PDA

View Full Version : The Reagan Rule



Qtec
04-11-2012, 11:52 PM
link (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/obama-calls-ronald-reagan-a-wild-eyed-socialist-tax-hiking-class-warrior/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama made the case today for the so-called “Buffet Rule,” which would mandate that the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as middle class families.

He described for the audience the actions of one of his predecessors in the Oval Office, a president who “gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was ‘crazy’—that’s a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior,” he said, “was Ronald Reagan.”

Reagan, said the president, believed that everyone in the U.S. should pay their fair share, a position that would “disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days.”</span> He even suggested changing the name from the “Buffet Rule” to the “Reagan Rule” <u>if that would make it a little easier for Republicans to bear.</u> </div></div> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Q

LWW
04-12-2012, 04:31 AM
It certainly doesn't take much to fool you does it.

Qtec
04-13-2012, 03:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It certainly doesn't take much to fool you does it. </div></div>

"We want to see that everyone pays their FAIR SHARE and that NO ONE gets a free ride."

FACTS FOR YOU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_XUAk-PVJ0&feature=related)

Go Ronnie!


Q

Qtec
04-13-2012, 03:53 AM
more (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mp1nuEVOoc&feature=related)


Q

eg8r
04-15-2012, 08:18 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama made the case today for the so-called “Buffet Rule,” which would mandate that the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as middle class families.
</div></div>LOL, if he really believed in this then why didn't he remove some of his deductions this year to raise his effective tax rate up to where it should be so that he is paying his "fair" share. Heck with that in mind, why don't all tax proponents make the declaration they will no longer take a tax deduction? Why do they hypocritically continue to take advantage of the tax system?

eg8r

Qtec
04-16-2012, 12:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, if he really believed in this then why didn't he <u>remove some of his deductions </u>this year to raise his effective tax rate </div></div>

How does he do that? Are you saying he should lie on his tax return?
How much tax does Obama pay on his Pres salary? Does he pay less tax on his book revenue?

Don't you think there is a difference in honestly detailing your expenses, getting the tax breaks - that everyone does - for school fees for your kids,

etc and <span style='font-size: 23pt'>someone DELIBERATELY creating a whole construction of companies, with bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands, like ROMNEY does, JUST to avoid paying more tax?</span>

You are the hypocrite.

Q

eg8r
04-16-2012, 08:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How does he do that?</div></div>It is quite easy...when you get to the part of the form that asks you to lists the items to deduct you skip over it. This is not lying, this is saying, "No Uncle Sam, I do not wish to pay less taxes, I wish to pay my fair share so that the taxes I pay in can be given to you because you know better how to spend my money."

As far as your comparison of everyday people and their taxes and what Romney did, you are talking apples and oranges. Are you saying Obama approves of this idea of rich not paying enough because rich people follow the tax law (which is exactly what Romney is doing), or is it because the poor need the money more? If you truly believe the second one then it doesn't matter how Romney shifts his tax burden around and you shouldn't even bring it up. Stand behind a bill that supports the poor and for that reason only, not because someone else has the ability to do something you can't.

Sorry though, you are the only hypocrite. I did not dodge the tax man like you did and then go out and tell the world that people aren't paying their fair share of taxes (which again is something you refuse to define).

eg8r

Qtec
04-17-2012, 02:15 AM
As usual, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>you don't get it.</span>

Obama not taking any deductions is not going to solve the problem of the rich not paying their fair share. Is it now?

Q

Qtec
04-17-2012, 02:17 AM
Another dumba$$.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris Wallace, Serious Journalist

April 16, 2012 10:02 am ET by Eric Boehlert

Interviewing Obama advisor Davis Axelrod on Fox News Sunday this week, Chris Wallace asked the type of question that prompts the use of the rewind button, just to confirm the silly gotcha query was actually made on public policy television show, and pitched by a 'serious' journalist like Wallace.

The topic the Fox host was pressing Axelrod on was tax fairness and specifically Obama's recent urging of Congress to pass the so-called Buffett Rule, named after famed investor Warren Buffett, which would require people earning over one million each year to pay a tax rate of at least 30 percent.

Wallace wanted to know if Obama was truly committed to the issue [emphasis added]:

[I]f I may, David, the question I have for you is: <u>if the president feels so strongly about tax fairness, is he going to he contribute money to the Treasury and they have a special department just for this, to help with the deficit?</u>

And no, Wallace wasn't kidding. He soon pressed Axelrod again on the topic:

I take it then he's not going to contribute money to the Treasury to help with the deficit.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This, of course, is nonsense.</span> Because the president is advocating for tax reform to help battle the deficit that means he's supposed to pay extra taxes, or donate part of his income to the U.S. Treasury, otherwise he's a hypocrite? That's not how a representative government works. Leaders in a democracy aren't expected to dip into their bank account in order to prove the seriousness of their policy beliefs.

Obama supports affordable college education, does Wallace think the president should pay the tuition of scores of students in order to prove his point? Obama supports investment in infrastructure, does that means he should make large donations to the Department of Transportation to help it build new bridges?

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>It's absurd.</span> </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204160002)

Q

eg8r
04-17-2012, 07:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama not taking any deductions is not going to solve the problem of the rich not paying their fair share. Is it now?
</div></div>As usual you never had a chance at "getting it". Now if you would like to read through my post please tell me where I said, "Obama would solve the problem if he practiced what he preached". Let me guess, you can't. I know because I never said him paying his "fair share" would solve the problem.

The king of "tax the rich" hypocrites is Warren Buffett. He takes every tax break possible and then complains that he is allowed to do it. Obama is just doing the same thing. They tell us all these tax loopholes are bad, bad, bad. Yet what do they do come April 15th? They jump on the deduction/tax break wagon just as fast as those evil rich people. Hypocrites.

eg8r

eg8r
04-17-2012, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This, of course, is nonsense. Because the president is advocating for tax reform to help battle the deficit that means he's supposed to pay extra taxes, or donate part of his income to the U.S. Treasury</div></div>LOL, we know you are an idiot and now you have found someone out there just as stupid as you are. Wallace never said anything about Obama paying "extra" taxes. What Wallace is asking is whether Obama is going to pay his fair share which we have since heard he has no intention of doing.

eg8r

LWW
04-17-2012, 07:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>you don't get it.</span>

Obama not taking any deductions is not going to solve the problem of the rich not paying their fair share. Is it now?

Q

</div></div>

What is their fair share in your opinion ... other than a spoon fed line that you regurgitate on demand?

LWW
04-17-2012, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>you don't get it.</span>

Q

</div></div>

It's so sad that you don't even realize what Reagan was even talking about.

Not that you will pay attention, but Reagan's tax program was successful because it lowered rates and eliminated many deductions. This forced capital to go where it was more productive and not to where it was most tax sheltered.

Who fought tooth and nail against this policy? The far left.

Who suggested that we return to a similar tax system again? Obama's own deficit commission.

Who denounced their ideas? The far left.

Who then used a deceitful misrepresentation of Reagan's tax policy in an effort to pimp the naive, the uneducated, the ill informed, and the outright stupid among us? The demokrooks.

Who swallowed the spoon fed lie without question? You, as usual, did ... and begged for seconds.

Gayle in MD
04-17-2012, 08:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> link (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/obama-calls-ronald-reagan-a-wild-eyed-socialist-tax-hiking-class-warrior/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama made the case today for the so-called “Buffet Rule,” which would mandate that the wealthy pay the same percentage of their income in taxes as middle class families.

He described for the audience the actions of one of his predecessors in the Oval Office, a president who “gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was ‘crazy’—that’s a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>“That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior,” he said, “was Ronald Reagan.”

Reagan, said the president, believed that everyone in the U.S. should pay their fair share, a position that would “disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days.”</span> He even suggested changing the name from the “Buffet Rule” to the “Reagan Rule” <u>if that would make it a little easier for Republicans to bear.</u> </div></div> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Q </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Reagan, said the president, believed that everyone in the U.S. should pay their fair share, a position that would “disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days.” He even suggested changing the name from the “Buffet Rule” to the “Reagan Rule” if that would make it a little easier for Republicans to bear. </div></div>

Just posted information about how the Repubs have drifted farther right, than they have been in one hundred years. It was written by the most respected on this sort of information, and he's even a conservative.

Waiting to watch the Romney Moon Walk, now that he's going to have to start to try to appeal to moderates.

He can forget that! His arrogance and elitism is turning more and more people off, and Annie is providing us with more proof that she is as good a liar as Mitsey!

G.

LWW
04-17-2012, 08:16 AM
I am being shadow posted again.

LWW
04-18-2012, 04:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As usual, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>you don't get it.</span>

Obama not taking any deductions is not going to solve the problem of the rich not paying their fair share. Is it now?

Q

</div></div>

<u><span style='font-size: 11pt'>What is their fair share in your opinion</span></u> ... other than a spoon fed line that you regurgitate on demand? </div></div>

I'm still waiting for an answer Snoopy.

If you are convinced they don't pay their fair sure then you must know what their fair share is ... unless, as I suspect, you have no actual opinion other than what your masters tell you to recite on demand.

Qtec
04-18-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you saying Obama approves of this idea of rich not paying enough because rich people follow the tax law (which is exactly what Romney is doing), or is it because the poor need the money more? </div></div>

Romney is using every loophole that he can in order to reduce his taxes, so does Buffet. They both exploit the tax code and get extra deductions that are only available to the wealthy.

It might be legal but is it fair?

Should the rich get more tax breaks than the man in the street?

This is not about Buffet, Romney or Obama.

The system is broken, Obama and Buffet want to do something about it, EVEN knowing that it will cost them money!

Romney thinks he should have his taxes cut!

Q

eg8r
04-18-2012, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney is using every loophole that he can in order to reduce his taxes, so does Buffet.</div></div>So does every single tax payer. Ask sofla if he uses tax law to reduce his effective tax rate.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney is using every loophole that he can in order to reduce his taxes, so does Buffet. They both exploit the tax code and get extra deductions that are only available to the wealthy.
</div></div>How is this any different Neiman Marcus having a 20% sale on all their clothing? The rich can exploit this but not the poor yet you don't seem to be chastising any establishments where the rich shop? The only thing you want to attack based on an undefined "fairness" is the point in which money can be taken from one group and given to another.

Every single loophole Buffet uses is available to every single American.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is not about Buffet, Romney or Obama.

The system is broken, Obama and Buffet want to do something about it, EVEN knowing that it will cost them money!
</div></div>You just don't get it do you...They don't want to do anything about it. If they did then their actions would show it. Right now, their actions are showing us that they care more about their tax breaks than they do giving that money to Uncle Sam so he can use it where needed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney thinks he should have his taxes cut!
</div></div>So does Obama which is why his accountant took advantage of the tax law to reduce his effective tax rate.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
04-18-2012, 09:13 AM
Fact is that any country in which there is a huge void between the wealthy and the rest, cannot thrive.

Any group which denies the FACT that in our country, historically, private growth has always been accompanied by public investment, is stupid.

Any country where women's rights are destroyed, becomes a lawless country without dignity, and without care and honor of those in need.

Unless we tax the extremely wealthy a reasonable amount, and end corporate welfare, and this Republican created, corrupt corporatocracy instead of making ti even worse, trying to give the rich even more tax breaks, when the top one percent, already has more money than they can spend in a lifetime, much of it thanks to their tax advantages, utilizing wealthy friendly tax advantages, that most Middle Class and poor people cannot access, nothing will improve.

When the top wealthiest already own such a huge bulk of American wealth, removing social insurance effort for the rest, will not promote the general welfare, which is precisely what our governmennt is supposed to do.

It is absoslutely absurd, to destroy our social insurance programs, which we pay for, BTW, as we continue lose revenue due to billions upon billions in corporate welfare, to maintain the Republican created, corrupt corporatocracy, and continue to suffer lost revenue, due to the supposed Trickle Down, that hasn't trickled in thirty years, with more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

To continue with the failed trickle down theory, instead of investing in re-building our dangerous deteriorated infrastructure, thereby creating American jobs that cannot be outsourced, maintaining our Food and Drug Administration, the EPA, the DOE, and investing in education, our country will remain in this quagmire.

We can only hope to prevent Republicans from allowing more pollution, a fools wish, if we look at their actions, and force them into policies of cracking down on polluters, who are making us all more ill.

Our declinging environment, is causing more infant mortality and more learning disabilities, and destroying America's resources, is bad for all Americans.

We must force our elected representatives to hold corporate polluters to account, force them to protect our health and the environment, for the sake of future generations.

Our young people will not have a chance, in a global economy, unless we invest in education.

Our history is proof enough, that private enterprise, thrives, and is always expanded through government investments.

Additionally, we must ed the Republican War On Women, history proves that when women are beaten down to nothing but chattle, nations fall. The young, suffer. Oppression thrives. Democracies die.

Unchecked greed and corruption, worsened by the RW radical Activist Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, has been our problem for decades, and now, it is worse than ever.

Colusion between government, and corporate interests, does not support our Democratic principles, and in fact, fascism is exactly that colusion, against the best and highest interests of the citizenry at large.



Romney is the poster boy for unpatriotic behavior, and greed.

Buying up American companies, firing everyone, gutting value, filing banksuptsey, sending American Jobs offshore, holding fake corporations in foreign accounts, money hidden in trusts annd offshore accounts, where nothing exists but a P.O Box address, not to mention he is the biggest flip-flopper-flip and outright liar in history.

Some candidate to run this country! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

eg8r
04-18-2012, 10:04 AM
gaylio is baaaaackkkk. Which means she will avoid what we are discussing and rant rant rant rant rant (sometimes she tries to stick the subject in the rant somewhere but more often than not that never happens).

eg8r

Soflasnapper
04-18-2012, 04:30 PM
Romney is using every loophole that he can in order to reduce his taxes, so does Buffet.

So does every single tax payer. Ask sofla if he uses tax law to reduce his effective tax rate.

At over a 36% effective rate last year, evidently no. (Self-employment tax is a bitch)

Qtec
04-19-2012, 01:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How is this any different Neiman Marcus having a 20% sale on all their clothing? </div></div>

Its totally different. Everyone has to pay tax on what they earn. Nobody<u> has</u> to shop at NM.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only thing you want to attack based on an undefined "fairness" is the point in which money can be taken from one group and given to another. </div></div>

Fairness is based on ability to pay. Those who earn more pay more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Every single loophole Buffet uses is available to every single American. </div></div>

LOL. Sure if you makes millions of $ a year you mean. How many of the 99% got a tax break on their private jet last year do you think?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You just don't get it do you...<span style='font-size: 14pt'>They don't want to do anything about it. If they did then their actions would show it.</span> </div></div>

Are you any relation to mitt Romney? What do you think the Buffet/Reagan Rule is?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Buffett Rule is a tax plan proposed by President Barack Obama in 2011.[1] The tax plan would apply a minimum tax of 30 percent to individuals making more than a million dollars a year.[2][3] According to a White House official, the new tax rate would impact 0.3 percent of taxpayers.[1] </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Q...'Romney thinks he should have his taxes cut! </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">egor...'So does Obama' </div></div>

That's absurd and obviously not true.

Q

Gayle in MD
04-19-2012, 07:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How The Mainstream Media Enables Senate GOP Obstructionism Of The Majority's Will
April 18, 2012 11:36 pm ET by Adam Shah

Yesterday, we documented how the conservative media, following the release of a report by the Secretary of the Senate, covered up obstructionism by Senate Republicans in order to cast Democrats as "do-nothing" and "lazy." In fact, Republicans have routinely resorted to filibusters to try to block bills that would have otherwise passed the Senate.

But the right-wing media would not easily get away with this if not for the complicity of the mainstream media. On Monday, a majority of senators voted in support of legislation to enact the Buffett Rule, which would set a minimum effective tax rate for annual income in excess of $1 million. Fifty-one senators voted in favor of the bill, while 45 senators opposed it. The legislation did not pass the Senate, however, because a Republican filibuster meant that a supermajority of 60 senators was needed in order to pass the bill.

But the mainstream media was noticeably derelict in reporting that the bill had majority support and was blocked by procedural tricks by the minority. For instance, The Boston Globe article on the subject stated: "Monday night's Buffett rule vote, which blocked consideration of the bill in a 51-45 tally, was timed to coincide with Tuesday's IRS filing deadline." The article continued: "Republicans prevented the measure from receiving the 60 votes necessary to open debate. All Republicans but Senator Susan Collins of Maine voted against it. All Democrats except for Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for it."

Unless a reader knew the number of Democrats and Republicans in the Senate, the reporting makes it seem that 51 senators voted against the bill rather than in favor of it.

USA Today similarly failed to inform its readers that the bill received majority support.

USA Today noted that the bill failed "to reach a supermajority needed to pass a tax plan," but never made clear that the bill did have a majority or that a supermajority was necessary because Republicans used procedural tricks to prevent an up-or-down vote. Indeed, the most natural reading of the article makes it seem that 51 senators voted against the Buffett Rule. The article reported:

The Democratic-controlled Senate failed on Monday to reach a supermajority needed to pass a tax plan offered by President Obama to require millionaires to pay a 30% minimum effective tax rate.

The 51-45 defeat of the "Buffett rule," named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett, fell mostly along party lines. The bill needed 60 votes to move forward. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was the only Republican to vote with Democrats, while Arkansas Democrat Mark Pryor sided with the GOP.

While The Washington Post noted in the body of its article on the subject that 51 senators voted in favor of the Buffett Rule, the headline of its article was: "Senate rejects consideration of 'Buffett rule' tax increase for millionaires."

And The New York Times reported the facts necessary for readers to know that the Buffett Rule got majority support, but still failed to straightforwardly report that 51 senators voted in favor of the Buffett Rule. Instead, the Times stated: "[T]he fierce debate preceding the 51-45 vote -- the Democrats were nine votes short of the 60 they needed -- set off a week of political wrangling over taxes that both parties insist they are already winning."

With the mainstream media making it so difficult for readers to learn that Senate Republicans are using procedural tricks to block the will of the Senate majority on issues like the Buffett Rule, it's that much easier for the right-wing media to hide the obstructionism of Senate Republicans.

Tags: The Washington Post, The New York Times, USA Today, The Boston Globe

</div></div>

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204180018

eg8r
04-19-2012, 07:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its totally different. Everyone has to pay tax on what they earn. Nobody has to shop at NM.
</div></div>It isn't any more different than people having to pay for HC insurance but nobody has to take birth control.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fairness is based on ability to pay. Those who earn more pay more.
</div></div>I have always said you were on ugly Marxist.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. Sure if you makes millions of $ a year you mean.</div></div>What I mean is that the law is the same for all Americans, plain and simple.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you any relation to mitt Romney? What do you think the Buffet/Reagan Rule is?
</div></div>Yep it is a front to get dumb people like you to think the rich will be paying more.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's absurd and obviously not true.
</div></div>You are absurd for cutting off my sentence. Read the rest. If Obama did not want to cut his taxes then he would not have taken the tax cuts that reduced his effective tax rate.

eg8r

LWW
04-19-2012, 08:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">gaylio is baaaaackkkk. Which means she will avoid what we are discussing and rant rant rant rant rant (sometimes she tries to stick the subject in the rant somewhere but more often than not that never happens).

eg8r </div></div>

I blame Bush.

Qtec
04-20-2012, 02:39 AM
You remind me of Cantor.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> CANTOR: We also know that over 45 percent of the people in this country don’t pay income taxes at all, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>and we have to question whether that’s fair.</span> And should we broaden the base in a way that we can lower the rates for everybody that pays taxes. [...]

KARL: Just wondering, what do you do about that? Are you saying we need to have a tax increase on the 45 percent who right now pay no federal income tax?

CANTOR: I’m saying that, just in a macro way of looking at it, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>you’ve got to discuss that issue. </span>… How do you deal with a shrinking pie and number of people and entities that support the operations of government, and how do you go about continuing to milk them more, if that’s what some want to do, but preserve their ability to provide the growth engine? … I’ve never believed that you go raise taxes on those that have been successful that are paying in, <u><span style='font-size: 17pt'>taking away from them, so that you just hand out and give to someone else.</span> </u> </div></div>

About that pie..........

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Richest 1 Percent Captured 93 Percent Of Income Gains In 2010</span>

But as the Roosevelt Institute’s Mike Konczal pointed out, 2010, the first full year of the recovery, was very good for America’s richest 1 percent. In fact, that year the richest 1 percent captured 93 percent of the nation’s income gains:

Well, we finally have the estimated data for 2010 by income percentile, and it turns out that the top 1% had a fantastic year. The data is in the World Top Income Database, as well as Emmanuel Saez’s updated Striking it Richer: The Evolution of Top Incomes in the United States…The takeaway quote from Saez should be: “The top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery.”…The bottom 90% of Americans lost $127, the bottom 99% of Americans gained $80, and the top 1% gained $105,637. The bottom 99% is net positive for the year because of around $125 in average capital gains. They can take comfort in efforts by the Right to set the capital gains tax to 0%, which would have netted them an addition couple dozen bucks.</div></div>


link (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/03/05/437441/one-percent-2010-income/)

Who is paying for who?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Over at the Fourth Branch, they've got a nice map showing the states that receive more than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes (which they've coded red), and the states that receive less than a dollar back for every dollar they pay in taxes (which they've coded blue). Just to repeat: Red states are getting a good deal, and blue states a bad one. Here's the map: </div></div>

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/mapstatestaxes-thumb-454x340-18041.gif

Remind you of anything?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/assets_c/2010/04/Final2008USPresidentialElectionMap-thumb-454x381-18045.jpg

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fourth Branch comments:

There is a very strong correlation, then, between a state voting for Republicans and receiving more in federal spending than its residents pay to the federal government in taxes (the rust belt and Texas being notable exceptions). <span style='font-size: 17pt'>In essence, those in blue states are subsidizing those in red states. Both red and blue states appear to be acting politically in opposition to their economic interests.</span> Blue states are voting for candidates who are likely to continue the policies of red state subsidization while red states are voting for candidates who profess a desire to reduce federal spending (and presumably red state subsidization). </div></div>

Q

eg8r
04-20-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You remind me of Cantor.
</div></div>LOL, you remind me of the bug on my window.

You don't like facts, plain and simple.

I see that your definition of "fair" makes Karl Marx smile in his grave. Fine, we knew you thought that way all along. It is why your opinion means nothing and shows that you don't really know what "fair" actually means.

eg8r

Qtec
04-20-2012, 06:16 PM
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Are you saying that the US tax system is Marxist?</span> LOL

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fairness is based on ability to pay. Those who earn more pay more.</div></div>

That's not Marxist, that's friggin common sense, something you obviously dearly lack.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You don't like facts, plain and simple. </div></div>

LOL. That's sweet coming from the guy who says he doesn't need facts to make up his mind!

The facts are posted above. Choose to ignore them if you want, it doesn't make them go away.

Tell me, what's fair and don't give me that Fair Tax/Flat Tax $hit.

Q