Tax Returns

[kalm]

Just another arrow in the wealth envy quiver....

I just scratch my head at the gambit the democrats- and Obama in particular, with help from his lapdog media- have played on the electorate, who by and large are too stupid to know better and too ignorant to care.

First of all, federal taxes aren't paid on wealth except in the case of the inheritance tax. So, the whole line about "millionaires and billionaires" is a crock of shit becuase the tax code is based on quarterly and annual income, not wealth.

Secondly, I find it infuriating to hear how I'm not "paying my fair share" when 46% of the population of majority age pays no federal tax at all. Talk about not paying one's fair share...

Third, even though I didn't build my business according to Obama (I have worked my ass off for 28 years to build a clientele & network of referral sources, perfect a system of processing and closing deals, and finally a network of reliable wholesale lenders while I never drew a dime in salary), I pay more in income taxes than my wife- who has a pretty good job in admin for the Seminole County School District- makes in a year, so she is in fact working entirely for the federal government. That doesn't include the payroll tax I pay on my employees either. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

There is one thing that can put all this to rest immediately: http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I fear these five words will ultimately injure our republic in a way that can't be cured... "don't pay their fair share."

As Ivytalk so eloquently put it, this is about the "makers vs. the takers."

You've pointed out the fair tax before and it looks interesting, but the "wealth envy" and "makers vs takers" stuff is silly. Most of the middle class and working poor, work hard and would be perfectly content with a modest lifestyle that includes job, wage, retirement, and healthcare security like many of their parents experienced. The reason some of this has gone way can be layed at their own feet due to over-consumption for sure, but not all of it.

Whether you think it's fair or not, the truly rich in this country have amassed a greater percentage of the wealth and power to maintain it over the last 30 years while their taxes have gone down and stayed down. Especially taxes on investment income that, when you consider generational wealth, is indeed a wealth tax.

I think the country is better when the middle class has more wealth and higher wages. Not so sure the recent of plan supply side economics has helped that though.

[dbackjon]

Just another arrow in the wealth envy quiver....

I just scratch my head at the gambit the democrats- and Obama in particular, with help from his lapdog media- have played on the electorate, who by and large are too stupid to know better and too ignorant to care.

First of all, federal taxes aren't paid on wealth except in the case of the inheritance tax. So, the whole line about "millionaires and billionaires" is a crock of shit becuase the tax code is based on quarterly and annual income, not wealth.

Secondly, I find it infuriating to hear how I'm not "paying my fair share" when 46% of the population of majority age pays no federal tax at all. Talk about not paying one's fair share...

Third, even though I didn't build my business according to Obama (I have worked my ass off for 28 years to build a clientele & network of referral sources, perfect a system of processing and closing deals, and finally a network of reliable wholesale lenders while I never drew a dime in salary), I pay more in income taxes than my wife- who has a pretty good job in admin for the Seminole County School District- makes in a year, so she is in fact working entirely for the federal government. That doesn't include the payroll tax I pay on my employees either. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

There is one thing that can put all this to rest immediately: http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I fear these five words will ultimately injure our republic in a way that can't be cured... "don't pay their fair share."

As Ivytalk so eloquently put it, this is about the "makers vs. the takers."

So makers of goods (like the 99%) are getting screwed by the TAKERS of wealth, like Rmoney - glad you agree.

If you are paying that much in income tax, that means you are making a very good living - what is wrong with that?

I am warming up to a degree to a fair tax - one that has zero deductions, exemptions, exclusions - make it so there ARE NO LOOPHOLES.

I would also invite you to read this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[kalm]

Just another arrow in the wealth envy quiver....

I just scratch my head at the gambit the democrats- and Obama in particular, with help from his lapdog media- have played on the electorate, who by and large are too stupid to know better and too ignorant to care.

First of all, federal taxes aren't paid on wealth except in the case of the inheritance tax. So, the whole line about "millionaires and billionaires" is a crock of shit becuase the tax code is based on quarterly and annual income, not wealth.

Secondly, I find it infuriating to hear how I'm not "paying my fair share" when 46% of the population of majority age pays no federal tax at all. Talk about not paying one's fair share...

Third, even though I didn't build my business according to Obama (I have worked my ass off for 28 years to build a clientele & network of referral sources, perfect a system of processing and closing deals, and finally a network of reliable wholesale lenders while I never drew a dime in salary), I pay more in income taxes than my wife- who has a pretty good job in admin for the Seminole County School District- makes in a year, so she is in fact working entirely for the federal government. That doesn't include the payroll tax I pay on my employees either. There is something fundamentally wrong with that.

There is one thing that can put all this to rest immediately: http://www.fairtax.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

I fear these five words will ultimately injure our republic in a way that can't be cured... "don't pay their fair share."

As Ivytalk so eloquently put it, this is about the "makers vs. the takers."

So makers of goods (like the 99%) are getting screwed by the TAKERS of wealth, like Rmoney - glad you agree.

If you are paying that much in income tax, that means you are making a very good living - what is wrong with that?

I am warming up to a degree to a fair tax - one that has zero deductions, exemptions, exclusions - make it so there ARE NO LOOPHOLES.

I would also invite you to read this:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Very informative D.

In 2007, before the economy turned down, 40 percent of households did not owe federal income tax. This figure more closely reflects the percentage that do not owe income tax in normal economic times.[4]
These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay. As a result, these figures greatly overstate the share of households that do not pay federal taxes. Tax Policy Center data show that only about 17 percent of households did not pay any federal income tax or payroll tax in 2009, despite the high unemployment and temporary tax cuts that marked that year.[5] In 2007, a more typical year, the figure was 14 percent. This percentage would be even lower if it reflected other federal taxes that households pay, including excise taxes on gasoline and other items.
Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)
Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.

[UNI88]

Whether you think it's fair or not, the truly rich in this country have amassed a greater percentage of the wealth and power to maintain it over the last 30 years while their taxes have gone down and stayed down. Especially taxes on investment income that, when you consider generational wealth, is indeed a wealth tax.

I'm not sure we're looking at the whole picture when we consider taxes on investment income. It isn't just a wealth tax. What about all of the middle-class people who have or are close to retiring who have saved a reasonable amount of money in a 401(k)? They live or are planning to live off of the income and some of the principal from those savings. If you're going to hit Mitt to pay taxes on his capital gains at the same rate as other income are you going to ask these people to do the same? Because that will be a game changer for a lot of them. Or are you advocating drastically different tax rates based on income that punish Mitt for his success?

I agree that the wealthy are getting wealthier but I'm not sure I want the government to fix it. Every time the government "fixes" a problem they make at least 2 more.

[kalm]

Whether you think it's fair or not, the truly rich in this country have amassed a greater percentage of the wealth and power to maintain it over the last 30 years while their taxes have gone down and stayed down. Especially taxes on investment income that, when you consider generational wealth, is indeed a wealth tax.

I'm not sure we're looking at the whole picture when we consider taxes on investment income. It isn't just a wealth tax. What about all of the middle-class people who have or are close to retiring who have saved a reasonable amount of money in a 401(k)? They live or are planning to live off of the income and some of the principal from those savings. If you're going to hit Mitt to pay taxes on his capital gains at the same rate as other income are you going to ask these people to do the same? Because that will be a game changer for a lot of them. Or are you advocating drastically different tax rates based on income that punish Mitt for his success?

I agree that the wealthy are getting wealthier but I'm not sure I want the government to fix it. Every time the government "fixes" a problem they make at least 2 more.

Good points. So are you opposed to a progressive tax system for investment income?

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not sure we're looking at the whole picture when we consider taxes on investment income. It isn't just a wealth tax. What about all of the middle-class people who have or are close to retiring who have saved a reasonable amount of money in a 401(k)? They live or are planning to live off of the income and some of the principal from those savings. If you're going to hit Mitt to pay taxes on his capital gains at the same rate as other income are you going to ask these people to do the same? Because that will be a game changer for a lot of them. Or are you advocating drastically different tax rates based on income that punish Mitt for his success?

I agree that the wealthy are getting wealthier but I'm not sure I want the government to fix it. Every time the government "fixes" a problem they make at least 2 more.

Good points. So are you opposed to a progressive tax system for investment income?

I'm opposed to any tax system that doesn't start with the word "flat" and end with the word "tax".

[D1B]

Good points. So are you opposed to a progressive tax system for investment income?

I'm opposed to any tax system that doesn't start with the word "flat" and end with the word "tax".

Typical conkling. Due to intellectual limitations, must reduce everything to either black or white, but it mostly white cuz conks are also racists.

[DJH]

I'm opposed to any tax system that doesn't start with the word "flat" and end with the word "tax".

Typical conkling. Due to intellectual limitations, must reduce everything to either black or white, but it mostly white cuz conks are also racists.

What is wrong with a flat tax? Its simple and fair.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm opposed to any tax system that doesn't start with the word "flat" and end with the word "tax".

Typical conkling. Due to intellectual limitations, must reduce everything to either black or white, but it mostly white cuz conks are also racists.

Typical donk. Due to overblown opinion of your intelligence, make everything so fucking complicated even YOU don't understand it--or read it--prior to implementing it as law.

[D1B]

Typical conkling. Due to intellectual limitations, must reduce everything to either black or white, but it mostly white cuz conks are also racists.

Typical donk. Due to overblown opinion of your intelligence, make everything so fucking complicated even YOU don't understand it--or read it--prior to implementing it as law.

Yet no conk president, congress or senate has ever simplified the tax code. But a donk comes in and begins the process....

Obama Backs Corporate Rate Cut Along With Tax Simplification

By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Peter Cohn

President Barack Obama called on Congress to cut the top U.S. corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years “without adding to our deficit,” a sign that businesses will have to give up tax breaks in exchange for lower rates.

The president, in his State of the Union address to Congress last night, also pressed for simplifying the tax system for individuals, which would restructure how more than $1 trillion in revenue is collected annually.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Jason Pride, director of investment strategy at Glenmede, talks about investment strategy for equities, the outlook for market reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address and U.S. corporate earnings. Pride speaks with Matt Miller, Carol Massar and Dominic Chu on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." Scott Shellady, manager of fixed-income at XFA Futures, and Bloomberg's Julie Hyman also speak. (Source: Bloomberg)
.
“The best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code,” he said, to applause from the audience. “This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.”

Some analysts said Obama’s willingness to consider a corporate tax overhaul along with tax simplification may lead to changes in the code.

“Tax reform has been like the weather, everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it,” said Pat Heck, a partner at the Washington law firm KL Gates and a former top aide to the Senate Finance Committee. “Tonight’s speech could be a game changer. While it would be naïve to think tax reform legislation will be drafted overnight, a long journey always begins with a first step.”

Beating Z's ass = like taking candy from a baby.

[AZGrizFan]

Typical donk. Due to overblown opinion of your intelligence, make everything so fucking complicated even YOU don't understand it--or read it--prior to implementing it as law.

Yet no conk president, congress or senate has ever simplified the tax code. But a donk comes in and begins the process....

Obama Backs Corporate Rate Cut Along With Tax Simplification

By Ryan J. Donmoyer and Peter Cohn

President Barack Obama called on Congress to cut the top U.S. corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years “without adding to our deficit,” a sign that businesses will have to give up tax breaks in exchange for lower rates.

The president, in his State of the Union address to Congress last night, also pressed for simplifying the tax system for individuals, which would restructure how more than $1 trillion in revenue is collected annually.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Jason Pride, director of investment strategy at Glenmede, talks about investment strategy for equities, the outlook for market reaction to President Barack Obama's State of the Union address and U.S. corporate earnings. Pride speaks with Matt Miller, Carol Massar and Dominic Chu on Bloomberg Television's "Street Smart." Scott Shellady, manager of fixed-income at XFA Futures, and Bloomberg's Julie Hyman also speak. (Source: Bloomberg)
.
“The best thing we could do on taxes for all Americans is to simplify the individual tax code,” he said, to applause from the audience. “This will be a tough job, but members of both parties have expressed interest in doing this, and I am prepared to join them.”

Some analysts said Obama’s willingness to consider a corporate tax overhaul along with tax simplification may lead to changes in the code.

“Tax reform has been like the weather, everyone talks about it but no one does anything about it,” said Pat Heck, a partner at the Washington law firm KL Gates and a former top aide to the Senate Finance Committee. “Tonight’s speech could be a game changer. While it would be naïve to think tax reform legislation will be drafted overnight, a long journey always begins with a first step.”

Beating Z's ass = like taking candy from a baby.

BACKING tax code simplification and actually SIMPLIFYING the tax code are in two entirely different universes. Something, however, I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to understand. Just another empty promise from the great orator.

[JohnStOnge]

I think whoever set the precedent of candidates releasing their tax returns set a bad precedent. As long as they didn't break the law, and we can rely on the IRS to tell us whether or not that was the case, a candidate's tax returns have absolutely no bearing upon how likely they are to do well as President. It's totally irrelevant information. A distraction.

[D1B]

Yet no conk president, congress or senate has ever simplified the tax code. But a donk comes in and begins the process....




Beating Z's ass = like taking candy from a baby.

BACKING tax code simplification and actually SIMPLIFYING the tax code are in two entirely different universes. Something, however, I wouldn't expect a simpleton like you to understand. Just another empty promise from the great orator.

Man, Z, you're just a glutton for punishment. I'm not going to give you a pass, you being an imbecile and all, but I do feel sorry for you. Maybe you should return to being Baldy's loveable, but retarded, sidekick.

[houndawg]

Whether you think it's fair or not, the truly rich in this country have amassed a greater percentage of the wealth and power to maintain it over the last 30 years while their taxes have gone down and stayed down. Especially taxes on investment income that, when you consider generational wealth, is indeed a wealth tax.

I'm not sure we're looking at the whole picture when we consider taxes on investment income. It isn't just a wealth tax. What about all of the middle-class people who have or are close to retiring who have saved a reasonable amount of money in a 401(k)? They live or are planning to live off of the income and some of the principal from those savings. If you're going to hit Mitt to pay taxes on his capital gains at the same rate as other income are you going to ask these people to do the same? Because that will be a game changer for a lot of them. Or are you advocating drastically different tax rates based on income that punish Mitt for his success?

I agree that the wealthy are getting wealthier but I'm not sure I want the government to fix it. Every time the government "fixes" a problem they make at least 2 more.

I think the dividing line should be at inherited wealth. Mitt didn't do squat to earn a large fraction of his wealth, it came with his hitting of the birth lottery and should be taxed as such.
.

[SDHornet]

I'm not sure we're looking at the whole picture when we consider taxes on investment income. It isn't just a wealth tax. What about all of the middle-class people who have or are close to retiring who have saved a reasonable amount of money in a 401(k)? They live or are planning to live off of the income and some of the principal from those savings. If you're going to hit Mitt to pay taxes on his capital gains at the same rate as other income are you going to ask these people to do the same? Because that will be a game changer for a lot of them. Or are you advocating drastically different tax rates based on income that punish Mitt for his success?

I agree that the wealthy are getting wealthier but I'm not sure I want the government to fix it. Every time the government "fixes" a problem they make at least 2 more.

I think the dividing line should be at inherited wealth. Mitt didn't do squat to earn a large fraction of his wealth, it came with his hitting of the birth lottery and should be taxed as such.
.

Was the money he or anyone else received via inheritance already taxed by the Feds? I don't get why double dipping should be allowed.

[kalm]

Typical conkling. Due to intellectual limitations, must reduce everything to either black or white, but it mostly white cuz conks are also racists.

What is wrong with a flat tax? Its simple and fair.

You more than likely couldn't afford it. Neither could Z.

[AZGrizFan]

What is wrong with a flat tax? Its simple and fair.

You more than likely couldn't afford it. Neither could Z.

My effective tax rate NOW is almost 20%. I'm in that nether region of income where most of the deductions are phased out, but I don't make enough to be able to afford tax shelters and good attorneys to hide my money. Any flat tax > 20% would be beneficial to me. And make those fucking freeloading 47% of Americans pay THEIR fair share.

[kalm]

You more than likely couldn't afford it. Neither could Z.

My effective tax rate NOW is almost 20%. I'm in that nether region of income where most of the deductions are phased out, but I don't make enough to be able to afford tax shelters and good attorneys to hide my money. Any flat tax > 20% would be beneficial to me. And make those fucking freeloading 47% of Americans pay THEIR fair share.

Pipe down, it's more like 14%. Go back and read Jon's link.

[AZGrizFan]

My effective tax rate NOW is almost 20%. I'm in that nether region of income where most of the deductions are phased out, but I don't make enough to be able to afford tax shelters and good attorneys to hide my money. Any flat tax > 20% would be beneficial to me. And make those fucking freeloading 47% of Americans pay THEIR fair share.

Pipe down, it's more like 14%. Go back and read Jon's link.

Where did you pull that # out of? The link says 14% of PEOPLE pay a certain %, not people in my income bracket PAY 14%....

Oh, and that 20% net effective rate is ONLY federal income tax. That doesn't count SSI, state tax, etc.

When all is said and done, 36% of my check every 2 weeks goes to some black hole of government spending.

Fuck anyone who wants MORE blood from this turnip.

[Chizzang]

Pipe down, it's more like 14%. Go back and read Jon's link.

Where did you pull that # out of? The link says 14% of PEOPLE pay a certain %, not people in my income bracket PAY 14%....

Oh, and that 20% net effective rate is ONLY federal income tax. That doesn't count SSI, state tax, etc.

When all is said and done, 36% of my check every 2 weeks goes to some black hole of government spending.

Fuck anyone who wants MORE blood from this turnip.

I repeat...
Our Federal Government does NOT have a revenue problem...

[Baldy]

I think the dividing line should be at inherited wealth. Mitt didn't do squat to earn a large fraction of his wealth, it came with his hitting of the birth lottery and should be taxed as such.
.

Blatant ignorance. Romney donated every cent of his inheritance to charity.

Try again.

[Baldy]

Where did you pull that # out of? The link says 14% of PEOPLE pay a certain %, not people in my income bracket PAY 14%....

Oh, and that 20% net effective rate is ONLY federal income tax. That doesn't count SSI, state tax, etc.

When all is said and done, 36% of my check every 2 weeks goes to some black hole of government spending.

Fuck anyone who wants MORE blood from this turnip.

I repeat...
Our Federal Government does NOT have a revenue problem...

[houndawg]

I think the dividing line should be at inherited wealth. Mitt didn't do squat to earn a large fraction of his wealth, it came with his hitting of the birth lottery and should be taxed as such.
.

Was the money he or anyone else received via inheritance already taxed by the Feds? I don't get why double dipping should be allowed.

The money is hidden abroad.

[kalm]

Where did you pull that # out of? The link says 14% of PEOPLE pay a certain %, not people in my income bracket PAY 14%....

Oh, and that 20% net effective rate is ONLY federal income tax. That doesn't count SSI, state tax, etc.

When all is said and done, 36% of my check every 2 weeks goes to some black hole of government spending.

Fuck anyone who wants MORE blood from this turnip.

I repeat...
Our Federal Government does NOT have a revenue problem...

Z, if you read Jon's link, your 47% number who "don't pay taxes" is bunk. You weren't talking about YOUR bracket either.

Chizz, chicken or the egg. We have decided through the political process to provide X amount of government services which cost money. The current tax code does not provide enough revenue to pay for X.

[ASUMountaineer]

Was the money he or anyone else received via inheritance already taxed by the Feds? I don't get why double dipping should be allowed.

The money is hidden abroad.

Jealous? I am. I guess if we're going to be required to patronize health insurance companies, why not require the rich to patronize banks? Wall Street wins again!

This game can be fun.