WorldTraveller

Because it was the holy grail of the liberal cause, Universal HealthCare coverage. Who care's that we have a huge debt problem. Who care's that it didn't primarily address the cost of health care, which by most observers account is THE Number one problem that we have in healthcare and main driver of future debt on both a personal, state and federal level. Who care's that it comes at the cost of added mandates and taxes that affects job growth. It's called extreme zeal.

I believe this is the most worked up I've ever seen you. We are definitely an in election year. lol

Because that's what leftist wingnuts care about, Mitt's tax returns, and how rich he is and their perceptions of how little he pays in taxes. For them it is the big issue. I don't blame them for trying to make this THE subject, of course they want people to focus on how rich Mitt is and how he should give more to government, simply because they know that Obama is leading us to the most anemic "recovery" in a very very long time. They know that growth is lacking, job hiring stagnant, government dependency at all time highs, the real estate market still down in the dumps, consumer confidence plummeting and manufacturing sliding. So all they have is "Mitt, where are your tax returns?" That's what they are banking on, unfortunately for them, after outspending Mitt by 2 to 1 with ads attacking Mitt on a personal level and an obsessive media shilling for the president regarding these issues, the polls haven't moved hardly at all, if anything, more in Mitts favor. No, its not killing him, it's killing you lefty wingnuts. lol

Income taxes in America are more progressive than in other rich countries--according to an authoritiative official study which, to my knowledge, has not been contradicted. The OECD's report "Growing Unequal", on poverty and inequality in industrial countries, includes a table that provides two measures of income tax progressivity in 2005. This is evidently the source of de Rugy's numbers. Here they are in an excel file. According to one measure, America's income taxes were the most progressive of the 24 countries in the sample, except for Ireland. According to the other, they were the most progressive full stop. (A more recent OECD report, "Divided We Stand", uses different data, a smaller sample of countries and a different measure of progressivity: the results are similar.) http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/ http://www.oecd.org/document/4/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us. A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false. Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period. That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent. In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession. Change in after-income tax (2007-2009) The result of this big drop at the top was that their share of the country's total income also fell. In 2007, the top one percent earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income. In 2009, that portion fell to 11.5 percent. Inequality, in other words, fell during those years. We are now in an age of High-Beta Wealth, where the incomes of the One Percent have become far more manic and prone to wild drops than the rest of the country. And taxes paid? Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low (which is true), it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession. The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average. So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population. This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets. But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48257611 Size Matters - Why "Just" Taxing 3% of Small Businesses is Misleading July 12, 2012 By Ed Gerrish President Obama has recently called for letting the Bush tax cuts expire on families more than $250,000 a year (and individuals making over $200,000). This tax increase will affect many businesses that file under the personal income tax code rather than as C corporations – what are known as “pass-through” businesses because the profits pass through to the owners. This is small potatoes, he claims, because the tax hike will only impact 3% of these individually owned businesses, which includes businesses that file as S-corporations and partnerships. How many businesses that will face higher taxes is not the economically meaningful statistic here. What is meaningful is (1) how many people earning over $200,000 have business income and (2) how much business income will be taxed at a higher rate. While S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 [1] a year may represent a small percent of all personal income tax returns – just 1.2% in 2010 according to the IRS, they represent nearly 5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in the U.S. More importantly, S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 a year represented more than 97% of all income earned by these entities in 2010 due to net business losses at lower income levels. This not only means that most of the positive net income from S-corporations and partnerships will face higher tax rates, it ultimately means that the most successful S-corporations and partnerships in the U.S. will see a tax hike. This is important both because there are four times as many S-corporations and partnerships than traditional C-corporations (as of 2008), and S-corporations and partnerships earned 26% more taxable net income in the US than C-corporations – 1.4 trillion to 1.1 trillion. [2] The latest IRS state data on S-corporations and partnership income and returns also demonstrates that some states will be hit harder by these new taxes than others. D.C., Connecticut, and New York, for instance, all receive more than 6.4% of their total state’s adjusted gross income from in S corporations and partnerships; allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would disproportionally draw more tax dollars from these states than others (even accounting for population). http://taxfoundation.org/blog/ In short, that 3% number reflects the total number of small businesses, not the total % of revenues. If you include the total number of revenues from that 3%, you are talking about well over half the revenues generated from small businesses. Of course, I don't expect you guys to loony leftists to understand this because you are spoon fed distorted numbers from MSNBC, The Obama administration and leftist media organizations. The facts are that this 3% number is misleading at best and doesn't truly reflect the scope of of the net of this tax policy on small businesses. Also, that we do indeed have the most progressive tax code in the world according to the OECD, and that the rich are even paying more in taxes now than then they were before the economic downturn. Those are facts. There it is, facts are facts, and you lose. Oh, and while you loony leftists have been obsessing over his tax returns, and the vast outspending from the Obama administration on this issues and the media giving mitt horrible coverage over the past two weeks, the polls have tightened. So much for your school of thought. lol

Well too bad Matt. He's not gonna release them, and he's just gonna continue to let you loony leftists obsess over his tax returns while he talks about the economy.

"Bain capitals cleaning lady" Holy parroted dnc talking point LoL

When iget some time, I will post a link that will refute what you just linked, and what I find to be deplorable is that liberals beg for higher taxes, yet over half the population doesn't pay federal income taxes and that the United States has the most progressive tax code on the planet. And to make things worse, progressives are quick to whine and complaim about litigating other peoples taxes and how much they should give to the government, yet when you look at their charitable work, they donate FAR less than conservatives. So spare me your bull ****, The hypocrisy from liberals never ceases to amaze me.

I'm sorry, if you want to communicate with lybob more effectively , you'll need to get a video recorder and post it on YouTube

Hehe

Dang!! Tasker just got ruthless Hehe

I personally never saw the need for certain firearms to be legal, but that's a whole another issue. Having said that. I hate knee- jerk reactions, gun control would of made no difference in this case, the guy was smart, demented and determined , which means that it would of happened irregardless So now I see the WAPO editorial staff and leftist political hacks like EJ Dionne now calling for gun control. On a day like this, they know what sort of response they are gonna elicit, and it is meant to further divide and rally their base in a cause they fully u derstand will never occur.

It's not worth the effort, he is a supporter of the president, and you won't change his mind.

Covered in another thread.... But worthy of a reposting

I've been a big proponent of killing the Bush tax cuts across the board once the economy gets on solid footing, and we aren't nearly there yet.

Oh no you didn't lol

I'd say, ok to the Bush tax cuts and no to the other two.

So let me get this straight, even though for the most part, most people believe this is good policy, but whats standing in the way of endorsing this policy that we basically all agree on are motives? As if motives and cynicism are all of a sudden a new found characteristic coming from congress. If it's good !@#$ing policy, then pass the damn thing.

This "poll tax" argument is a crock of ****

She's "moderately" pro choice/life. As much as she would appeal to some independents, she'd be a net negative choice for the base.

Oh come on now, be fair to BD, he's more morally aligned with Mr. Soros' , you know, because he's so well-disposed

Nice try, but that still doesn't take the fact away from Soros precipitating the panic sheared decline of the pound that fateful wednesday, in which he PROFITED over a billion dollars at the expense of the middle class. ooooh, I kinda like using these left-wing tactics, kinda fun. lol

Well, I guess that means Birdogs values coincide with MEGA PROFITS for the .00001% at the expense of the middle class

What's deliciously ironic is that Soros was a big reason for Black Wednesdays horrific decimation of the British Pound, in which he pocketed or dare I say PROFITED (such a dirty word for liberals) over a billion dollars in the deal. Instead of steadily building up a position in September of 1992, Soros told his lieutenants to "go for the jugular." As a result of his well-intended virtuous action of shorting the pound and profiting over a billion dollars was the forced action of the British to raise interest rates to save their currency, in which it led to higher interest rates for loans for cars, homes etc. for middle class people all across the nation. He is such a good guy lol

yep, we get it, your cause is the one filled with virtue, the other side's intentions are nefarious

Well, at least your honest, however the hypocrisy of your point is highlighted.