Obama stands firm on taxes for the rich

Hey you 1% filthy rich parasites living off us 99% hard working men and women, hahaha!! Time to start paying your fair share of US taxes!! This also means you, Mr.Romney and Bush and etc...

I guess Mr.Burns (you know that filthy rich old evil guy in love with himself and with Mr.Smithers) will also be none too happy!

Hey you 1% filthy rich parasites living off us 99% hard working men and women, hahaha!! Time to start paying your fair share of US taxes!! This also means you, Mr.Romney and Bush and etc...

You are joking right? The 1% as well as the 3 and 5% are already paying over 60% of all taxes. We are already paying more than our fair share, because we make more money. So how about the 60% of people or so that don't pay ANY taxes? So how is that fair?

"60% of people or so that don't pay any taxes" should be rewritten to clarify what kind of taxes.

The only way that your claim is possible is if 60% of Americans never spend any money. You should at least accept that sales tax is paid by everyone, and is often highest in poorer areas. I read that reservation towns in Arizona have the highest sales taxes in the U.S. at around 13%. So bass4funk, will you head out there and start lecturing people about paying taxes?

Mitt Romney versus the family just scraping by seem to be paying just about the same %. Sheesh, Mitt has enough left over to tithe millions to his church at a time when our government is running huge deficits.

So how about the 60% of people or so that don't pay ANY taxes?

C'mon bass. You know this isn't true. That whole 47% thing was a fabrication. That was the total number of people not paying federal income tax, and that was after all the deductions were taken. The majority of those people are paying payroll taxes (not to mention state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and so forth), and those that aren't are likely to be retirees on fixed incomes or college kids. Don't give us the BS about moocher and going Galt. The top X% percent pay more because they EARN more and OWN more - vastly more - than the rest of us do. And because of the TYPE of income they make, they end up with lower percentages and all sorts of tax loopholes. Don't act like a slightly higher tax rate is going to be some sort of massive injustice.

Problem is the really rich have accountants etc who help them not pay tax.

Japan should do the same as Obama!

Make the rich pay their share of taxes!

Why should everyone pay lower taxes then the rich! It's not fare to everyone that are working to make a living!

Damn rich always gets away with all kinds of crap!

MAKE THEM PAY, PAY, PAY!!!!

@Tora

Mitt Romney versus the family just scraping by seem to be paying just about the same %. Sheesh, Mitt has enough left over to tithe millions to his church at a time when our government is running huge deficits.

Maybe if Obama would stop borrowing so much from China 3.5 billion a week, start with creating jobs in the private sector, which means create GROWTH where people work, pay taxes and that generates taxes and starts to stimulate the economy, how about CUTTING spending? That would be the start, real start to cutting the deficit problems that we have. You talk about Mitt, how about most of Hollywood and the entire entertainment industry which 60% of them voted for Obama anyway. They advocated for more taxes, Obama should go right up to Clooney, Springsteen and Moore, the other elite and take whatever he can take and what they are willing to give. Start there.

Problem is the really rich have accountants etc who help them not pay tax.

What a bunch of BULL****! I pay sooo much in taxes, I have an accountant and he doesn't tell me to hide anything, he taught me how to invest which is THE absolute smart thing to do.

@Trium

C'mon bass. You know this isn't true. That whole 47% thing was a fabrication. That was the total number of people not paying federal income tax, and that was after all the deductions were taken. The majority of those people are paying payroll taxes (not to mention state and local income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes, and so forth), and those that aren't are likely to be retirees on fixed incomes or college kids. Don't give us the BS about moocher and going Galt. The top X% percent pay more because they EARN more and OWN more - vastly more - than the rest of us do. And because of the TYPE of income they make, they end up with lower percentages and all sorts of tax loopholes. Don't act like a slightly higher tax rate is going to be some sort of massive injustice.

If you want to believe that, liberals are bad at math anyway. You make it seem as if being rich is something evil as if it is a dirty word. I love being rich and I make no excuses for it, I busted my ass to get to where I am and I have given a lot bac! And yes, I am a job creator, but what's not fair is someone that doesn't want to get out of bed and work and expects a handout and that's the problem you liberals have! You think life and the government should be the crutch to uplift you and give you stuff as in entitlements, yes, that is an injustice on the private tax payer. I pay more taxes a year in the amount of what most people's salaries are. Yes, people like me and my family pay a bit more than our fair share. ( whatever that means) look at CA, my home state, taxed to the hilt and why? Bloated pensions! CA government workers are getting paid huge and I mean, huge pensions. Cops retiring at 55 years banking in at over 90K a year! High school teachers with $7.000 a month? And the list goes on.This is why CA has Money problems.

Bass, Depends how you earn your money. If you work for a company and have to cough up payroll tax (as I do, and lots of it), sure you pay. but really rich people either tend to be self employed or can get paid thru options and asset transfer etc. its a fact that they pay a smaller % of their wealth in taxes (even if the absolute number is bigeer). sure, there is an argument to say why should they pay more? They don't consume more roads or schools or missiles or wars on terror than others (arguably less of things like welfare and other freebies). Nevertheless my statement is still true.

I am a job creator, but what's not fair is someone that doesn't want to get out of bed and work and expects a handout and that's the problem you liberals have!

Congratulations on your success, but as I explained to you, many of the people you are bashing aren't greedy moochers looking for a hand out. That is a silly right-wing myth, and putting more exclamation marks on it doesn't make it truth.

I am still amazed at how obtusely the GOP painted themselves into this corner. By creating the fiscal cliff, they bet it all on a Romney win; they are now left with nothing but impotent gestures.

The markets won't like being led over the cliff, but they'll recover in time once the Dems sort things out in January - that is, if the GOP forces things that far. It is hard to imagine their corporate bosses would be pleased by such a scenario, but even they do not control the wilder Tea Party types.

It really would be in Boehner's best interest to deal in good faith with Obama; whatever deal he gets certainly will pale before what he could have gotten this time last year, but that's better than being blamed for roiling the markets and creating whatever other havoc. Still, what was apparent last year is likely to remain apparent: Boehner does not have control over his own caucus.

Its almost enough to make one feel sorry for the guys if they hadn't been so incredibly inept.

Ok, Bass....

Here are those numbers you wanted (and, yes, they are from those dirty, bad-at-math liberals at NPR...)

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/18/161337343/the-47-percent-in-one-graphic

53.6% of Americans Pay Income federal income tax 28.3% pay payroll tax, but not federal income tax ...of the remaining 18.1 %: 10.3% are elderly 6.9% are non-elderly earning under $20,000/year

So. Where do we go from here? Certainly, we must do something about entitlements. We should look at eliminating various tax deductions. But you aren't going to be squeezing much tax revenue out of people earning, under 20k a year. Not when those people are barely getting by as it is.

@Trium

many of the people you are bashing aren't greedy moochers looking for a hand out. That is a silly right-wing myth, and

I think it's silly left wing nonsense to believe that most people and the lower income brackets the people that voted for this president aren't looking for a handout or entitlement, why else would they vote for Obama? Because he is the greatest job creator???!

putting more exclamation marks on it doesn't make it truth.

It could also mean, that I am making a strong statement, think about that for a moment.

@laguna

I am still amazed at how obtusely the GOP painted themselves into this corner. By creating the fiscal cliff, they bet it all on a Romney win; they are now left with nothing but impotent gestures.

That's not quite true. Repubs still have a dealing hand being in control of the House.

The markets won't like being led over the cliff, but they'll recover in time once the Dems sort things out in January - that is, if the GOP forces things that far. It is hard to imagine their corporate bosses would be pleased by such a scenario, but even they do not control the wilder Tea Party types.

NO, the markets won't like it, but the Repubs were elected to bring some fiscal responsibility to the WH and why should they give up on their fundamental principles? That will never happen. So you can rest assured, both sides will be diggin in their heels and we are back at square one.

It really would be in Boehner's best interest to deal in good faith with Obama; whatever deal he gets certainly will pale before what he could have gotten this time last year, but that's better than being blamed for roiling the markets and creating whatever other havoc. Still, what was apparent last year is likely to remain apparent: Boehner does not have control over his own caucus.

As I said, the Repubs know that Obama is in a powerful position, but Boehner and the rest of the Repubs will probably endure this storm.

Its almost enough to make one feel sorry for the guys if they hadn't been so incredibly inept.

Personally, I feel sorry for the American people, they are the ones that are being hosed.

why else would they vote for Obama?

Because they felt he was best suited to lead the country?

I realize that one is probably hard for you to swallow, but there is a very real difference of perception out there as to how effective Obama's leadership has been the last 4 years, and it has nothing to do with "free stuff" despite the current republican talking points.

Personally, I think the President has done a rather admirable job of guiding the nation through one of the worst financial crises in living memory. I am not alone in this view.

Obama dismissed that approach as unlikely to have much impact on the US deficit, which has topped $1 trillion a year for four straight years.

Because raising marginal tax rates is going to have a profound effect on the deficit right? There isn't a single report that even hints that a tax hike, even a big one, would even come close to denting the massive deficit hole that Washington has dug itself. That's how bad spending has become.

Don't act like a slightly higher tax rate is going to be some sort of massive injustice.

Only if you all stop acting like a slightly higher tax rate would solve anything. I keep seeing people talking about paying their fair share but nobody knows what fair is, so really you just mean more. And if they do pay more and things don't get better you'd say that they still aren't paying enough, when is enough? Nobody knows, just pay more.

Instead of going down that road where logic lies dead and buried on the side of the road how about we address the problem of rampant fraud, cost overruns, redundancy, and wasteful spending that seem to be the real crux of the matter. I'll even give you the tax cut expiration, it won't hurt me none, can't say the same about the low income wage earners though. Remember if you tax me more I just pass the buck, in the end it's the people that work under me that suffer unless they, likewise, pass the buck to the next poor schmuck down the totem pole. In the end the guy at the bottom gets the worst of it and I'm still able to post on JT and drink bad coffee from the break room.

Hey you 1% filthy rich parasites living off us 99% hard working men and women, hahaha!! Time to start paying your fair share of US taxes!! This also means you, Mr.Romney and Bush and etc...

You do realize that the wealthiest people are most often the wealth creators? That means assembling land, labor and capital to create real goods and services. Where as it is the politician that parasites off everyone else via taxes. I don't know about Romney but Bush gets his money from tax payers by simply being a former U.S Pres for life.

Any employee that works in the private sector gets their paycheck from a 1%er. A tax on them eventually leads to a pay reduction on you, you dolt.

Now run along to Pancho Villa will you.

Only if you all stop acting like a slightly higher tax rate would solve anything.

Point to where I even hinted at that. Please.

Instead of going down that road where logic lies dead and buried on the side of the road how about we address the problem of rampant fraud, cost overruns, redundancy, and wasteful spending

Yes, lets. Here is a proposal: Cut spending, raise revenues. Agreed?

Remember if you tax me more I just pass the buck, in the end it's the people that work under me that suffer unless they, likewise, pass the buck to the next poor schmuck down the totem pole. In the end the guy at the bottom gets the worst of it and I'm still able to post on JT and drink bad coffee from the break room.

Only, this isn't true, is it Job Creator? Because, if it was you'd have already done it. You would have squeezed out every last dollar of profit, and there wouldn't be any way to "pass the buck." Because its a business, not a charity. If you are currently spending extra money on those further down the chain, its because you derive a benefit from it. Increased productivity, higher retention rates, loyalty, attracting top talent, good will; you derive a competitive advantage from it. We are supposed to imagine you drew some arbitrarily line in the air under which your own personal profit dare not fall, but above that line you are more than happy to give the excess to the little people. How magnanimous.

90% of the people that made their so-called "wealth" in finance are actually white-collar criminals hoarding ill-gotten gain. And they use that to fund anti-tax PR efforts!

You do realize that the wealthiest people are most often the wealth creators?

Nonsense, very few of the wealthy are authentic entrepreneurs.

Pay their fair share????

The top 5% of income earners pay 80% of the federal income tax now -- how much more do you want from them?

Yes, I am one of those rich, angry old white men. I'm not angry that Obama won and Romney lost; I'm angry that there are a large percentage of people living in America who expect me to give them money because they have different color skin than me, or they are too lazy or stupid to get a job, or they expect free medical care, free food, free housing and free cell phones. And before you self-righteous posters start giving me the negative ratings, how about proposing solutions like improving worker skills to fill hi-tech jobs, how to improve student test scores in math & science (so we can be competitve in the global economy) and how to lower healthcare costs (how about a fat tax on all the blimps in the US) If we don't solve these basic problems in four years we will be like Greece....

"the cliff, an austere program"

This wouldn't be necessary if the government hadn't racked up another $5 trillion in less than 4 years.

Obama sounds like Wile-E.Coyote brandishing his ACME fiscal bomb.

I read an argument that introducing VAT would raise the largest amount of revenue, but even that would barely scratch the surface of the real problem, unfunded liabilities and servicing the debt. Of course, neither party would support that, but for differing reasons. I'm not saying it's a good idea, either.

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1220.html

Boehner has Obama by the boondoggles.

I imagine the conservative chin-stroking, anti-math types are still suffering from their across-the-board, 720-degree electoral beating they got last week....

Oh well.....back to the drawing board. :-)

Serrano - "This wouldn't be necessary if the government hadn't racked up another $5 trillion in less than 4 years."

Thanks in part to YOU and your anti-America voting tendencies that helped create The Great Depression.

My pleasure. :-)

at this point, I'll just watch it crash. People are Stubborn enough that the only way to learn will be the hard way.

"The top 5% of income earners pay 80% of the federal income tax now -- how much more do you want from them?"

For them to pay at least their fair share like everyone else.

Really, how hard is this to understand? The argument that a tiny amount of uber-stinkingly rich should pay less of a percentage because they earn sooooo much is quite simply preposterous.

No one is saying they should pay a higher percentage than average, just the same freakin' average. And what makes me laugh the most, is most of the people defending the 1%'s right to hoard their wealth unfairly haven't themselves a pot to piss in.

Mads, I think the question nobody has answered is, "what is a fair share?"

Is it defined as 60% tax and a holiday home?

Is it defined as "stop stashing your millions in tax havens you ** bastds!!" (even though doing so is completely legit)?

What's your definition, why is it different from mine, and why is that a huge part if the problem?

Point to where I even hinted at that. Please.

That was less directed at you individually and more at the overriding narrative of the news cycle. Whenever the topic of excessive spending comes up the conversation immediately gets deflected towards the, to quote another poster, "** bastds" and their tax havens rather than anything vaguely resembling reasonable discourse.

Yes, lets. Here is a proposal: Cut spending, raise revenues. Agreed?

On a basic level, sure. The devil's in the details though. Like I said, I'd be willing to let the tax cuts expire but I'm a bit of a savage when it comes to budget cuts.

Only, this isn't true, is it Job Creator? Because, if it was you'd have already done it. You would have squeezed out every last dollar of profit, and there wouldn't be any way to "pass the buck."

Not really. When a company has been doing well you see a lot of pet projects crop up, we experiment with support staff, and they tinker with costing systems that generates a tolerable level of waste that we justify because we are doing well. My point being that modifications to the tax system won't affect me, I'm already quite competitive about the wages I take in, but the support staff, the people employed doing our little pet projects, they are disposable. Nice, but disposable.

Because, if it was you'd have already done it.

Oh but I have. That's why I don't have a secretary anymore. Everyone on my floor used to get an assistant and I kind of liked not having to file my own after action reports, they're tedious, but a couple credits got changed and the subsidy for their health insurance wouldn't justify the expense and half of them were laid off to maintain our operating surplus (our version of an arbitrarily line in the air).

When Obama talks about taxing the "rich", you can be sure that that does not include his personal pals of the type of George Soros. They all got their special deals.

"The rich" that will be taxed will basically be small business owners. And that will of course hurt the economy even more and drive more people into government dependency.

Welcome to corrupt 3rd world politics.

that generates a tolerable level of waste that we justify because we are doing well.

OK, so what you are really talking about it revaluing in the light of changing circumstances. That's standard business practice. You do derive benefits from those "pet projects" (potential innovation) and "support staff" (efficiency, etc...), and now you have to decide whether those benefits are worth the cost, vis a vis your operating surplus. That's not you somehow endlessly "passing the buck" down to the little guy; that's just how it works. And that's fine.

Look, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and any time you tax you'll get negative impact on what you are taxing. I get that. But to extrapolate from that to say we should never tax anything (or never raise taxes from their current rates) is just crazy. Taxes are required to generate revenues, and sometimes you need to raise them. The goal is to try to find that point were taxation yields the maxim revenue minus costs. I don't really care whether rich people are exploiting loopholes to artificially lower their tax rates so much as whether closing those loopholes will lead to a greater or lesser tax revenue. I don't really care what your capital gains tax rate is, either. If lower capital gains tax means more investment which means a better economy and more tax revenue, fine. But if all it really means is that the rich get richer because most of that investment would have been made anyway, well...

I'm a bit of a savage when it comes to budget cuts.

Deep cuts are unquestionably necessary, however I don't think we can get where we need to be just by cutting. Revenues will have to be raised as well. Anyone who proposes solely to cut (or to tax) away the problem is a partisan who either isn't serious or isn't rational. The problem is that, like, your various employees, the programs we are talking about cutting provide a benefit to the nation - if they didn't, then this would be a much easier task. Instead, we have to decide what are the equivalent of your "support staff" and "pet projects" (ie things we'd like to have but don't provide enough of a benefit to justify the cost right now).

There is a tendency for those on the right to come into this process with two preconceived notions: 1) "I should keep more of my money. I earned it." and 2) "The government is bad at managing stuff." Now, in principle, I agree with these things. But, if you take them to an extreme they become blinders, and the end result is to demand that all non-essential spending come to a halt (...except military spending, which, inexplicably, is always necessary no matter what...) with out any sort of rational evaluation of the benefit we are deriving from that spending. This is why you get suggestions like "Eliminate all foreign aid," when foreign aid 1) amounts to something like 0.02% of the federal budget, and 2) provides a huge benefit in terms of American "soft power" around the globe - (ie much more efficient at getting us what we want than military spending.)

I'm all for cutting spending, but we need to recognize that some of these things have value and are worth keeping - even if we have to pay higher taxes for them.

Look, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and any time you tax you'll get negative impact on what you are taxing. I get that. But to extrapolate from that to say we should never tax anything (or never raise taxes from their current rates) is just crazy.

Agreed. I suppose my problem with the current discussion is that many in Washington are trying to increase job growth and generate more revenue simultaneously, which is possible but I feel that they way they are going about it is dubious at best. I've said before that I'd be perfectly fine allowing the tax cuts to expire if they would leave the system alone for a few years to build some faith in the consistency of US regulatory policy, something that's been sorely lacking the past 12 years.

When Republicans talk about raising revenues by increasing the base that likewise sounds like a good idea, but their way of doing it leaves much to be desired. If we weren't so concerned about the inconsistent regulations that have been thrown around we may have kept the support staff. That would have meant a little more risk for us but it would have also increased the number of people paying into the system. With the prospect of a tax increase and the ACA requirements going into effect the risk of adding new employees is no longer acceptable. It's a lose lose situation that I'm not particularly pleased with.

The problem is that, like, your various employees, the programs we are talking about cutting provide a benefit to the nation - i

Look, the power to tax is the power to destroy, and any time you tax you'll get negative impact on what you are taxing. I get that. But to extrapolate from that to say we should never tax anything (or never raise taxes from their current rates) is just crazy.

Agreed. I suppose my problem with the current discussion is that many in Washington are trying to increase job growth and generate more revenue simultaneously, which is possible but I feel that they way they are going about it is dubious at best. I've said before that I'd be perfectly fine allowing the tax cuts to expire if they would leave the system alone for a few years to build some faith in the consistency of US regulatory policy, something that's been sorely lacking the past 12 years.

When Republicans talk about raising revenues by increasing the base that likewise sounds like a good idea, but their way of doing it leaves much to be desired. If we weren't so concerned about the inconsistent regulations that have been thrown around we may have kept the support staff. That would have meant a little more risk for us but it would have also increased the number of people paying into the system. With the prospect of a tax increase and the ACA requirements going into effect the risk of adding new employees is no longer acceptable. It's a lose lose situation that I'm not particularly pleased with.

The problem is that, like, your various employees, the programs we are talking about cutting provide a benefit to the nation - if they didn't, then this would be a much easier task. Instead, we have to decide what are the equivalent of your "support staff" and "pet projects" (ie things we'd like to have but don't provide enough of a benefit to justify the cost right now).

And that's where people differ. There are several programs that I feel should be either re-tooled or eliminated completely because the benefits they provide are dubious at best or because their original purpose has been warped over the course of several decades. The problem arises when you have long standing contractual obligations to beneficiaries and employees whose entire careers are based around these programs. We allowed them to become overgrown when things were going well but, unlike my company, the government is contractually bound to fulfill obligations it has no feasible way of paying for without a heavy reliance on debt financing. The fact that nobody in either party is even suggesting a rational restructuring of any of the major cost generators is a display of just how toxic we've made even talking about them is.

I'm all for cutting spending, but we need to recognize that some of these things have value and are worth keeping - even if we have to pay higher taxes for them.

See it's that concept of value that is skewing the debate on the subject of spending cuts. When one party values something to the point that they take it off of the chopping block entirely when another party sees little or no benefit. Whats more, there are some things that I recognize have a definite benefit but that I feel would be better handled in the private marketplace but whenever this happens we don't actually get privatization we get delegation. Instead of allowing different entities to compete over contracts we delegate authority monolithic Mae's and Mac's that compete with nobody and we wonder why things go so terribly wrong.

I'd be happy to see Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and other support programs remain intact but they need to be refined. I don't think its unreasonable to say that each of these programs budgets could be 3/5 of what they are now if there was a concerted effort to identify cost-to-benefit structures within each of them to reduce waste and to allocate funds to where they're needed, if you're getting a pension and have a retirement account there is no reason for you to be getting Social Security (or as my grandparents called it 'vacation money'). Future burdens could likewise be reduced by instituting a periodic revision to eligibility based on census data, Social Security sure could use an age boost.

good for obama, i'm with him 100%.

The only way that your claim is possible is if 60% of Americans never spend any money. You should at least accept that sales tax is paid by everyone, and is often highest in poorer areas.

Are they? I'm not sure (and I mean that honestly). I live in NY. Last week at the local gas station/convenience store, the woman in front of me was using her EBT card for a few items. She paid cash for her smokes - never mind that as a working man fully paying into the system I quite literally couldn't afford to smoke if I wanted to, but that's another issue. The cashier expressed that the amount originally rang up on the register as one total, but then re-totaled for a lesser amount. The other woman explained that with an EBT payment, taxes are removed. I'm not sure this is true, but that's what the lady said, and she should know more than I.

I read that reservation towns in Arizona have the highest sales taxes in the U.S. at around 13%. So bass4funk, will you head out there and start lecturing people about paying taxes?

Again you should check your facts. Native Americans (I wonder if they hate this term as they never knew it as 'America') pay the same taxes as everyone else, and some working within a reservation are exempt (small number). Off topic, but that's one thing that always amazed me. While this might sound racist, 'African-Americans (a term I loathe, we're all Americans here) have found it difficult to get passed the idea that the bad old white man held them in slavery - very thankfully long ago abolished (never mind that Africans were the ones selling them to begin with, or that Northerners originally brought them in through northern ports, and highly benefited in slave labor to feed northern textile mills through southern cotton plantations - but then condemned the south for the institution). Much time and national angst is dedicated to this. But few seem to give two hoots that we originally came in, murdered and enslaved a native population and then forced them onto parcels of land we didn't feel we needed at the time.

Don't worry Bass - there are still a huge number out there that applaud your success and aren't too stupid to realize that wealth creates success and wealth. Never be ashamed to be living the American dream - it's what this country was founded upon. Entitlement and re-distribution of wealth are tools of the liberal handed out with a well-meaning smile. The idea is that we'll all be equals and sit around basking in a brave new Star Trek-like world, singing Cumbaya around the fire, smoking legal weed and getting abortions because we're still too stupid and irresponsible to utilize birth control (which shouldn't be an excuse now, as I'm sure it will remain free). And let's leave that there - yes I'm aware of the whole rape/medical need to abortion - but if you look at the statistics, something like 98% of abortions have nothing to do with either. The so-called Robber Barons of the industrial age were vilified in their day, but economists later agreed that they built this country (railroads, banking, steel) and gave us the standard of living we now enjoy. According to the average liberal, the nasty old Republicans are just awful because they are for the 'greedy, rich white man' and against penalizing them to redistribute wealth to the masses. The fact that you might pay more in taxes than I make in a year is lost upon them. The idea that I understand and appreciate how your wealth helps the economy and rather than hate you for your wealth highly admire you and celebrate your success is lost upon them.

And I thought the idea was to go after the 'evil 1-2%' of the wealthy. Now that cutoff is $250.000. Somehow I think that's going to affect more than just 2% of the population. And how long before it's decided that $200k is a better number. How about $150K? That's how it works as we slowly slide from an American Capitalist model to a more European Socialism lite. Never mind of course that most of these European nations are in the crapper right now, take no notice. You get free health care man (well, which isn't free at all - but isn't a tax...er...is a tax....I'm confused because no one ever actually read the legislation). Good thing they're slowly legalizing pot. I would recommend copious amounts of that and a good scotch to get through this period of 'hope and change'.

Nonsense, very few of the wealthy are authentic entrepreneurs.

Give me a break, when was the last time you say a poor person hiring someone?

When Obama talks about taxing the "rich", you can be sure that that does not include his personal pals of the type of George Soros. They all got their special deals.

Lol And liberals think that the Koch brothers are criminals.

Thanks in part to YOU and your anti-America voting tendencies that helped create The Great Depression.

Anti-American was voting for 4 more years of high taxation and uncertainty in the market. As the jobless report that was just released is the precursor of what is yet to come, we are ALL in for a roller coaster of a ride for the next 4 years.

at this point, I'll just watch it crash. People are Stubborn enough that the only way to learn will be the hard way.

Yup, my thoughts exactly. I think as Bill Kristol said the other day, Repubs should give in to the Dems and let the chips fall where they may (and they will) and at least when that plane crashes, Repubs won't be held responsible. I'm all for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WJi7eZtb6A

Obama did not address the spending side of the cliff, which requires the government to slash nearly $110 billion from the deficit next year.

He never does. I don't think he is even capable of even admiting we've got a spending problem. It's always with him Tax the rich, Tax the rich, Tax the rich. As if the rich haven't already sheltered their money so that he's not going to get ahold of it in the first place. The rich didn't get that way by being stupid with their money and being stupid would include th erich putting their money into places were Obama can get his hands on it so he can spend it instead of them.

bass

voting for 4 more years of high taxation

You mean the Bush tax rates are too high? They haven't gone up under Obama, you know. If you've got a problem with California's tax code, don't blame it on the federal government.

And don't forget, it was Carter who lowered the capital gains tax to 15% maximum. Used to be higher.

Like I've advised you before, you might learn something by looking at tax rates over the past 60 years. These are good times for rich people like you.

@plastic

You mean the Bush tax rates are too high?

Not at all, those tax cuts helped me hire a lot of people who themselves benifited from them and it was always good for my business.

They haven't gone up under Obama, you know. If you've got a problem with California's tax code, don't blame it on the federal government.

Of course, I blame it on the federal government and Jerry Brown. CA made the same mistake twice voting for him.

And don't forget, it was Carter who lowered the capital gains tax to 15% maximum. Used to be higher.

The same Carter that created ultra high 19% mortgage rates? Yeah, please don't remind me of that other disaster of a president.

Like I've advised you before, you might learn something by looking at tax rates over the past 60 years. These are good times for rich people like you.

I have never complained about them, but once the Bush tax cuts expire, that'll be a different story.

bass -- get your story straight

I have never complained about them

You did. You said

four more years of high taxation

We are already paying more than our fair share

You may start complaining when your taxes go up, but they haven't yet. All your whining about Obama is for naught.

You may start complaining when your taxes go up, but they haven't yet. All your whining about Obama is for naught.

Not if they go up, they are going up and Bush has nothing to do with it at all.

In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax,

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-individual-mandate-tax/story?id=16669186#.UKUjHoavi3c

sailwind, as for the health care law

The mandate has been upheld as a tax,

on those who choose not to get health insurance. You seem to revile people who mooch off the public, yet you have no problem letting people who choose not to get health insurance getting their bills paid by other members of the public who pay into the system.

We're all living in the same world, and whatever one person does is going to have consequences on the rest of us, big or small. And vice versa. Blind faith in the free market is wishful thinking: it isn't going to clear up these problems. The GOP in the past 30 years has never presented a cogent plan to address health care costs (beyond 'tort reforms'). Nor has it presented a positive vision of how the people of America are going to tackle the social challenges that the US faces: poverty, crime, the world's highest incarceration rate, illiteracy, infant mortality, disease, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

Lower taxes on the rich? How has this approach helped so far?

Get government out of the way? I'd like to see an alternative plan then.

The GOP in the past 30 years has never presented a cogent plan to address health care costs (beyond 'tort reforms').

About 38 years ago to be exact for the first fully cogent plan proposed by the GOP.

In his 1974 State of the Union address, President Richard M. Nixon called for comprehensive health insurance.[19] On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income.

Nor has it presented a positive vision of how the people of America are going to tackle the social challenges that the US faces: poverty, crime, the world's highest incarceration rate, illiteracy, infant mortality, disease, crumbling infrastructure, etc.

Most of the proposals revolves around trying to stregthen traditional two parent family households. Study after study shows a direct link to poverty and crime and illiteracy and just the whole host of social ills to single parent households, absent fathers and a breakdown of the traditional family structure. Whoever if one does call for family values and presents that case as the best way to solve societal problems one is now villified as an American Taliban. Such utter total nonsense, but such is our lousy political discourse today.

Lower taxes on the rich? How has this approach helped so far?

Quite well going all the way back to John F. Kennedy. I'll let his words speak on the subjetc as they are quite eloquent on the subject:

"The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform

"In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference

http://www.democraticnationalcommittee.org/op/jfk.html

call for family values

I agree with family values as long as the term is not loaded with lots of peripheral issues. Family and community are ultimately where change happens. However, a call for family values is not a policy.

As for lower taxes on the wealthiest Americans, let's be reasonable. You quote Kennedy, who was speaking at a time when the top income tax rates were at 91%. Those rates are now at 35%, and have been since the beginning of the Bush years. Job creation during the Bush years was stagnant. How low do they have to be to satisfy conservatives today? And is raising the top rate to 38 or 39% socialism?

I get that taxes need to go up slightly, but it will definitely slow the economy down and will almost certainly not result in the amount of higher revenue governments want.

Let's say I was a successful exporter of anime products from Japan, and was paying some taxes in the highest bracket. (By the way, only the amount above the third final cut-off is taxed at the highest rate, and unless you're really Mitt Romney, your overall rate will be a blend of all your rates together, though no one ever seems to understand this.) Then lets say I have a great idea for a new business, which will probably lead to a dozen or more jobs being created. But wait -- if I'm in the highest tax bracket already, it means all the money I make in this new venture, if any, will be taxed at the higher rate, which will probably 39% in the US if rates return to their pre-Bush levels (currently the highest rate is 36% I believe). Add on another 10% for California taxes, if you're from California like me, rumored to go up to 13% since the democrats own the place now. If you live in Japan, you get to pay Japanese taxes, which are headed to 45% for the top rate, plus another 10% for the prefecture so they can have omikoshi to carry around on festival days, for a maximum rate of 55%. Plus the added fun of filing taxes in both the US and Japan, and hoping you aren't dual taxed.

Bottom line, in the current environment, the chances that I (being a hypothetically successful exporter of anime) would say meh, never mind, it's not worth the hassle of starting that new business, is quite high. If 10-20% of entrepreneurs said meh, never mind about starting new businesses for reasons similar to this, bam, you have a big economic problem and certainly lower revenues for the country. And if Japan is ever tempted to try to raise its maximum rates to 75%, as France is doing, what would any successful person do?