# those damn Brits prove the evil Republicans are right



## Trajan (Feb 22, 2012)

This is exactly what several states here have done and what Obama proposes as well. 

The UK has now on a national level provided an example for Obama to learn from, it don't work......

 unless of course he knows this and just wants to use this as a platform to stir up class warfare etc etc ......



50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues&#8217;
The amount of income tax paid fell sharply last month in the first formal indication that the new 50p higher rate is not raising the expected amount of revenue.


The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January 2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.

Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had been &#8220;manoeuvring&#8221; by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.

The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by more than £1billion.

more at-
50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues&rsquo; - Telegraph


I loved their headline, 'failing to boost revenue', why yes thats one way of putting an epic fail...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Trajan said:


> This is exactly what several states here have done and what Obama proposes as well.
> 
> The UK has now on a national level provided an example for Obama to learn from, it don't work......
> 
> ...



1. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didnt appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

2. Sociologist Helmut Schoecks observation: Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ethic has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of social injustice, which must be eliminated for their benefit. Helmut Schoeck, Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, p. 179


3. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoqkOrA4tEs]Obama Taxes are for fairness - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2012)

We need to wipe out the UK so they stop conducting experiments in 50% surtax rates that prove the Republicans who say it will decrease revenue are right.





> The Treasury received £10.35 billion in income tax payments from those paying    by self-assessment last month, a drop of £509 million compared with January    2011. Most other taxes produced higher revenues over the same period.
> 
> Senior sources said that the first official figures indicated that there had    been manoeuvring by well-off Britons to avoid the new higher rate. The    figures will add to pressure on the Coalition to drop the levy amid fears it    is forcing entrepreneurs to relocate abroad.
> 
> The self-assessment returns from January, when most income tax is paid by the    better-off, have been eagerly awaited by the Treasury and government    ministers as they provide the first evidence of the success, or failure, of    the 50p rate. It is the first year following the introduction of the 50p    rate which had been expected to boost tax revenues from self-assessment by    more than £1billion.



50p tax rate 'failing to boost revenues&rsquo; - Telegraph


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 22, 2012)

who gave the marching order?

drudge? malkin?


----------



## California Girl (Feb 22, 2012)

The silence from the left is speaks loudly.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Feb 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> The silence from the left is speaks loudly.



and you are a writer, lol


----------



## Zander (Feb 22, 2012)

Large punitive tax rate increases rarely result in increased revenues to the Treasury.  In fact, they usually net less, as the "rich" have numerous options available to them.  But leftists do not care about that bit of reality, for them it is about punishing success and rewarding failure.


----------



## CaughtInTheMid (Feb 22, 2012)

maybe we can jack our rate up so all the Chinese will move their money elsewhere and then americans can own american stuff again.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 22, 2012)

Zander said:


> Large punitive tax rate increases rarely result in increased revenues to the Treasury.  In fact, they usually net less, as the "rich" have numerous options available to them.  But leftists do not care about that bit of reality, for them it is about punishing success and rewarding failure.


Unless it is one of their own. It's more about punishing their political opposition and rewarding themselves with the spoils of this fruitcake war they're waging against people who earned their way and deserve good.


----------



## Zander (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?


Small incremental increases in taxation can increase revenue, but usually this takes years to come to fruition, especially when the economy is stagnating. 

Large punitive increases like Obama's plan to increase the tax on dividends by 300% will not raise a penny more in revenue. People will just stop taking the dividends or move them to tax advantaged accounts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?



Please compare revenues under Clinton to revenues today with the tax rates lower and the economy doing much worse. To make it easier for you I will tell you that the highest revenue under Clinton was $2 trillion and was $2.2 trillion last year.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 22, 2012)

Well austrity didn't work in the UK either.

Conservative Austerity Idea Is Failing
Conservative Austerity Idea Is Failing: David G. Blanchflower - Bloomberg


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Feb 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> The silence from the left is speaks loudly.



Be on your toes.  Spell checker and grammar corrector is flying around.


----------



## ladyliberal (Feb 22, 2012)

The first post seems to be in reference to the Laffer curve. It is certainly true that a sufficiently high tax rate can lower revenue (if income is taxed at 100%, for example, no one will earn income and no tax revenue will be collected). However, it is completely wrong to suggest that a marginal increase in, say, the top personal income tax rate in the US would decrease tax revenue. The article cited is particularly poor evidence for a few reasons:

First, the tax rate is substantially higher than the US rate (unless I just misunderstand how British taxes work, which is certainly possible) and thus falls elsewhere on the Laffer curve. More importantly:



> A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.



and



> However, another Treasury source added that the tax deadline had been extended by two days because of industrial action at HM Revenue and Customs. Therefore, it was too early to begin assessing the revenues raised from the 50p rate of tax because about 20 per cent of self-assessment tax is paid in the hours before the deadline.



So, revenue is down about 5% because 20% of payments hadn't been included yet, and because people had restructured their affairs to avoid paying the self-assessment tax (I would assume that means they paid other taxes instead). So in fact it seems almost impossible that the higher tax rate didn't increase tax revenues substantially.


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 22, 2012)

Zander said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?
> ...


I'm sure all of Nancy Pelosi's relatives who got the $1.3 billion in government-guaranteed loans (that we know about) will not have to pay anything. Businesses headed to the bankruptcy courts when Obama took the trillion dollars for "stimulating" the economy then routed it to Democrats losing big in business gave Nancy's relatives their money back ahead of time.

That used to be against the law. My uncle, who sat on the bench not too far from here was of the opinion that nobody from the president of the country to the newest baby born were equal under the law, which applies the same to everyone.

Now, it seems, politicians screw the taxpayers they're supposed to represent out of money, which they divert to family members through golden parachute guarantees, and I'm mad about it. 

It isn't fitting. Nobody is holding Nancy Pelosi's well-shoed feet to the fire for blatant expropriation of other Americans' tax money to her own family enterprises like the solar power outfit in Nevada that is going to have 45 permanent jobs for the $737 the government is forking over to them.  That's $16 million per permanent job. I think that is a gross wrongful diversion of people paying taxes. Everyone who has to drive to a job is already paying an average of $1500 in increased fuel costs because the Democrats decided to close down all oil drilling in the gulf. Never mind who is taking up the slack with Obama's craven give-away of American jobs in the drilling field to foreign countries who didn't lift a finger to help this nation when we needed their help, and the likely won't in the future, either.

Obama has frightened all investors and industry in America. He's made the business community sick with worry, and his community-pushing all responsibilities onto everyone except the people getting the benefits keeps people on the dole instead of putting them back to work in a job they can be proud of for taking care of themselves.

In short, it's chaos in this country right now, and people are too worried on account of short-sighted policies that have proven to fail in the past. I was reading that not only are people going on welfare in record numbers, many are filing for welfare under more than one name, bilking taxpayers so much more.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?
> ...


1 - there are more tax payers currently than there were under clinton
2 - GDP has increased since Clinton as well.
3 - your numbers are not adjusted for inflation


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


if Obama has frightened all investors away, why has the stock market risen from 5,000 to nearly 13,000 while he has been in office?


----------



## Trajan (Feb 22, 2012)

merged


----------



## Trajan (Feb 22, 2012)

Zander said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?
> ...



wells aid, when dividends were taxed higher in the 90's less co's ,  by a lot, provided dividends, the number then increased, by a lot, after bush lowered the rate. history is a hard taskmaster, especially foe the class warrior


----------



## Trajan (Feb 22, 2012)

L.K.Eder said:


> who gave the marching order?
> 
> drudge? malkin?



common sense and that guy named evidence, but hey, don't let that throw you.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

if youre a smart investor, you wont take your money out of the market until the time is right to minimize tax liability in the first place. then again, most people do not purchase stocks to get dividends. they purchase stock in the hopes that they price of that stock will rise and they will be able to sell at a profit. 

my questions to you, is why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job? and how does this benefit the middle class?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?



1. The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993. This decline is especially significant since the retroactivity of the Clinton tax increase in that year limited the ability of taxpayers to deploy tax avoidance strategies, temporarily resulting in an increase in their tax burden. 
The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

"...poor people rely on social services..."
Rather than 'rely on,' these folks are sold into welfare-slavery..."

2. Of course, our Liberal friends* have made certain that their client base cannot escape!* There is no way out of the Poverty Trap- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, *as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!*
Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five

a.	Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal  tax is another 10%  on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... *total: 72.65% tax. *Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b.	but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages,* the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. *This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time *the family's tax liabilities increase* by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)   The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap

What do you think the lesson is? 
You should read Alexis de Tocqueville.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> if youre a smart investor, you wont take your money out of the market until the time is right to minimize tax liability in the first place. then again, most people do not purchase stocks to get dividends. they purchase stock in the hopes that they price of that stock will rise and they will be able to sell at a profit.
> 
> my questions to you, is why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job? and how does this benefit the middle class?



"...why should money made off investments be treated differently than money earned through a job?"

1. Because investment via private vs. government funds is what made the American economy the envy of the world.

2. Individuals have to be recompensed for taking the risk of investing.

3. The money has already been taxed at the point it was earned, and will be taxed again if there is a capital gain.

4. And again if left in an estate.

Get it now?


----------



## freedombecki (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


 I wasn't talking about investors in the stock market. I was talking about small business investors who invest in employees and pay people to work for them.

The number of people out of work is a grim figure still.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



The Dow closed at 7,949 on Bush's last day in office.


----------



## rdean (Feb 22, 2012)

*A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.*

Hilarious!


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

1 - this has nothing to do with a reason a person invests. a person invests to make money, not because they some civic duty to do so.

2 - individuals are compensated for their risk taking when a stock rises. but why is taking the risk to start a business taxed at a higher rate than the risk it takes to purchase a stock? 

3 - Yes money has already been taxed, but if you understood tax law, you would know that you are only taxed on your gain, not your principle. so if you inverst $1000 in stocks, and that stock goes up and you investment is now worth $2000, you are not taxed on $2000. you are only taxed on the new money, which would be $1000 worth of tax liability. you in effect you did nothing to earn this $1000 other than  invest in the correct stock. you didnt earn it through performing a job or services. so your claim that the money is taxed twice is inaccurate. but then again if you lose money in the stock market it become a tax write off. so this money has special rules attached to it no matter what. if i work a job and incur a pay cut, i am not able to write that off. 

by your logic, why would anyone every want to work a job? if i can make enough money in the stock market, pay half the current tax rate i pay, and sit at home as a fat lazy american, why would i ever want to work? 

fyi #4 make no sense at all.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


can you provide an evidence of your claim? since the economy is expanding and growing that would suggest that your not entirely correct.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> *A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.*
> 
> Hilarious!



What is really hilarious is the short-sightedness of the politicians.

Every time they pass a confiscatory tax plan, the folks avoid it.

The reason is as simple as the Leftist pols...

they think in static terms,

....people behave in dynamic ways.


"White touched on a subject near and dear to OMalleys heart: the millionaires tax. Enacted in 2008, this taxed income that was greater than $1 million at a higher rate  6.25%, as opposed to 5.5%. The tax expired at the end of 2010.
White said that the states policymakers should be careful to avoid regrettable *unintended consequences* from new ideas.
*With the millionaires tax, we lost thousands of millionaires,* White said."

Read more: O


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


and it continued to fall all the way to around 6,600 (my mistake i will admit it, in march of 09 it was 6,626 according to google finance) but as of today it was still near 13,000. not exactly bad in less than 4 years.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?
> ...


this math is quite interesting. 

Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. *But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns*, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

explain to me the bolded line. why would anyone be paying 50% to benefits? and what benefits are they referring to. 

and im sorry quoting a study by the Cato institute isnt exactly non partisan.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> 1 - this has nothing to do with a reason a person invests. a person invests to make money, not because they some civic duty to do so.
> 
> 2 - individuals are compensated for their risk taking when a stock rises. but why is taking the risk to start a business taxed at a higher rate than the risk it takes to purchase a stock?
> 
> ...



Did you major in ignornce?
"...why would anyone every want to work a job? if i can make enough money in the stock market, pay half the current tax rate i pay..."

And, that money to invest comes from whence?


#4 Multiple taxation.

1.	_ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, several times in federal and state tax codes.

2.	Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes).  If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!

3.	A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock.If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.

4.	*The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income.* If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, Americas Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, p. 215-216.


Pick up a book once in a while._


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Welfare benefits!!!!

Housing, medical, child care, food stamps....

Wake up.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


in what reality is someone paying 50% in taxes? someone making $16,000 will pay an effective tax rate of around 10% and that includes payroll, FICA and such....... did you not even read what you posted originally? she was on welfare at $12k per year, then got a job at $16k per year but was being taxed at 50%....... thats just not possible. even the highest tax bracket is not that much.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 22, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



She loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! 

OMG!!! Loses benefits as her income rises!!!!


&#8220;Means-tested welfare spending or aid to the poor&#8230;(non-welfare programs provide benefits and services for the general population)&#8230;in  2008, total government spending on means-tested welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion. This high level of welfare spending was the result of steady permanent growth in welfare spending over several decades rather than a short-term response to temporary economic conditions&#8230;$522 billion (73 percent) was federal expenditures, and $192 billion (27 percent) was state government funds.&#8221; 
Obama to Spend $10.3 Trillion on Welfare: Uncovering the Full Cost of Means-Tested Welfare or Aid to the Poor


Do you understand the phrase "Means-tested"?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> *A Treasury source said the relatively poor revenues from self-assessment returns was partly down to highly-paid individuals arranging their affairs to avoid paying the 50p rate.*
> 
> Hilarious!



Why is it hilarious? I keep telling you that, if you increase taxes on rich people they will find a way to avoid the taxes.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 22, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > that actually do increase revenues, as was shown during the Clinton years. There will always be people who cheat the system whether they are rich or poor. Rich people avoid taxes, poor people rely on social services. which is worse?
> ...



You should read books that aren't written by authors that represent just one ideology! Peter Ferrara, whose book you quoted is a columnist for the strong right wing resource, _ The American Spectator _

So your post uses nothing but opinions of the the Right,,nothing new here.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Only the *weak-minded Leftist..*.oops...was I just redundant???...attempts to dispense with facts by objecting to the one who presents same.

So...rather than the *sophomoric *attempt you've proposed...

...how about attempting to show any errors in the post...

...can you?

I didn't think so.


So, let's review: the *simple-minded folks* argue against reading, and offer nothing by way of rebuttal...merely moan about who offers the evidence, not the authenticity of said evidence.

I'd laugh at you if you weren't so *sickening*.


But the way...just to prove what an* idiot you are, *one of the books I'm reading is 

"Rights Gone Wrong: How Law Corrupts the Struggle for Equality" by
Richard Thompson Ford


Another is 
"Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back" by Amy Goodman and David Goodman

Others I've read this year include
Glenn Greenwald's  With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful

and 
Why Were Liberals, by Eric Alterman

Every on is way Liberal, *dope.*


Now you....did you finish the "Cat in the Hat" yet???


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


you are failing to recognize or fail to accept that no american rich or poor pays a 50% tax rate. can you prove that hypothetically a person making $16k would pay 50% in taxes? no because it is impossible. maybe if you threw in sales tax, property tax and a few others you might get close. but federal deductions are capped at a certain percentage of you pay.


#4 Multiple taxation.

1.	_ncentive effects are compounded in our tax system through the multiple taxation of capital, &#8230;several times in federal and state tax codes. so are you arguing that states should not be able to tax people, only the fed should or vice versa?

2.	Example: invest one dollar in the stock of a corporation. A dollar that the corporation earns is taxed at the corporate income tax rate of about 40% (that includes federal plus state corporate taxes). If the rest of that dollar is paid to our investor in dividends, then it is taxed again via individual income tax at the dividend tax rate. With Obama increasing the dividends tax rate from 15% to 43.4%*, applying the 43.4% rate to the 60 cents remaining after paying the corporate income tax leaves just 34 cents for the investor, of the original dollar he earned!
the corporate tax rate is only 35%. your math is quite hilarious. as the money a corporation gets from IPO's and stock purchases is not the same as money an individual investor earn. i cant even begin to explain how terrible your argument is. ill try to put it in simple words. a man invests a dollar. he earns 10 cents in a dividend, he is taxed on the 10 cents, not the original $1 principle. if the stock rises to say $2 and the investor cashes out, he pays taxes on the $1 in capital gains, not the $1 in principle. the money that a company operates on is not the same money the investors put in the market. your argument is way off base.

3.	A third layer of taxation of capital income is represented by the capital gains tax. Consider an asset such as a share of stock&#8230;.If that asset is sold, taxing the increased value by the capital gains tax is effectively taxing that future income stream a third time.
wow, your comment make 0 sense. 

4.	The death tax (estate tax) is a fourth layer of taxation on capital income. If our investor saves the 34 cents from the corporate stock and leaves it to his children, the death tax would take about half, leaving 17 cents of the original dollar.
Ferrara, &#8220;America&#8217;s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb,&#8221; p. 215-216."

a person earns money in their lifetime, not a family. if my father was wealthy because he had a business and did well for himself, he earned that money. thus HE has already paid taxes on it. if he leaves that money to you upon his death, that money is now transferred into you name. you (personally, as an individual) have never paid taxes on it. only your father has. thus this is akin to winning the lottery, it is new money thus it is subject to taxes. if youre argument held true, why would a rich person every keep their own money? why not pass on everything you earn to you kids and avoid paying any taxes all together? 

FYI the heritage foundation is not exactly a non partisan website._


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


_


I'm always surprised when one as ignorant as you document yourself to be has no problem revealing same to the world.

You should try to stick to subjects where you might actually have some cache, such as favorite Crayola, or how far to sit from the tv.this is out of your league._


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


_
thanks! im glad to see you that refuted everything i said. you can stay in your little bubble and think what you will. but your claims still dont hold up when challenged. so your automatic response to call people names and get angry. because yes, that is going to solve the problem and prove you point. well played.... well played.......

again, i would like to see a real world example of someone making $16,000 paying a 50% marginal tax rate. until you can prove that, youre simply a liar.._


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


_

After several valiant, yet fruitless attempts to educate you...no doubt, the same results and emotions your grade-school teachers accumulated, I realized that the reference from Matthew 7:6, from the Sermon on the Mount, applies here.

My efforts are no more efficacious than pearls before swine._


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb? 

you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%. 

wow, there is no help for you at all.

what world do you live in? you have no comprehension of how taxation works.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


_

He refuted half of what you said before you said it._


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?
> 
> you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.
> 
> ...



Let me get this straight, someone explains that the combined state and federal tax rate is 40% and you respond by saying that the federal corporate tax rate is only 35% you think that you somehow refuted something? Dumb is way to kind.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?
> 
> you have provided no proof to support your positions, and your argument claims that corporate profits are the actual money as stock profits and dividends; which are then tax three times because the corporation pays taxes on the money, then the investors pays taxes on the dividends and then they pay taxes on the capital gains. this being the same dollar is taxed 3 times, bringing the tax level to 66%.
> 
> ...



"youre dumb".

Actually, you're uneducated.

And, with no basis for understanding the material offered, you have no hope of being educated.

There are the folks who know, and the folks who don&#8217;t know, but you belong to the third group: the ones who don&#8217;t know, and don&#8217;t know they don&#8217;t know.

But you&#8217;d make a damn fine organ donor&#8230;


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?
> ...


can you provide the section of the US tax code that states the corporate profits, dividends and capital gains are in fact treat as the same money and thus are subject to taxation 3 times? 

good luck, its doesnt exist. 

can you also point me to the section of the tax code which allows for a person making $16k per year to pay an effective tax rate of 50%? 

and you call me uneducated? if you can not provide any proof of this to support your argument, you are simply a liar.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > so your response is "youre dumb". really? i rip apart your position and dispel your "evidence" and im the one who is dumb?
> ...


seeing as how state and federal taxes are separate, your argument doesnt hold water. its also a know fact that state taxes for corporations can be a federal tax deduction in certain states. http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/corp_inc.pdf

now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gain are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

windbag actually suits you quite well.......


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



Uneducated is the least of it.....here, let me amplify: you're also a dunce.

You'd be well advised to pay attention to the old saying: Better to let people think youre a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Silence is golden. Duct tape is silver.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

great! glad to see you totally disproved my argument. still waiting on your evidence......


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> great! glad to see you totally disproved my argument. still waiting on your evidence......



The problem is hardly the lack of evidence, the problem is your lack of understanding same.

You're wasting so much time here when you could be learning to fold fitted sheets.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



You want me to explain the obvious? While I am at it should I also explain how the sun rises in the east, even though it doesn't?


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


now tell me again how corporate profits, stock dividends and capital gains are the exact same money and are taxed 3 times?

answer the question.


----------



## theHawk (Feb 23, 2012)

Obama has already proven Republicans right, he refused to raise taxes when he had an all Dem Congress, and now he is calling for corporate tax cuts.

That's all the Obam-bots need to know.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Obama has already proven Republicans right, he refused to raise taxes when he had an all Dem Congress, and now he is calling for corporate tax cuts.
> 
> That's all the Obam-bots need to know.


hes calling to lower the rate and eliminate loop holes. which will in effect raise the effective rates that some corporation actually pay. companies such as GE who paid 0% in taxes last year.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 23, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



The Earth rotates about its axis making the sun appear to rise in the East. Everyone knows this is not what actually happens, but Einstein actually proved that everything is relative to the person observing it, and that means it does, even though it doesn't if you were observing from a place other than the surface of the Earth.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Feb 23, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




I can Google "liberal books" or conservative for that matter and say I have read anyone these books. 

_Cat in the Hat_? I  read that book to my kids and also to their children.  What's your point?  Do you need to know the ending?

I am what I say I am, I'm a independent moderate.  I have recent posts that are against raising taxes on the wealthy, against Obamacare and, pro-Keystone Pipeline.  True, I'm 100% for Main Street America which conflicts with the narrow ideology that you married.  But hey, I'm middle class!  What am I supposed to do, cower to folks with Big Money?  That's self-defeating!

You know, I bet if your ego wasn't the size of Texas, you might just be bearable.  Open your eyes, the world has more sides than your narrow vision can identify.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


what does this have to do with the claim of triple taxation? and in reality the sun never actually sets or rises. it is always there, it just happens to out of the line of sight of an individual. if you were in the space station, you would see the sun at all times.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



It illustrates the problem of explaining things that are relative to a person who insists his POV is the only valid one. If you go back and actually read what I posted you will see I used different words, but I actually said exactly the same thing you did. In order for me to explain the double taxation on corporate dividends you would have to move from your view where you are the center of the universe and actually view what it looks like from what, to you, is essentially an omnipotent viewpoint that can track the money through a system that is outside your solar system.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 24, 2012)

you still havent even made an attempt to explain your belief that corporate profits are the same as dividends and are the same capitals gains. how can i refute something that you have not attempted to explain?

a companies stock price can fluctuate based on external forces or even speculation. lets use apple for example. lets say apple announces a new product, that will be released in 6 months. the stock immediately rises in price based upon this new news. does the company actually see more cash? no not at all. they havent sold this new product yet, or increased sales based upon a product that has not been released. but investors speculate the new product will raise revenues which will then drive the price of the stock up. so it was at $5 per share, and it rises to $10 per share. you decide to cash out and sell your shares on the open market. you are not taxed on the original $5, you are only taxed on the $5 increase. how is this money the exact same as corporate profits earned selling a product or service?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> you still havent even made an attempt to explain your belief that corporate profits are the same as dividends and are the same capitals gains. how can i refute something that you have not attempted to explain?
> 
> a companies stock price can fluctuate based on external forces or even speculation. lets use apple for example. lets say apple announces a new product, that will be released in 6 months. the stock immediately rises in price based upon this new news. does the company actually see more cash? no not at all. they havent sold this new product yet, or increased sales based upon a product that has not been released. but investors speculate the new product will raise revenues which will then drive the price of the stock up. so it was at $5 per share, and it rises to $10 per share. you decide to cash out and sell your shares on the open market. you are not taxed on the original $5, you are only taxed on the $5 increase. how is this money the exact same as corporate profits earned selling a product or service?




Why can I attempt to explain something I don't believe? Corporate profits are not the same as dividends or capital gains. I would explain double taxation, but you just proved that I am right in saying you can't expand your POV to the point you would understand them.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 24, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > you still havent even made an attempt to explain your belief that corporate profits are the same as dividends and are the same capitals gains. how can i refute something that you have not attempted to explain?
> ...


you were the one agreeing the previous poster that corporate profits, dividends and capitals gains are the same money and are thus taxed 3 times. i disagreed. 

so now tell me how this is double taxation on an individual?


----------



## sealybobo (Feb 24, 2012)

Wow.  I just posted this in another thread but it seems fitting for this title too.  Here is another example of the Brits proving us Liberals wrong.  This is a letter from the leading liberal to the Brits in 1940:

Here is part of the letter Gandhi wrote to Winston Churchill on the 4th of July, 1940"I appeal for cessation of hostilities because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for having you or humanity. Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give these but not your souls not your minds."


----------



## Trajan (Feb 24, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> Wow.  I just posted this in another thread but it seems fitting for this title too.  Here is another example of the Brits proving us Liberals wrong.  This is a letter from the leading liberal to the Brits in 1940:
> 
> Here is part of the letter Gandhi wrote to Winston Churchill on the 4th of July, 1940"I appeal for cessation of hostilities because war is bad in essence. You want to kill Nazism. Your soldiers are doing the same work of destruction as the Germans... I venture to present you with a nobler and a braver way worthy of the bravest soldiers. I want you to fight Nazism without arms or with non-violent arms. I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for having you or humanity. Invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession of your beautiful island with your many beautiful buildings. You will give these but not your souls not your minds."



what, does this have to do with the topic?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 24, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > kiwiman127 said:
> ...



Wait...are you suggesting that I haven't read any book that I say I've read????

That I feel you are so important that I would throw away my honor to satisfy YOU???

You worthless gnat....

...Name the book and I'll post my notes from same.....

Here are some form Glenn Greenwald's book, you jerk.
1.	The central principle of Americas founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable. A small number would of individuals would be naturally endowed with unique and extraordinary talents while most people, by definition, would be ordinary. So the American concept of liberty would be premised on the inevitability of outcome inequality- success of some, failure of others.
a.	Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.
2.	The concept has made its way into our clichés: equal before the law, justice is blind, no man is above the law, a nation of laws, not men.
3.	What the founders feared most was that a centralized federal government would erode liberty, forcibly override local rule, obliterate self-governance, and transgress every limit. The Constitution was the attempt to prevent that.
4.	The founders recognized that, unless the law was applied equally, the Constitution would become merely a suggestion, compliance being optional.
5.	The central dispute in Marbury v. Madison was whether the courts had the authority to subject officials in the executive branch to their rulings.
6.	None of the founders believed in equality as a general proposition. The opposite is true: they considered inequality on every level, other than law, to be the natural, inevitable, and just state of affairs. Even Jefferson, one of the most egalitarian of the founders, held that there was a natural aristocracy among men, based on virtue and talents. This was not only natural, but desirable: The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and the government of society.(10) 
a.	Adams the same. It already appears, that there must be in every society of men superiors an inferiors, because God has laid in the constitution and course of nature the foundations of the distinction.
b.	Thomas Paine loathed inherited titles and assigned status as a legally enforced inequality: Nature is often giving to the world some extraordinary men who arrive at fame by merit and universal consent, such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, etc. They were truly great or noble. But when government sets up a manufactory of nobles, it is as absurd as if she undertook to manufacture wise men. Her nobles are all counterfeits. 
7.	But, like all other principles espoused by the founders, equality under the law was not always observed: slavery, dispossession of Native Americans, denial of voting rights to women are a few of the most glaring deviations. Over time, the principle of equality before the law was a roadmap for eradicating injustice.


Go ahead....name another.


 Get lost, dope.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Feb 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...



I did not, I asked if I should explain other obvious things, like why the sun rises in the East, even though it doesn't.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 24, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Syphon said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Seems to me that the time your spending playing with the little fella should either qualify you for a Special Education license, 
...or count as your good deed for the day.


----------



## Syphon (Feb 24, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Syphon said:
> ...


wow, did you think that insult all by yourself? 

i didnt know you need a license for special education either! im so glad we all have you around to keep us educated...


----------



## uscitizen (Feb 24, 2012)

PoliticalChic said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Paper does not care what is written on it.
And neither does the net.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Feb 24, 2012)

Syphon said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Which part is an insult??


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 24, 2012)

California Girl said:


> The silence from the left is speaks loudly.



They'll still pretend it hasn't happened.


----------

