Poll on handling fiscal cliff: 52% Obama, 27% GOP

[BDKJMU]

Of course people are going to blame the GOP.
60% of Americans side with Obama and want taxes on the rich to be raised.
My guess is that the 60% who side with Obama don't consider themselves to be rich, so they are saying that they want Obama to tax someone else in order to fix the problem.

Most Americans don't understand that TAXATION is not the problem...
There's piles and piles of Tax Revenue collected by the federal government
For the 100th time: We have a spending problem not a revenue problem

Yep.

[JohnStOnge]

Oh no I know the Democrats have the advantage in terms of public relations. I lament it but I don't deny it.

Like I don't know why Obama can get away with this thing about holding middle class Americans "hostage" when he's obviously doing that himself. He's willing to stick it to everybody in order to get a tax rate increase on the "rich" that won't have much impact on the deficit yet he isn't seen as holding anybody "hostage."

But it's the way it is. I guess it's human nature to resent those who have been more successful than you are.

Hey, if the majority of the American people had sense we would never have gotten Obama as the President the first time much less a second time. I said before the election that Obama is not the problem. The problem is that we have a population made of of people such that a majority would vote for somebody like Obama. Heck, we'd have a problem even if a substantial minority would do that.

[death dealer]

Of course people are going to blame the GOP.
60% of Americans side with Obama and want taxes on the rich to be raised.
My guess is that the 60% who side with Obama don't consider themselves to be rich, so they are saying that they want Obama to tax someone else in order to fix the problem.

This. BH86 nails it, then rips the tits off.

Duh!

[houndawg]

Well if you're going to tax somebody it is nothing more than common sense to realize you need to tax people that have money. Doesn't do any good to tax those that don't have any money.

[Seahawks08]

Oh no I know the Democrats have the advantage in terms of public relations. I lament it but I don't deny it.

Like I don't know why Obama can get away with this thing about holding middle class Americans "hostage" when he's obviously doing that himself. He's willing to stick it to everybody in order to get a tax rate increase on the "rich" that won't have much impact on the deficit yet he isn't seen as holding anybody "hostage."

But it's the way it is. I guess it's human nature to resent those who have been more successful than you are.

Hey, if the majority of the American people had sense we would never have gotten Obama as the President the first time much less a second time. I said before the election that Obama is not the problem. The problem is that we have a population made of of people such that a majority would vote for somebody like Obama. Heck, we'd have a problem even if a substantial minority would do that.

tl;dr: People only have sense if they don't vote democrat.

aka you can move out of the U.S. if you don't like it. Cry some more why don't you...

[death dealer]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100290118

In an op ed published in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Peter Schiff challenges the increasingly popular pro-tax rate hike argument:

"The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today," he writes.

Schiff joined The Daily Ticker to further explain his argument. According to Schiff, the supposed 91% tax rate would only kick in if someone was making over $3 million in 1950 dollars (that would be more like $30 million today). In the 1950s there was no distinction between different types of income, he adds, so "a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership."

Schiff also argues that middle and lower income households paid more tax in the 1950s than they do today.

"In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government," he writes.

[YoUDeeMan]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100290118

In an op ed published in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Peter Schiff challenges the increasingly popular pro-tax rate hike argument:

"The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today," he writes.

Schiff joined The Daily Ticker to further explain his argument. According to Schiff, the supposed 91% tax rate would only kick in if someone was making over $3 million in 1950 dollars (that would be more like $30 million today). In the 1950s there was no distinction between different types of income, he adds, so "a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership."

Schiff also argues that middle and lower income households paid more tax in the 1950s than they do today.

"In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government," he writes.

Shut your potty mouth.

kalm is now investigating whether what you say is true and report back tomorrow.

[kalm]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100290118

In an op ed published in Friday's Wall Street Journal, Peter Schiff challenges the increasingly popular pro-tax rate hike argument:

"The confiscatory top marginal rates of the 1950s were essentially symbolic—very few actually paid them. In reality the vast majority of top earners faced lower effective rates than they do today," he writes.

Schiff joined The Daily Ticker to further explain his argument. According to Schiff, the supposed 91% tax rate would only kick in if someone was making over $3 million in 1950 dollars (that would be more like $30 million today). In the 1950s there was no distinction between different types of income, he adds, so "a doctor who earned $50,000 through his medical practice could reduce his taxable income to zero with $50,000 in paper losses or depreciation from property he owned through a real-estate investment partnership."

Schiff also argues that middle and lower income households paid more tax in the 1950s than they do today.

"In 1958, even the lowest-tier filers, which included everyone making up to $5,000 annually, were subjected to an effective 20% rate. Today, almost half of all tax filers have no income-tax liability whatsoever, and many "taxpayers" actually get a net refund from the government," he writes.

Shut your potty mouth.

kalm is now investigating whether what you say is true and report back tomorrow.

NO, I'll take it at face value even if it does come from CNBC and Peter Schiff who both have every reason to support lower tax rates.

Regardless, tax rates for corporations and individuals have been extremely low by historical standards, financial markets were seriously deregulated, and trade became "free". The last 30 years have been a conk's economic wet dream...Yet here we are...

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see who the wealth has gone to over that time frame.

I'll take the opposite approach of Ganny and say let's jump off the cliff and see what happens. The whole entire system is a sham anyway.

[death dealer]

Shut your potty mouth.

kalm is now investigating whether what you say is true and report back tomorrow.

NO, I'll take it at face value even if it does come from CNBC and Peter Schiff who both have every reason to support lower tax rates.

Regardless, tax rates for corporations and individuals have been extremely low by historical standards, financial markets were seriously deregulated, and trade became "free". The last 30 years have been a conk's economic wet dream...Yet here we are...

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see who the wealth has gone to over that time frame.

I'll take the opposite approach of Ganny and say let's jump off the cliff and see what happens. The whole entire system is a sham anyway.

And you know as we'll as I do that economies are cyclical. We can influence them ( usually for the worse), but the cycle will have its way.

[kalm]

NO, I'll take it at face value even if it does come from CNBC and Peter Schiff who both have every reason to support lower tax rates.

Regardless, tax rates for corporations and individuals have been extremely low by historical standards, financial markets were seriously deregulated, and trade became "free". The last 30 years have been a conk's economic wet dream...Yet here we are...

Just out of curiosity, it would be interesting to see who the wealth has gone to over that time frame.

I'll take the opposite approach of Ganny and say let's jump off the cliff and see what happens. The whole entire system is a sham anyway.

And you know as we'll as I do that economies are cyclical. We can influence them ( usually for the worse), but the cycle will have its way.

...and good god I hope so.

[JohnStOnge]

People only have sense if they don't vote democrat.

That's basically correct. It's not that everybody who did not vote for Obama has sense. Some do not. But it's pretty clear that at this point in history anybody who did vote to give the Democratic Party power has no sense. They may be very smart in some cases. But they have no sense.

[Chizzang]

People only have sense if they don't vote democrat.

That's basically correct. It's not that everybody who did not vote for Obama has sense. Some do not. But it's pretty clear that at this point in history anybody who did vote to give the Democratic Party power has no sense. They may be very smart in some cases. But they have no sense.

I kinda agree with you...
As long as you admit that people who buy into a religion fundamentally also have no sense
I know that includes your wife - so this will be a tough one to handle for you - but you kinda gotta agree
You can't have it both ways Johnny

People who vote straight ticket Democrat are indeed senseless
Just like people who are straight ticket fundamentalists



I anxiously await your apologetic antics