Obama's muddled economic plan

[DaTruth]

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...ng_trade_.html

[Riot]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...ng_trade_.html

Did you read more than the headline?

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Riot

Did you read more than the headline?

I paused after reading this sentence:"Later, Obama pledged to support “every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs,” perhaps making him the only person in America who didn’t read the New York Times story over the weekend about how Apple’s products are all built in Asia."

The more relevant question is, Riot, do you understand the words that you read? On second thought, the truly relevant question is, Mr. President, do you understand the words that you read when giving your speeches?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

I paused after reading this sentence:"Later, Obama pledged to support “every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs,” perhaps making him the only person in America who didn’t read the New York Times story over the weekend about how Apple’s products are all built in Asia."

The more relevant question is, Riot, do you understand the words that you read? On second thought, the truly relevant question is, Mr. President, do you understand the words that you read when giving your speeches?

Yes. Overall a complimentary article on SOTU, quibbling on one small action point, but making no discernable argument against. Nice of you to post it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by DaTruth

I paused after reading this sentence:"Later, Obama pledged to support “every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs,” perhaps making him the only person in America who didn’t read the New York Times story over the weekend about how Apple’s products are all built in Asia."

The more relevant question is, Riot, do you understand the words that you read? On second thought, the truly relevant question is, Mr. President, do you understand the words that you read when giving your speeches?

thought of this thread when i read this earlier:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46143670...s-us_business/

Apple accused of ignoring labor abuses that can kill

'We've known about labor abuses in some factories for four years, and they're still going on,' former Apple executive says, 'Why? Because the system works for us'

By CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID BARBOZA

updated 1/26/2012 4:05:41 AM ET 2012-01-26T09:05:41

[dellinger63]

Does the President understand the relationship between private investment income and business? The fact you don’t receive income without ‘investing’ in successful businesses? If so, does he understand the relationship between businesses and jobs? If the answer is still yes why in the world is he trying to reduce jobs and businesses via raising the capital gains tax?

I do believe he understands all the relationships presented above and furthermore he is well aware of taxes reducing consumption and production and in the case of capital gains, investment as demonstrated by his energy/emission taxes campaigned for as Pres and cigarette/liquor taxes passed while serving as a IL State Senator.

If the President follows this talk with the walk of actually raising (rumors of doubling) the capital gains tax surely his actions will have spoken louder and clearer than his word.

At that point the President will have exposed his ongoing socialistic class war with the intended seizure and redistribution of wealth will not be disrupted even if it means jobs and the economy. Taxing success and rewarding failure, your new Government will lead the way, provide for you, direct you and care for you. And if you don’t like it you can go to your room.

Expect capital gains taxes to stay relatively the same yet be a huge campaign propaganda tool for the next 2-4 elections until most Americans are so dumb and broke that the majority want to eat the children of the rich.

It's going to happen. Wait for it.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Does the President understand the relationship between private investment income and business? The fact you don’t receive income without ‘investing’ in successful businesses? If so, does he understand the relationship between businesses and jobs? If the answer is still yes why in the world is he trying to reduce jobs and businesses via raising the capital gains tax?

I do believe he understands all the relationships presented above and furthermore he is well aware of taxes reducing consumption and production and in the case of capital gains, investment as demonstrated by his energy/emission taxes campaigned for as Pres and cigarette/liquor taxes passed while serving as a IL State Senator.

If the President follows this talk with the walk of actually raising (rumors of doubling) the capital gains tax surely his actions will have spoken louder and clearer than his word.

At that point the President will have exposed his ongoing socialistic class war with the intended seizure and redistribution of wealth will not be disrupted even if it means jobs and the economy. Taxing success and rewarding failure, your new Government will lead the way, provide for you, direct you and care for you. And if you don’t like it you can go to your room.

We have had Low Cap gains taxes and jobs exiting the country by the millions.. Please explain why?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Expect capital gains taxes to stay relatively the same yet be a huge campaign propaganda tool for the next 2-4 elections until most Americans are so dumb and broke that the majority want to eat the children of the rich.

It's going to happen. Wait for it.

changes already in the works with temp adjustments about to fall off the books:

Often overlooked in these discussions, however, is the fact that the days of the 15% tax rate are numbered. As of this posting, it has only 342 left.

On January 1, 2013, capital gains taxes are scheduled to go up sharply.

First, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire. If that happens, the regular top rate on capital gains will rise to 20%. In addition, an obscure provision of the tax code, the limitation on itemized deductions, will return in full force. That provision, known as Pease, increases effective tax rates on high-income taxpayers by reducing the value of their itemized deductions. On net, it will add another 1.2 percentage points to the effective capital gains tax rate for high-income taxpayers.

And that’s not all. The health reform legislation enacted in 2010 imposed a new tax on the net investment income of high-income taxpayers, including capital gains. That adds another 3.8 percentage points to the tax rate.

Put it all together, and the top tax rate on capital gains is scheduled to increase from 15% today to 25% on January 1.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

We have had Low Cap gains taxes and jobs exiting the country by the millions.. Please explain why?

No penalties, no skilled, reasonably priced labor (thx unions).

Originally Posted by Danzig

changes already in the works with temp adjustments about to fall off the books:

Often overlooked in these discussions, however, is the fact that the days of the 15% tax rate are numbered. As of this posting, it has only 342 left.

On January 1, 2013, capital gains taxes are scheduled to go up sharply.

First, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts are scheduled to expire. If that happens, the regular top rate on capital gains will rise to 20%. In addition, an obscure provision of the tax code, the limitation on itemized deductions, will return in full force. That provision, known as Pease, increases effective tax rates on high-income taxpayers by reducing the value of their itemized deductions. On net, it will add another 1.2 percentage points to the effective capital gains tax rate for high-income taxpayers.

And that’s not all. The health reform legislation enacted in 2010 imposed a new tax on the net investment income of high-income taxpayers, including capital gains. That adds another 3.8 percentage points to the tax rate.

Put it all together, and the top tax rate on capital gains is scheduled to increase from 15% today to 25% on January 1.

The news just keeps getting better. Adding taxes, free trade agreements, surveillance, censorship...it's just a matter of time before the military is training local police in cities.

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2012...exercise-list/

Well nevermind.

The vibe is just so good. I left out tons of other great news.

On that note...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qrriKcwvlY&ob=av2e

[Danzig]

tax brackets remain in place thru this year, but if no adjustments are made, all brackets revert to what they were in 2000. which means a big increase. oh, and look what 2013 isn't-an election year.

then there's the alternative minimum tax:


More AMT victims, higher taxes
On today's tax returns, when an AMT payment is required, affected taxpayers could end up paying thousands more in taxes. Absent any law change, by 2015, some estimates predict that nearly 50 million filers could end up paying this parallel levy.

Why the increase? Because the tax is not indexed for inflation. Without that annual adjustment, your yearly raises of a few percentage points have been moving you closer or even into the income realm that the tax law deemed almost 40 years ago as prime AMT bait.

You could owe AMT if your taxable income in 2010 was more than:
•$72,450 for a married couple filing a joint return and surviving spouses.
•$47,450 for singles and heads of household.
•$36,225 for a married person filing separately.
Congress regularly bumps up the earnings amounts to keep more middle-income filers from paying more under the system. While that law change helps out millions of taxpayers who might otherwise pay the AMT, the uncertainty of when and how much relief will be provided is a constant area of frustration for taxpayers who have encountered or might face the alternative minimum tax.

Really need a libtard to post what the tax rates were in the 1900's. They should definitely be high like they were during FDR's time. I'm all for paying for infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. Count me in for bailing out all of the international banks too. It's my fault. I'm a white male in America.

[Danzig]

from what we were told the other day, it was a very high % on top earners. i'll have to look it up, but i believe it was in the 60's or maybe higher.


here's an article i found:

http://martha-r-gore.suite101.com/us...century-a83122


guess i beat the 'libtards' to it. lol



'The 1916 Revenue Act was in force when America entered World War I. The need for money increased so the lowest tax rate was raised from 1 percent to 2 percent and the top rate to 15 percent in excess of $1.5 million. It also imposed taxes on estates and excess business profits. The War Revenue Act of 1917 lowered exemptions and further increased tax rates. Taxpayers with $40,000 faced a 16 percent rate and for individuals with income of $1.5 million, the tax rate was raised to 67 percent.

In 1918, tax rates were raised again with a bottom rate of 6 percent and a top rate of 77 percent. Although only 5 percent of the population paid income taxes at that time, the income was able to fund one-third of the cost of World War I.'

Yeah but it was for infrastructure...this time it will go to international bankers and other assorted goons.

[Danzig]

no, it really wasn't...it was for war. gee, that sounds familiar.



Even before the United States entered the Second World War, the need for defense spending and support of the countries opposing the Axis led to the passage of two tax laws, one of which in 1940 increased individual and corporation taxes. This would be followed by another tax hike in 1941, reductions in exemption levels, and incomes of $500, facing a bottom tax rate of 23 percent while those with incomes over $1 were raised to 94 percent. By this time, the number of income tax payers had risen from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945. As had been done during the Civil War, income taxes were once again withheld from incomes and wages, easing the collection of taxes by the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

As in previous U.S. History, income taxes were imposed or raised to meet defense needs during wartime. World War I required more revenue that were acquired by raising the income tax rates . The tax laws enacted during the 1900-World War II period would become a permanent part of the income system of the United States

[Danzig]

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as you can see, our government became this bloated thing because of those two wars. something i've said previously. we decided to become a permanent superpower, and it's costing us tremendously. thing is, there was already fear of us before ww1-without us having a huge standing army and massive navy. germany was worried about us entering the war, which was why they kept backing off regarding attacking shipping. but they thought they had their enemies close enough to defeat that they ended up threatening shipping once more that last year before we entered the war. they thought they were close enough to victory that we couldn't ramp up recruitment and war production quickly enough by then to make a difference. oops. of course we managed to do just that, and the rest is history. we did the same with ww2-we had a larger defense, but nothing like what we achieved during ww2. that's where our strength lies-but our leaders didn't pay attention to history. so we have this hufe permanent fixture, and there really isn't a need-is there? it's kept other countries from fooling with us-but hell, as huge as england was, and as loaded militarily, she didn't want to fight us in 1812. didn't want to get involved in the civil war..because they knew it was a losing proposition. but we still spend as tho we have armed forces at every border just waiting to invade. it's ridiculous.

Do you know of any other way we can increase Cap gains and dividends on Defense industry shareholders?

[Danzig]

i wish i did. i get that it's a big industry that supports a lot of workers-but it's a tremendous drain on our treasury. defense and 'entitlements' are the two huge budget busters. can that really continue? if that's what we want, we have to find a way to pay for them. it's really that simple. and before anyone says 'cut foreign aid'-go look at the budget requirements.
it's why i shake my head every time a candidate says 'we need more defense' or the president says 'we can't cut defense'. it's the pink elephant in the corner. well, one of two.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i wish i did. i get that it's a big industry that supports a lot of workers-but it's a tremendous drain on our treasury. defense and 'entitlements' are the two huge budget busters. can that really continue? if that's what we want, we have to find a way to pay for them. it's really that simple. and before anyone says 'cut foreign aid'-go look at the budget requirements.
it's why i shake my head every time a candidate says 'we need more defense' or the president says 'we can't cut defense'. it's the pink elephant in the corner. well, one of two.

You do realize I was being sarcastic, right.