Dems know the truth about taxes

[landrun]

2011 Clinton - don't raise taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JfZ6Z3eKqw

[landrun]

2011 Obama - don't raise taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE&feature=related

[landrun]

2012 Clinton - just this summer - don't raise taxes, extend bush tax cuts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G5lMVEkuT0

[landrun]

2012 Jan - Don't raise taxes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7qpQSylRmg

[landrun]

Professon Antony Davis

You can not balance the budget by taxing the rich. You would HAVE to tax the middle class. This is the dirty little secret the dems keep hidden from the citizens.

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/would-taxing-rich-fix-deficit


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FC5Gkox-1QY

[cleller]

His lips are moving, does that means he's lying? Glad to see both sides agree taxes should not be raised.

[diverdog]

Professon Antony Davis

You can not balance the budget by taxing the rich. You would HAVE to tax the middle class. This is the dirty little secret the dems keep hidden from the citizens.

http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/would-taxing-rich-fix-deficit


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FC5Gkox-1QY


This video is designed for the classic low information voter on the right who will buy off on this BS.

[landrun]

This video is designed for the classic low information voter on the right who will buy off on this BS.

Diverdog, then give a rebuttal please.

[Midtowner]

This video is designed for the classic low information voter on the right who will buy off on this BS.

41 seconds in, he's already told a lie--that the rich pay 3x the rate of the poor. Wrong. The rich pay the exact same amount on their taxes from $0-$180,000 as all those below them.

[landrun]

41 seconds in, he's already told a lie--that the rich pay 3x the rate of the poor. Wrong. The rich pay the exact same amount on their taxes from $0-$180,000 as all those below them.


Midtown, post your source(s) please.
I'm interested in your side of the argument.

[LiveLaughLove]

This video is designed for the classic low information voter on the right who will buy off on this BS.

and the whole idea of raising taxes on the wealthy as a panacea for the deficit is for low information voters on the left.

57% of the country believes those taxes will lead to more spending and not used to lower the deficit. That's exactly what will happen.

Only low information liberals buy in to that bs.

[landrun]

Diverdog, then give a rebuttal please.

:pop:

[landrun]

Midtown, post your source(s) please.
I'm interested in your side of the argument.

:pop:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

and the whole idea of raising taxes on the wealthy as a panacea for the deficit is for low information voters on the left.

57% of the country believes those taxes will lead to more spending and not used to lower the deficit. That's exactly what will happen.

Only low information liberals buy in to that bs.our Libbies know this. they just DGAS, and want you to not believe it.

[cleller]

41 seconds in, he's already told a lie--that the rich pay 3x the rate of the poor. Wrong. The rich pay the exact same amount on their taxes from $0-$180,000 as all those below them.

You can't be serious. You don't really believe someone with $180,000 income pays the same rate as someone with $20k, $40k, $60k do you? If you're trying to say a super rich dude pays the same for his first $180 as the guy who ONLY makes $180k, fine, but who cares? The end of the story is the same --the rich pay more and at a higher percentage than others.

If you look at the graph provided while he speaks, (at around 37 seconds) he shows the effective tax percentage paid by "the rich"(over $180k) is 29%, the average effective rate for "all others" combined is 10.8%. He's talking about the total taxes each group paid as a percentage of their income.

If you really want to talk about how much "the rich" pay as opposed to "the poor"(under $20,500) it is far more than 3X more, as "the poor" have a negative tax rate. Its all clearly shown.

[yermom]

the idea of cutting taxes on the rich didn't exactly work that well either, did it?

[landrun]

the idea of cutting taxes on the rich didn't exactly work that well either, did it?

I'm not sure cutting taxes for the rich was really the issue. In fact, I'm convinced it is not. Bush, as bad as he's been made out to be, had over 50 months of job growth, which I understand is unprecedented in US history. And until the dems took control of the goverment in 2006, he had one of the best average unemployement rates in US history also.

The downturn had far more to do with the subprime mortgage mess and congress's refusal regulate the industry in spite of the urging of republicans (completely contrary to what you've been led to believe) From 2001 - 2005 the repubs tried to get congress to act but the dems said there were no issues, no housing bubble and even played the old reliable race card saying the reason the republicans wanted more regulation was to limit the loans to minorities.

2003 - Barney Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdo

[landrun]

2005 Barney Frank - still in denial saying there was 'an excessive degree of concern' about home ownership by republicans. Then claims that there would b no 'collapse that you see when people talk about a bubble'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW5qKYfqALE&feature=player_detailpage

[landrun]

2010 - Barney Frank makes the admission that he and the dems were wrong. Bet you didn't see that on MSNBC did you libs?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/barney_frank_comes_home_to_the_facts


In 2010, Frank even confessed this as truth in spite of all the spin that it was Bush's fault.



Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts

Saturday, August 21, 2010

Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.

But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.

"I hope by next year we'll have abolished Fannie and Freddie," he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that "it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn't afford and couldn't really handle once they had it." He then added, "I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie."

When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied, "Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing."

Frank also said that any federal housing guarantees should be transparently priced and put on budget. But he added that the private sector must be encouraged to re-enter housing finance just as the government gradually withdraws from it.

Some would say Frank's mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies No. 1 and 2. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion , is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.

In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can't even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That's right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from -- you guessed it -- the Treasury.

Then there's this head-scratching detail: In an absolutely outrageous move last Christmas Eve, President Obama signed off on $42 million in bonuses for the top 12 Fannie and Freddie executives, including $6 million apiece for the two CEOs. (Hat tip to attorney Stephen B. Meister.)

Voters are on to all this. So politics may indeed be motivating Barney Frank's turnaround. But I'm going to credit him with more than that.

I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse -- including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government's overreach -- simply needs to be abolished.

Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has come to a similar conclusion. Geithner told a recent Washington conference on the future of housing finance that the system needs fundamental change. He said, "We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses."

Of course, the withdrawal of housing markets from government programs, and the onset of a reinvigorated private sector for providing mortgages, must be done gradually over a period of years. But it is possible that the federal mortgage madness is coming to an end.

We will have to see if Congress really does say goodbye to Fan and Fred, as Republicans like Jeb Hensarling are advocating. Equally important, we will have to see if the federal affordable-housing mandates created by Congress and implemented by HUD and banking regulators are similarly repealed.

And then we will have to see if reformed federally guaranteed housing insurance includes larger down payments, stricter underwriting standards and greater reliance on private capital markets, lenders and insurers. In other words, we need to see if housing will be restored to a market-based system and removed from the government-backed system that has proved so disastrous.

The broader lesson here is that government planning doesn't work. And if left to their own devices, market processes will work. I don't know if President Obama gets this. But my hat goes off to a man who does, Chairman Barney Frank.

[landrun]

the idea of cutting taxes on the rich didn't exactly work that well either, did it?

See the above 3 replies I posted. Tax cuts didn't cause the collapse of our economy. The prevented it from being worse by taking in additional revenue.
If that were untrue, why would Obama and Clinton both say you don't raise taxes when the economy sucks. They know lower taxes are beneficial to the over all economy.

[Midtowner]

Midtown, post your source(s) please.
I'm interested in your side of the argument.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1

Essentially, the "expert" leaves out the fact that on the first $17,400, the top 1%ers pay the same 10% as those minimum wage earners. On the next $17,400-$70,700, the rich and middle class pay the same 15%. From $70,700 to $142,700, both the 1%er and middle class folks pay the same 25% and so on, up to the top tax bracket of 35% for amounts over $388,350 [assuming married filing jointly]. If you read the IRS code, that's why it says, for example (and I think the link I provided may be dated) in that Code, if you made in excess of $250K, you'd take the tax everyone else would pay up to $250K, which is $72,528.50 and then pay 39.6% on everything in excess of that.

So no, the rich don't pay triple what the poor do. They pay the exact same on that lower income. They only pay the high taxes on the income past a certain amount. Tax 101 stuff and Mr. PhD fails.

[cleller]

See the above 3 replies I posted. Tax cuts didn't cause the collapse of our economy. The prevented it from being worse by taking in additional revenue.
If that were untrue, why would Obama and Clinton both say you don't raise taxes when the economy sucks. They know lower taxes are beneficial to the over all economy.

Clinton and his kind just want the tax money to fund their pet social projects. They realize that taxes hurt the economy, but wait till flush times to put the squeeze on. When the good times are rolling, they figure you can take advantage, and redistribute some of the wealth. Who knows, maybe they're right to a degree.

If I had a zillion dollars, I'd spread it around where I felt it would be beneficial. Lots of these greedy bassturds won't. The catch is, throwing money at some problems only makes them worse. Sometimes I'd rather see the money sit in some bank than to make a working man dependent on the government.

[cleller]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1

Essentially, the "expert" leaves out the fact that on the first $17,400, the top 1%ers pay the same 10% as those minimum wage earners. On the next $17,400-$70,700, the rich and middle class pay the same 15%. From $70,700 to $142,700, both the 1%er and middle class folks pay the same 25% and so on, up to the top tax bracket of 35% for amounts over $388,350 [assuming married filing jointly]. If you read the IRS code, that's why it says, for example (and I think the link I provided may be dated) in that Code, if you made in excess of $250K, you'd take the tax everyone else would pay up to $250K, which is $72,528.50 and then pay 39.6% on everything in excess of that.

So no, the rich don't pay triple what the poor do. They pay the exact same on that lower income. They only pay the high taxes on the income past a certain amount. Tax 101 stuff and Mr. PhD fails.

You're just trying to dodge or misstate the facts, and I don't know why. No one is talking about the first $x this or $x that, you injected that out of left field. We're talking about the total amount they pay. What he said is that the filers considered "rich" pay an average effective tax rate of 29%.
If you combine the other tax rates together, and average them, their effective tax rate is 10.8%. This is the truth, but you cannot acknowledge it, yet you want to fling this cutesy "fail" term at him?

Again, since the "poor" have a negative tax rate, the "rich" pay an incalculably higher percentage. No one cares what the rich' tax rate was on their first $1.95, it's the total that matters.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You can't be serious. You don't really believe someone with $180,000 income pays the same rate as someone with $20k, $40k, $60k do you? If you're trying to say a super rich dude pays the same for his first $180 as the guy who ONLY makes $180k, fine, but who cares? The end of the story is the same --the rich pay more and at a higher percentage than others.

If you look at the graph provided while he speaks, (at around 37 seconds) he shows the effective tax percentage paid by "the rich"(over $180k) is 29%, the average effective rate for "all others" combined is 10.8%. He's talking about the total taxes each group paid as a percentage of their income.

If you really want to talk about how much "the rich" pay as opposed to "the poor"(under $20,500) it is far more than 3X more, as "the poor" have a negative tax rate. Its all clearly shown.you're not supposed to be that analytical. but, you must be crazy then, since they likely won't call you stupid with that post.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not sure cutting taxes for the rich was really the issue. In fact, I'm convinced it is not. Bush, as bad as he's been made out to be, had over 50 months of job growth, which I understand is unprecedented in US history. And until the dems took control of the goverment in 2006, he had one of the best average unemployement rates in US history also.

The downturn had far more to do with the subprime mortgage mess and congress's refusal regulate the industry in spite of the urging of republicans (completely contrary to what you've been led to believe) From 2001 - 2005 the repubs tried to get congress to act but the dems said there were no issues, no housing bubble and even played the old reliable race card saying the reason the republicans wanted more regulation was to limit the loans to minorities.

2003 - Barney Frank.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPSDnGMzIdoToo bad that post is too long to be a signature. Well done, and what you said is the fundamental reason for our present sad state of affairs.(democrats and their socialism)
All subsequent failings have been as a result of such nonsense. (To blame the banks and financial institutions for passing on their bad loans is dishonest, and manipulative)

[cleller]

Barney Frank got caught with a big Freddie Mac up his Fannie Mae on that one, but still sits up in Washington, throwing our money away.

[sappstuf]

The funny thing is, the only coherent part of Obama's campaign is if he is reelected is that he will raise Mitt Romney's taxes..

[diverdog]

You're just trying to dodge or misstate the facts, and I don't know why. No one is talking about the first $x this or $x that, you injected that out of left field. We're talking about the total amount they pay. What he said is that the filers considered "rich" pay an average effective tax rate of 29%.
If you combine the other tax rates together, and average them, their effective tax rate is 10.8%. This is the truth, but you cannot acknowledge it, yet you want to fling this cutesy "fail" term at him?

Again, since the "poor" have a negative tax rate, the "rich" pay an incalculably higher percentage. No one cares what the rich' tax rate was on their first $1.95, it's the total that matters.

Do you guys honestly think the rich pay 29% on all their income?

[Skysooner]

I made around 400 last year and paid about 20%.

In fact we paid twice in taxes over what we earned as a couple our first year of working. I didn't feel that taxes were onerous until we were making a bit over 100. There is a sweet spot there where you don't have the deductions to bring your rate down. The highest I ever paid was about 27%.

[diverdog]

Too bad that post is too long to be a signature. Well done, and what you said is the fundamental reason for our present sad state of affairs.(democrats and their socialism)
All subsequent failings have been as a result of such nonsense. (To blame the banks and financial institutions for passing on their bad loans is dishonest, and manipulative)

Bull ****! It was your ahole Phil Gramm and his wife who set this whole thing in motion by bringing down the barriers between banking and investment banking. Yeah the Dems bear responsibility but so do the Republicans. Nice try at revisionist history.

How do you dittoheads explain this:

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/policy-legislation/congress/allowing-national-banks-to-ignore-state-lending-laws-encouraged-risky-lending.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2012/10/09/feds-sue-wells-fargo-mortgage-fraud/1623261/

[diverdog]

I made around 400 last year and paid about 20%.

In fact we paid twice in taxes over what we earned as a couple our first year of working. I didn't feel that taxes were onerous until we were making a bit over 100. There is a sweet spot there where you don't have the deductions to bring your rate down. The highest I ever paid was about 27%.

Is the 400 k AGI or Gross?

[Skysooner]

Gross. That is about the only way to portray it. If it is adjusted then it is a straight math calculation.

[diverdog]

Gross. That is about the only way to portray it. If it is adjusted then it is a straight math calculation.

Thanks.

The problem is not the tax rates but the loopholes. People who are on W2's get nailed because they can hide very little of their income and bear the brunt of taxes in this country. I would like to see all income exposed to taxes....no deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays.

[StoopTroup]

Barney Frank got caught with a big Freddie Mac up his Fannie Mae on that one, but still sits up in Washington, throwing our money away.

I know you like gay bashing Frank but he did give up his post as Chairman of the House's Financial Services Committee and also has said he is retiring at the end of his term.

[Skysooner]

Thanks.

The problem is not the tax rates but the loopholes. People who are on W2's get nailed because they can hide very little of their income and bear the brunt of taxes in this country. I would like to see all income exposed to taxes....no deductions, no loopholes, everyone pays.


Exactly. I have too much exposure to that even now but that is changing quickly.

[diverdog]

Exactly. I have too much exposure to that even now but that is changing quickly.

BTW I do not consider 400 k rich.....well off but not rich.

[olevetonahill]

BTW I do not consider 400 k rich.....well off but not rich.

If you dont mind then. How much YOU make?
Hell I thot 50K was WELL off.

[StoopTroup]

If you dont mind then. How much YOU make?
Hell I thot 50K was WELL off.

If so...I must be Mitt Romney's neighbor. LMAO.

[Skysooner]

BTW I do not consider 400 k rich.....well off but not rich.

Well off is about right. Rich is a whole other class and partially it depends on where you live. Denver is not an inexpensive place to live.

[cleller]

I know you like gay bashing Frank but he did give up his post as Chairman of the House's Financial Services Committee and also has said he is retiring at the end of his term.

No need for the internet PC monitor. I'd have said the same of Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi had they been the person so responsible for blindness and blunders that have left millions homeless and/or destitute.

[hawaii 5-0]

I was taught early that it's not how much you make but how much you save.

I could do alot with 400K. Maybe even move to someplace like Hawaii.

Naw, that's just a dream.....

5-0

[diverdog]

If you dont mind then. How much YOU make?
Hell I thot 50K was WELL off.

I do alright but not in the class of sky. Where we live it is expensive. In Norman I could live in a really good area.

[yermom]

in Norman, i could live in a really crappy area :D

[olevetonahill]

in Norman, i could live in a really crappy area :D

On 50K I live on 42 acres with 2 shacks
Dint know I was poor till now .

[Skysooner]

On 50K I live on 42 acres with 2 shacks
Dint know I was poor till now .

My grandfather never made more than 20k in his life, but he retired a multi-millionaire. Self-taught investor and high school education only. Also as I can tell from you, money doesn't buy happiness. I have always found that to be true. My step-mother's oldest child married into money, and she is as miserable as they come. It is all about who you surround yourself with. I'm just lucky I have a beautiful and intelligent wife that happens to be a great mother, companion and is very nice to me. Twenty-one years married this last June, and we met at OU.

[diverdog]

On 50K I live on 42 acres with 2 shacks
Dint know I was poor till now .

42 acres in Delaware and you would be well off. At the beach you would be a rich mofo. 42 acres that are developable would get you between $21,000,000 and $42,000,000 in 2007. Now a cool $10,000,000.

[olevetonahill]

42 acres in Delaware and you would be well off. At the beach you would be a rich mofo. 42 acres that are developable would get you between $21,000,000 and $42,000,000 in 2007. Now a cool $10,000,000.

But I'm Poor, **** the PillPopper .

[EnragedOUfan]

I believe a flat tax is the fairest thing of all........If the poor/middle class man has to pay 8-20 cents per every dollar he makes, so does the rich man, and vice versa.

[okie52]

I believe a flat tax is the fairest thing of all........If the poor/middle class man has to pay 8-20 cents per every dollar he makes, so does the rich man, and vice versa.

Ummm....most dems wouldn't agree with you as they would declare that this is a regressive tax.

[LiveLaughLove]

Ummm....most dems wouldn't agree with you as they would declare that this is a regressive tax.

And by regressive they mean taking away a point of power from them to bribe people for votes.

I don't really mind that the poor don't pay taxes, but they shouldn't get to vote then either.

No taxation without representation, but no representation without taxation should apply equally.

Cue the "but they pay payroll taxes" in 4,3,2,1....

Not if they don't work.

[cleller]

BTW I do not consider 400 k rich.....well off but not rich.

That's not what Obama thinks.

[yermom]

And by regressive they mean taking away a point of power from them to bribe people for votes.

I don't really mind that the poor don't pay taxes, but they shouldn't get to vote then either.

No taxation without representation, but no representation without taxation should apply equally.

Cue the "but they pay payroll taxes" in 4,3,2,1....

Not if they don't work.

why do you hate housewives and the elderly?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/1

Essentially, the "expert" leaves out the fact that on the first $17,400, the top 1%ers pay the same 10% as those minimum wage earners. On the next $17,400-$70,700, the rich and middle class pay the same 15%. From $70,700 to $142,700, both the 1%er and middle class folks pay the same 25% and so on, up to the top tax bracket of 35% for amounts over $388,350 [assuming married filing jointly]. If you read the IRS code, that's why it says, for example (and I think the link I provided may be dated) in that Code, if you made in excess of $250K, you'd take the tax everyone else would pay up to $250K, which is $72,528.50 and then pay 39.6% on everything in excess of that.

So no, the rich don't pay triple what the poor do. They pay the exact same on that lower income. They only pay the high taxes on the income past a certain amount. Tax 101 stuff and Mr. PhD fails.

Professor dude was talking about effective tax rates, not marginal rates. You are comparing apples to oranges. I hope you don't represent your clients this way.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

why do you hate housewives and the elderly?

housewifes don't swallow and the elderly drive too damn slow!

[cleller]

And by regressive they mean taking away a point of power from them to bribe people for votes.

I don't really mind that the poor don't pay taxes, but they shouldn't get to vote then either.

No taxation without representation, but no representation without taxation should apply equally.




Cue the "but they pay payroll taxes" in 4,3,2,1.


Not if they don't work.

Everyone should have to pay something, even a small amount, so we can all have an equal right to complain about how it is spent.

Will probably never happen, but a flat tax would be nice in that regard, to stop the political class wars for votes. Unfortunately, unless you could bring wages at the bottom up, and wages at the top down, things would probably never balance out for tax revenue.