• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

debt talks

cutterone

Well-known member
I say that every Democrat congressman, the Pres, Vice, and every actor. etc tjat are so hellbent on raising taxes put their money where their mouth is....
Every one including Buffet cut a check this week of 35% of their gross earnings to the IRS then we will set down and talk where to move forward.
 

Steve

Well-known member
seems they have already shown they can't put their money where their mouth is.. :?

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Owes Taxes Going Back To 2002

Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes

It Turns Out Warren Buffett Is A Master Of Avoiding Taxes

“We aren’t taxed enough,” he says. Well, let’s take a closer look at just where Warren stands when it really comes down to paying his taxes. Not at what he says about taxes but what he has actually done regarding the paying of taxes that he legitimately owes.

There are two recent cases where Warren has done everything possible to AVOID paying taxes that he actually owes. The first case involved a 14-year fight over the dividend-received deduction that was finally settled with the IRS in 2005. The second case is still pending after 10 years in which he owes just over $1 BILLION in back taxes. Both of these cases are well-documented and you can satisfy yourself simply by using Google to inquire as to the voracity of these assertions. Also note the timeframes of 14-years and 10+-years; not exactly a haphazard hissy fit. While you’re at it, you might also ask yourself “why” Warren says one thing in public discourse while he practices the exact opposite in his business and personal life. Is not that the definition of hypocrite?

After Lying About His Wealth on National TV, Michael Moore Admits He's A One Percenter

As Schweizer told MSNBC's Joe Scarborough on November 3, 2005:

PETER SCHWEIZER: Well, Michael Moore has said at least half-a-dozen times, I don`t own a single share of stock, because he considers investing in the stock market to be dirty money.

Well, I guess he is technically correct. He doesn`t own a single share of stock. He owns tens of thousands of shares of stock. And what is interesting is, is looking at the portfolio.

Michael Moore, yes, the same Michael Moore, owns shares in defense contractors like Boeing. He owns...


JOE SCARBOROUGH: No. Well, hold -- hold on. No way. You are telling me...

SCHWEIZER: Yes.

SCARBOROUGH: ... that Mr. "Fahrenheit 9/11" profits off of the war, because Boeing profits off the war, that he despises?

SCHWEIZER: Yes, that`s exactly right. He owns shares in Honeywell.

And, believe it or not, Joe -- it`s on the back cover of the book -- he, in recent years, has owned shares in Halliburton, the Darth Vader of corporate America.



SCARBOROUGH: OK. Hold on. I got to stop you, Peter...

(LAUGHTER)

SCARBOROUGH: ... because this guy said that he doesn`t invest on Wall Street. Are you telling me that he just is just lying to us?

SCHWEIZER: It`s a flat, bald-faced lie. When he says that he doesn`t own shares, I pulled IRS forms from a tax shelter of his. And he has hundreds of thousands of dollars on the stock market.

Right now, for example, he is preparing a film on pharmaceutical companies, attacking the health care industry. In recent years, he has owned shares in Tenet Healthcare, which runs HMOs, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly. He is a complete hypocrite on this front.

SCARBOROUGH: And we have got to go to a break, and I want to talk to you on the other side.

But, just before we go to the break, are you telling me again that Michael Moore has owned stock in Halliburton?

SCHWEIZER: Yes. That`s what his IRS forms -- and he signed his own IRS forms.

Houses on the lake cost as much as $3million.

Moore originally bought the 2,500 sq ft home before expanding to two surrounding lots, according to local real estate sources.

Public records show the property in the name of Moore and his wife, Kathleen Glynn, and notes its taxable value at nearly $1 million.

Local real estate agents estimate the real value of the compound at $2 million, according to The Michigan View.
article-2060704-0EC68DD100000578-441_634x586.jpg

I guess when you fight your assessment value,.. and get it drastically reduced. you can't understand how that lowers your tax payment?

give me a few more of the I want more tax examples.. and I will probably give you more examples of how they avoid paying them.. Like Buffet who put his money in a trust so his "rich" kids could to avoid the death tax..

BTW his kids mostly work heading foundations he has established.. taking home tidy paychecks for nothing... unless you count avoiding taxes as something of worth?
 

Steve

Well-known member
cutterone said:
One more thing. Every Congressman sign and pass a balanced budget bill and I will believe they are serious.

many signed pledges to not raise taxes.. and are now distancing themselves from that pledge..




note* "Distancing themsleves" is a DC term often used to talk yourself away from an act or situation you once were tied to or supported..

it is easily translated to lier, lier pants on fire..
, as noted in the picture..
MJhg9.jpg
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
I'm beginning to think the whole bunch (not counting those newly elected in '10 and '12 perhaps)
have no idea what they are doing OR don't have the guts to fix it, or we wouldn't be in this mess. :x

The two-party system is going against the good of America. Do I have
the answer? NO.

But the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
expecting a different result.

Now on tv they are talking about Obama getting his campaign workers
out to convince people to support Obama on his 1.6 trillion dollar wish.
Can that make a difference? The guy on TV said it worked to get him elected...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Faster horses said:
Now on tv they are talking about Obama getting his campaign workers
out to convince people to support Obama on his 1.6 trillion dollar wish.
Can that make a difference? The guy on TV said it worked to get him elected...


November 28, 2012

60% favor tax hike for income over $250,000

The Charleston Gazette

WASHINGTON -- Six in 10 Americans support a tax increase on annual income of more than $250,000, according to a nationwide poll released Wednesday.

Such a move is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's efforts to avoid the large automatic tax increases and spending cuts, collectively known as the fiscal cliff, that are coming at the start of next year.

The Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 73 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of independents back raising taxes on incomes over $250,000, while just 39 percent of Republicans support it.

The poll results show the divide in Washington between Democrats and Republicans over reaching a major deficit-reduction package that would avoid the fiscal cliff. But the findings could boost Obama as he takes his case to the public.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has said he's open to raising additional tax revenue from the wealthy to help close the deficit, but wants to do it by eliminating deductions in the tax code.

The Post/ABC poll showed that approach has less support than Obama's, with 44 percent supporting a reduction in deductions that people can claim on their federal taxes and 49 percent opposed.

Democratic and independent support for that idea is about the same as the national figure, but only 39 percent of Republicans back the approach, the poll said.

One area of agreement among Democrats, Republicans and independents is opposition to raising the age for Medicare coverage to 67 years old from 65, with 67 percent of respondents opposing it.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has proposed a gradual increase in the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security as part of a deficit-reduction plan
 

Steve

Well-known member
60% favor tax hike for income over $250,000

Some takeaways: Almost one household out of every four (24.9 percent) makes less than $25,000 a year. About one in three households (30.1 percent) made between $50,000 and $100,000. One in five households (19.9 percent) made more than $100,000 a year.

Less than 20 percent of American households even break the six figures

for most the tax increase would not effect them... why not ask them if they are "all" willing to pay more? or are they afraid of the results?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
obama's proposal includes a $250 billion "stimulus" to make up for lost job creation/economic growth they expect to see by taxing the "rich"

Makes alot of sense eh? A spending increase of $250 Billion to make up for a $50 Billion revenue increase.

edited to add: I wonder if the whole $200 billion will be given to bankrupt "green companies", or just $199 billion.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Steve said:
60% favor tax hike for income over $250,000

Some takeaways: Almost one household out of every four (24.9 percent) makes less than $25,000 a year. About one in three households (30.1 percent) made between $50,000 and $100,000. One in five households (19.9 percent) made more than $100,000 a year.

Less than 20 percent of American households even break the six figures

for most the tax increase would not effect them... why not ask them if they are "all" willing to pay more? or are they afraid of the results?


I (and the majority of the country) think Bush screwed things up so bad that the only way we will keep our children and grandchildren from inheriting huge debt is by also raising income sources- besides spending cuts...And at this time the only way I/most see available is thru taxes...

And right now the most popular tax is putting the former taxes back on the wealthiest 1- 2% of the population... Fair ?- I don't know--but like many have said- they stand to lose the most if the economy collapses and often are the receivers of the most services- so should pay the most....

And I think the majority of the country thinks the Fatcat Banker types and wealthy still need to be punished for playing fast & loose with and gambling away all these folks investment funds- while many of them became overnight millionaires ...

Romney also did not help things out any for the wealthy when it was alleged he had Millions and Millions of $ in foreign investments and bank accounts- taking advantage of tax avoidance loopholes the wealthy use-- and then refused to release his tax returns- and/or prove otherwise...
 

Traveler

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
obama's proposal includes a $250 billion "stimulus" to make up for lost job creation/economic growth they expect to see by taxing the "rich"

Makes alot of sense eh? A spending increase of $250 Billion to make up for a $50 Billion revenue increase.

edited to add: I wonder if the whole $200 billion will be given to bankrupt "green companies", or just $199 billion.
The whole thing would make perfect sense to an Obama voter. Green companies are likely being created on paper right now.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
I (and the majority of the country) think Bush screwed things up so bad that the only way we will keep our children and grandchildren from inheriting huge debt is by also raising income sources- besides spending cuts...And at this time the only way I/most see available is thru taxes...


the tax increases will result in $50 billion of revenue, over 10 years. Half of 1% of what obama has added to the debt.

And right now the most popular tax is putting the former taxes back on the wealthiest 1- 2% of the population... Fair ?- I don't know--but like many have said- they stand to lose the most if the economy collapses and often are the receivers of the most services- so should pay the most....

If you do not change the tax code, are you fixing the problem? the % of total revenue that the "rich" pay, has gone up since the Bush tax cuts have taken affect

And I think the majority of the country thinks the Fatcat Banker types and wealthy still need to be punished for playing fast & loose with and gambling away all these folks investment funds- while many of them became overnight millionaires ...

If it's the "fatcat bankers" fault, then nail them, not those that make capital investments in the Country, that create jobs and economic growth. Maybe Clinton should have listened to Brooksley Born. Maybe the "fatcat bankers, should not have been bailed out once by Bush and then again another 2 times by obama

Romney also did not help things out any for the wealthy when it was alleged he had Millions and Millions of $ in foreign investments and bank accounts- taking advantage of tax avoidance loopholes the wealthy use-- and then refused to release his tax returns- and/or prove otherwise...


Wouldn't it be nice if the US changed their tax code, so that money would stay in the US? 10% of $100, is quite a bit more than 0% on $1 Million. Tax rates should be lowered on such things as capital investments, not increased.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Wouldn't it be nice if the US changed their tax code, so that money would stay in the US? 10% of $100, is quite a bit more than 0% on $1 Million. Tax rates should be lowered on such things as capital investments, not increased.

I think Romney brought up this exact same thing before the election.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
Wouldn't it be nice if the US changed their tax code, so that money would stay in the US? 10% of $100, is quite a bit more than 0% on $1 Million. Tax rates should be lowered on such things as capital investments, not increased.

I think Romney brought up this exact same thing before the election.


It's only common sense. There is a reason they take that money overseas. If the US is not making revenue by taxing it, wouldn't it make sense to tax it less, and make at least something off of it?

The "rich" will invest their money where their "profit" on investment is greater than their tax.

They aren't stupid.


If you want people to do something (invest), you tax it less, not more. If we don't want people to do something (smoke), we tax it more.

Democrats aren't too good with economics.
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
I (and the majority of the country) think Bush screwed things up so bad that the only way we will keep our children and grandchildren from inheriting huge debt is by also raising income sources- besides spending cuts...And at this time the only way I/most see available is thru taxes...


the tax increases will result in $50 billion of revenue, over 10 years. Half of 1% of what obama has added to the debt.

And right now the most popular tax is putting the former taxes back on the wealthiest 1- 2% of the population... Fair ?- I don't know--but like many have said- they stand to lose the most if the economy collapses and often are the receivers of the most services- so should pay the most....

If you do not change the tax code, are you fixing the problem? the % of total revenue that the "rich" pay, has gone up since the Bush tax cuts have taken affect

And I think the majority of the country thinks the Fatcat Banker types and wealthy still need to be punished for playing fast & loose with and gambling away all these folks investment funds- while many of them became overnight millionaires ...

If it's the "fatcat bankers" fault, then nail them, not those that make capital investments in the Country, that create jobs and economic growth. Maybe Clinton should have listened to Brooksley Born. Maybe the "fatcat bankers, should not have been bailed out once by Bush and then again another 2 times by obama

Romney also did not help things out any for the wealthy when it was alleged he had Millions and Millions of $ in foreign investments and bank accounts- taking advantage of tax avoidance loopholes the wealthy use-- and then refused to release his tax returns- and/or prove otherwise...


Wouldn't it be nice if the US changed their tax code, so that money would stay in the US? 10% of $100, is quite a bit more than 0% on $1 Million. Tax rates should be lowered on such things as capital investments, not increased.

We've been over this sooo many times the "effective tax rate" on the rich is so much less because of loopholes etc. same with corporations. Very few actually pay that tax rate that is always quoted by the Rep.'s as being one of the highest in the world. But as wealth keeps on being concentrated and the workers have less and less--well it could lead to many problems. I have nothing against a person working hard and becoming a millionaire nor do I have anything against a person working hard and achieving middle class status. Just heard today that the Walmart family is worth ~ 100 billion and yet they still want to pay many $8/hr and work many partime. These people making $8 hr qualify for foodstamps,etc in many instances so who winds up subsidizing them??? The taxpayers, so in essence taxpayers are subsidizing Walmart.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
the effective tax rate on the "rich" is 24% and 11% for the "middle class"


did you also hear today that Universities are cutting adjunct professors down to 29 hours, due to the costs associated with obamacare?

If they didn't, they'd have to raise tuition rates, whcih would hurt the middle class, correct?

guess universities are the same type of greedy as Walmart, eh?
 

TSR

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
the effective tax rate on the "rich" is 24% and 11% for the "middle class"


did you also hear today that Universities are cutting adjunct professors down to 29 hours, due to the costs associated with obamacare?

If they didn't, they'd have to raise tuition rates, whcih would hurt the middle class, correct?

guess universities are the same type of greedy as Walmart, eh?

Cutting adjunct (partime) down to 29 hrs?? Many of these professors are adjunct by their own choosing. As far as universities being greedy--yes they are in many ways. I doubt their number of adjunct professors come close to the number of Walfart employees, not to mention the differences in salary.

With respect to tuition rate hikes, only after exhausting all other options.
 
Top