Obama: People who earn more are merely "Society's lottery winners"

[LoneLaugher]

Are the 178 posts by trolls that I have on ignore defending Bammy?

Having a hard time ignoring them, huh?

 

[The Rabbi]

Keep an eye on Mac1958. He'll trot this out every chance he gets and never admit that he is taking it out of context, much like the you didn't build that nonsense. All the while pretending he is non-partisan.

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

 

[Ravi]

I wished someone had pointed this out to me when I entered the workforce 45 years ago....
I could have just stayed home and collected those 'white privilege' paychecks instead of busting my ass all these many years.

You could have been a hedge fund manager and paid a lower tax rate

 

[Mac1958]

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

 

[Mac1958]

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to add two new marginal tax tiers, 44.9% and 49.9%. Across the board. Oops!

Did you think you "had" me there? Wanna try again?

My politics are clearly too complicated for run-of-the-mill hardcore partisan ideologues like you. I'm used to it, I know how you people are.

And your fixation on me is getting a little creepy.

.

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

You shift the tax burden away from lower income and towards higher income.

 

[Darkwind]

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

You shift the tax burden away from lower income and towards higher income.

A proven failure every time.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why do you think punishing success is a good strategy?

Any income tax rate could be called "punishing success".

The key is finding an equilibrium, and I believe (as do many of my peers in the financial profession) that two new, marginally higher tax tiers on the top earners would not retard growth to a significant degree. It would almost certainly, in fact, incentivize more tax-advantaged investment.

These increases, of course, are separate from an expectation that spending does not increase as a percentage of GDP, and that real attempts at increasing efficiencies must continue. As always.

.

Which is why adding top marginal rates is almost criminal without FIRST cutting excessive spending, fraud, waste, and abuse, and including in our budget, a mechanism for paying down the debt without tax increases.

A better plan is to reduce government interference in the economy to the point that it begins to grow at a self sustaining rate. A robust economy cures more ills in this society than 100k liberal 'vote purchase' programs.

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

You shift the tax burden away from lower income and towards higher income.

Currently low income people have no tax burden. All the burden is borne by the upper 50%. That creates a situation of haves and gimmes, dividing the country. Which is what Democrats want
A fair system would make everyone pay something. Somehow Democrats balk at real equality when it's offered.

 

[Mac1958]

That's the point of my last paragraph - adding those brackets can't be the only element. No doubt, in these simplistic and binary times, many would look at that like a 16-year old girl looks at Daddy's Gold Card.

There is taxing and there is spending, and the two go hand in hand. Both sides have to be done efficiently.

.

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

I get paid whether the investments are tax-advantaged or not. My job is to work in my clients' best interest, and when they're/we're incentivized to channel funds to securities such as municipal bonds it's a win-win for everyone concerned.

,

 

[The Rabbi]

Again, what is accomplished by making the tax code more progressive?

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

I get paid whether the investments are tax-advantaged or not. My job is to work in my clients' best interest, and when they're/we're incentivized to channel funds to securities such as municipal bonds it's a win-win for everyone concerned.

,

No. It is a lose for society as a whole when assets that could be used towards productive ends are instead routed based on the tax code. It creates gross inefficiencies in the system.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm looking for the most efficient levels of creating revenue - and that includes top end tax rates that find an equilibrium at which they are producing optimum revenue and minimum drag. The most bucks for the least cost on the dynamics of the economy.

No doubt I'm comfortable with more government spending than you. I'm also fully aware that too much dependence on government creates a slippery slope for people, and that evidence of that is easily observed. That's another point of equilibrium with which we have to be careful.

It has been my observation in the real world - and this includes discussing the issue with clients of mine with seven and eight-figure net worth as well as with other money managers - that the top wage earners are less concerned with whether their top tax rate is 39% or 49% than they are with how the money is spent.

There is "punishing" the successful, and there is "punishing" those who simply don't have the capacity to succeed. The point is finding the right balance, and neither end of the political spectrum appears to care about that in the least.

.

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

I get paid whether the investments are tax-advantaged or not. My job is to work in my clients' best interest, and when they're/we're incentivized to channel funds to securities such as municipal bonds it's a win-win for everyone concerned.

,

No. It is a lose for society as a whole when assets that could be used towards productive ends are instead routed based on the tax code. It creates gross inefficiencies in the system.

We'll just have to disagree, huh? Either way, a flat tax won't happen.

.

 

[kaz]

Fuck the big eared disaster, my husband and I worked hard to get where we are at...and guess what? We don't owe anyone a damn thing

Wait a minute. Government took your money and bought roads and bridges, so they did as much for your success as you did...

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know about that Owebama ...

But everything I got, I did myself

I didn't need no parents, no skools, no relatives, no Gubmint...it was all me

 

[The Rabbi]

Nearly 50% tax is not efficient. Instead what happens is people who would reach that level instead engage in financial planning to avoid the tax, increasing inefficiencies instead. This is why a flat tax is the best solution. No market distortions.

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

I get paid whether the investments are tax-advantaged or not. My job is to work in my clients' best interest, and when they're/we're incentivized to channel funds to securities such as municipal bonds it's a win-win for everyone concerned.

,

No. It is a lose for society as a whole when assets that could be used towards productive ends are instead routed based on the tax code. It creates gross inefficiencies in the system.

We'll just have to disagree, huh? Either way, a flat tax won't happen.

.

No. You are arguing that tax advantaged investments are good for you and your clients. I am arguing they are bad for society as a whole. Both are correct.
A flat tax will happen given the results in 2016. Everyone understands the tax code is outmoded and unworkable.

 

[kaz]

I don't know about that Owebama ...

But everything I got, I did myself

I didn't need no parents, no skools, no relatives, no Gubmint...it was all me

You earned the hat you always have out, did you big guy?

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't know about that Owebama ...

But everything I got, I did myself

I didn't need no parents, no skools, no relatives, no Gubmint...it was all me

That's why you're a millionaire? After all, you had the same advantages as the people who got rich off those roads, schools, etc. Right?

 

[Mac1958]

I think that's a positive. Yes, a higher end tax rate would incentivize tax-advantaged investing.

A flat tax would eliminate tax-advantaged investing, and I don't even want to think about how ugly that would be.

.

I suspect you sell tax advantaged investments for a living. lol.
Yeah, eliminating reams of accountants, tax planners, tax attorneys and tax shelters would be "ugly" for those involved. For the rest of us it would usher in some of the best growth we've ever seen in this country as assets are channelled into productive uses away from unproductive ones.

I get paid whether the investments are tax-advantaged or not. My job is to work in my clients' best interest, and when they're/we're incentivized to channel funds to securities such as municipal bonds it's a win-win for everyone concerned.

,

No. It is a lose for society as a whole when assets that could be used towards productive ends are instead routed based on the tax code. It creates gross inefficiencies in the system.

We'll just have to disagree, huh? Either way, a flat tax won't happen.

.

No. You are arguing that tax advantaged investments are good for you and your clients. I am arguing they are bad for society as a whole. Both are correct.
A flat tax will happen given the results in 2016. Everyone understands the tax code is outmoded and unworkable.

How many congressional republicans support a flat tax?

That's not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.

.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I don't know about that Owebama ...

But everything I got, I did myself

I didn't need no parents, no skools, no relatives, no Gubmint...it was all me

That's why you're a millionaire? After all, you had the same advantages as the people who got rich off those roads, schools, etc. Right?

That will go over his head