We'll be in town eventually at the same time home boy. You wild-ass liberals just seem to have little common sense. Monger on Dude. Toymann.[/QUOTE]Another condition from Toymann. The last thing I need is a headache from this bet so I am going to put down a condition of my own. A 2 year expiration date. My decisions on how I use my precious vacation time won't be influenced by a bet, nor would I expect that from you. Argentina is just one stop on my rotation, I have several countries I visit (or want to). Obviously the best scenario is we hit the town together on prize collection night. I'm just saying there is no guarantee that will happen, and I don't want to be following some bet for years and years. So any obligations will expire on Nov. 7 2014.

If you win I will make a good faith effort to have the 2000 pesos available for you on your next trip down to BA. If I win, I expect you will do the same in return but can't force you.

[QUOTE=Jackson;424986]This discussion segues perfectly into a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:[/QUOTE]Actually, you asked the exact same question almost VERBATIM in December 2010. And I answered you directly. LOL.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 414447]This discussion segues perfectly into me posing a question that no liberal has ever answered directly:

The top [b]1%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]40%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The top [b]5%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]60%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The top [b]10%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]70%[/b] Of all income taxes.

The bottom [b]50%[/b] Of income earners in the USA pay [b]2. 7%[/b] Of all income taxes.

So here's my question to liberals: What percentage of all income taxes do you believe should be paid by the top 10% of income earners?

In other words, what do you believe is a fair proportion?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Esten; 414458]From 2008 IRS data, the top 10% had an average tax rate of 18. 71. It should be around 35, but isn't because of lower taxes on investment income (remember Warren Buffett's secretary). Under Clinton the top tax rate was 39. 6% and the economy did just fine. I would consider it fair for the top 10% tax rate paid to [i]double[/i] From it's current number of 18. 71, because top earners without investment income have been paying rates between 35. 39. 6% for nearly two decades. With this doubling you would obtain more tax revenue from the top 10% than is currently obtained from all taxpayers. Even an increase from 18. 71% to just 27% (even fairer) would still match all current tax collections.

So to answer Jackson's question:

[i]It would be fair for the top 10% of income earners to pay 100% of all income taxes. [/i][/QUOTE][QUOTE=Jackson; 414460]Touché!

Well, at least I got a straight answer this time.

Thanks,

Jackson[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Silver Star; 424999]How about making the size and acope of government so small it requires neither an income nor a consumption tax? Just get rid of the socialistic welfare and warfare state. Big Government requires big taxes. Lets get the Federal Government back to doing the few things it is supposed to do, ie Constitutional Responsibilities. What this election between MR and Bo is about is who going to run big government better, vs making it dramatically smaller, less bloated and less intrusive. Heck, with all the taxes the confiscate from us now, the major parties still can't even balance a budget. (Unlike Governor Gary Johnson, who got his state in a mess, then left it a surplus after being reelected)

This election-think Libertarian Gary Johnson. There is a difference. Mitt Romney is just another big government Republican.[/QUOTE]For heavans sake Fred. What is the color of the sky in your world? You seem like a very nice fella BUT your ideas are about as disconnected with reality as charging north of 600 pesos from EZE to town when the going rate is 180 pesos, just because you have a town car. IALOTFLMAO! Your idea for leadership in the US is about as real as electing the communist party in Canada. The party exists (in a multiparty system) but no one votes for this type of pipe dream. You are asking, to totally change the US the way Obomanation is also trying to change the US (just in a different direction). Good thing you live in Argentina as your ideas would mostly be met with a rye smile by 99% of the current residents of this country. Protest votes are ok BUt at the end of the day, they are a cop-out and mean nothing. Hope it makes you feel better though. Good luck with the crazy inflated cab business dude. Some might use you but never I. Hate to throw good money after bad even if I could easily afford it. Toymann