The latest democrat jewel.
- Thread starter Ishmael
- Start date
ubertroll
So always to tyrants.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Posts
- 11,822
Yeah, deducting the money it takes to feed, clothe, and minimally sustain one's children from "taxable income" is as bad as Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Allowing people to cover the bare neccessities before Uncle Sam takes a bite is part of the SECULAR-SOCIALIST MACHINE, and stopping it is what Jesus died for.
Allowing people to cover the bare neccessities before Uncle Sam takes a bite is part of the SECULAR-SOCIALIST MACHINE, and stopping it is what Jesus died for.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
It's like those people have a tax for everything...
Hey, dummy...,
Did you read the last report by the CBO?
__________________
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
The nation's total federal debt is 2011 is expected to exceed $14 trillion, about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.
Provided by Associated Press
Hey, dummy...,
Did you read the last report by the CBO?
__________________
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability.
The nation's total federal debt is 2011 is expected to exceed $14 trillion, about $47,000 for every U.S. resident.
Provided by Associated Press
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
What an incredible load of horseshit that is. Gems from a mind totally out of touch with reality.
Ishmael
ubertroll
So always to tyrants.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Posts
- 11,822
Hey, dummy, did you check the calendar?
In 2009, the Bush tax cuts were what pushed many people into net-zero federal income tax. They won't be in effect after the end of this fiscal year.
GJ, bright one.
As for that debt, yes: the debt accrued over the Reagan administration, combatted by bold action by Bush Sr and Ckinton, then exploded by Bush Jr was terrible. Point?
In a country that issues debt in its own currency, where interest rates on long term debt are near-zero, debt is not a short or even medium term crisis. SEE: Krugman, Paul.. as for solving the issue long term, eliminating the massive TSA pork,, ending the war in afghanistan, eliminating Medicare Part D (THANKS BUSH, FOR ALL 3), and reducing taxes on the working class, and increasing them on the rich is my plan.
What's yours.
PS sorry about the shite punctuation. Wrote this on my phone.
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
You would think that someone who touts the "FairTax" would be all for this, considering it's the one of the main points of their argument in trying to sell that particular boondoggle to the public.
M
miles
Guest
ubes, do you have moobs?
Bwahaha!
Krugman is on record contradicting his own positions on numerous occasions.
Citing him is like wearing a sign saying "I have no idea what I am saying."
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2010/03/whoops-paul-krugman-contradicts-well.html
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/2010/05/krugman-once-again-contradicts-himself.html
http://blog.mises.org/10300/krugman-touts-austrian-theory-sort-of/
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2010/08/krugmans-call-back-in-early-2009.html
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Isn't it amazing how it affects only the rich in their own constituencies.
The loonies are becoming more and more blatant in their communist ideals. Everyone should have the same ... that is, except for the ruling elite.
Nadler: Don’t Raise Taxes For My District
The Blue State Blues
Taxing the rich, except in my district.
August 4, 2010
One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that the it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats.
Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports.
Mr. Nadler represents New York City’s 8th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Chelsea, SoHo, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, and the Financial District.
Mr. Nadler’s bill would "require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average."
In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.
"The basic costs of life in the New York region are much steeper than in most parts the country," says Mr. Nadler. "The reality is that a dollar in New York isn’t worth nearly as much as a dollar in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka. It’s time for our tax code to take reality into account when assessing someone’s tax liability."
That point about "reality" and the tax code could certainly use some fleshing out, but leave that aside. A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.
Why should someone in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka be penalized because New York and California impose destructive policies? Mr. Nadler also conveniently forgets that the federal tax code already subsidizes high-cost states through the deductibility of state and local income and property taxes.
An all-star line-up of liberal class warriors has nonetheless endorsed Mr. Nadler’s effort to raise taxes on the rich everywhere but in their own districts. New York House Members Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy are cosponsors. Ms. Lowey, who has voted to tax anything that moves, now says that "When it comes to the tax code, one size just doesn’t fit all" and laments that New York has "some of the highest property taxes in the country." But whose fault is that?
So welcome to the brave new world of "tax equity." If you live in a state that voted for Barack Obama, you get a tax cut.
Putting the cost of living argument aside for a moment, notice that even a liberal Democrat who represents the very belly of the beast is now against raising taxes.
It is either a sign of the Apocalypse or an election year.
...
The loonies are becoming more and more blatant in their communist ideals. Everyone should have the same ... that is, except for the ruling elite.
Nadler: Don’t Raise Taxes For My District
The Blue State Blues
Taxing the rich, except in my district.
August 4, 2010
One irony of the tax increase that arrives on January 1 is that the it will hit residents of high-income, Democratic-leaning states like California, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the hardest. This is a problem for pro-tax Democrats.
Enter New York Representative Jerrold Nadler, who wants to exempt his own six-figure constituents from the tax hike he supports.
Mr. Nadler represents New York City’s 8th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan’s Upper West Side, Chelsea, SoHo, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, and the Financial District.
Mr. Nadler’s bill would "require the IRS to adjust tax brackets proportionally in regions where the average cost of living is higher than the national average."
In other words, the various tax brackets would apply to residents in certain regions at higher income levels versus other parts of the country. A family with an income of $50,000 or even $1 million in Manhattan would pay less federal income tax than a family with the same earnings in Omaha. The bill is called the Tax Equity Act, but a more accurate title would be the Blue State Tax Preference Act.
"The basic costs of life in the New York region are much steeper than in most parts the country," says Mr. Nadler. "The reality is that a dollar in New York isn’t worth nearly as much as a dollar in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka. It’s time for our tax code to take reality into account when assessing someone’s tax liability."
That point about "reality" and the tax code could certainly use some fleshing out, but leave that aside. A big reason the cost of living is so high in Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco is because of high state and local taxes, union work rules, and heavy business regulation that make it more expensive to produce, sell and buy things.
Why should someone in Spokane or Knoxville or Topeka be penalized because New York and California impose destructive policies? Mr. Nadler also conveniently forgets that the federal tax code already subsidizes high-cost states through the deductibility of state and local income and property taxes.
An all-star line-up of liberal class warriors has nonetheless endorsed Mr. Nadler’s effort to raise taxes on the rich everywhere but in their own districts. New York House Members Tim Bishop, Steve Israel, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy are cosponsors. Ms. Lowey, who has voted to tax anything that moves, now says that "When it comes to the tax code, one size just doesn’t fit all" and laments that New York has "some of the highest property taxes in the country." But whose fault is that?
So welcome to the brave new world of "tax equity." If you live in a state that voted for Barack Obama, you get a tax cut.
Putting the cost of living argument aside for a moment, notice that even a liberal Democrat who represents the very belly of the beast is now against raising taxes.
It is either a sign of the Apocalypse or an election year.
...
Last edited:
Liar
now with 17% more class
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Posts
- 43,715
Would that mean I get lower tax if I live somewhere expensive?
MeeMie
No Spam Here
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Posts
- 7,328
Surprise Surprise
Taxing Rich Backfiring On New York
Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril
This year, New York’s deep-pocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.
They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate. Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes and those making over $1 million are losing tax deductions others get.
It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.
Now, a half-dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it’s wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states — and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.
Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower-than-expected state wealth. Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that’s just what happened.
Paterson said last week that revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20 percent less than anticipated.
The concern about millionaire flight has prompted some states, including New York, New Jersey and California, to increase the highest tax rates only temporarily. For New York, it’s the second temporary increase for high earners since 2001.
The first one ended as scheduled after three years. But Paterson and economists warn that came as the economy began to grow fast into another boom, something that isn’t expected now because Wall Street — which historically provided 20 percent of state revenues — is perhaps permanently downsized…
So far this year, half of about $1 billion in expected revenue from New York’s 100 richest taxpayers is missing…
State officials say they don’t know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left.
But at least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes: Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times and who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Golisano changed his official address to Florida, and Limbaugh, who also has a Florida home, announced earlier this year that he was relinquishing his home in Manhattan.
Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year that several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes…
Maryland enacted higher tax rates for wealthier residents in 2008 to boost revenues but income from those taxes is down 6.7 percent so far this year…
The approach has been tried before.
The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation said that through the early 1990s, several states maintained double-digit income tax rates for the higher earners. Those rates were dropped, however, in the boom of a fast-growing economy.
States also realized that having a higher tax rate than their neighbors would cost them talent, lose jobs and hinder economic growth, the foundation reported in May after Hawaii joined Maryland, New Jersey, California and New York to adopt a "millionaire’s tax." New York, for example, has been careful not to raise its highest rates above New Jersey’s, according to the foundation…
In May, the most recent calculation available, Maryland reported that taxes collected from top earners fell by about $100 million. The number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April fell by one-third, to about 2,000.
Often pushed as a "fair tax" measure and backed by public worker unions, pinching the rich could backfire.
"You can say, ‘The millionaire is evil,’ but they don’t just put their money in a coffee can," said Christopher Summers, president of the nonpartisan Maryland Public Policy Institute. "They employ people … That fact is, you need rich people to keep working hard so they will invest."
Mind you, it’s just the limousine riding, race horse owning, fox and pheasant hunting crowd who will have to pay more taxes in New York.
It doesn’t really affect people like you or me.
Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that’s just what happened.
And when the Associated Press says “who had always warned,” they of course mean that he has never warned.
The same trend can happen nationwide when multi-national companies choose to do business in foreign countries with friendlier tax structures.
General Electric has shown the way.
Taxing Rich Backfiring On New York
Risky business: States tax the rich at their peril
This year, New York’s deep-pocketed rich were required to dig even deeper to help shore up state finances.
They now pay higher taxes on their income and on limousines and yachts, more to enter a horse in a race and more to dabble in real estate. Meanwhile, many are losing millions from the closing of business tax loopholes and those making over $1 million are losing tax deductions others get.
It even costs more to hunt foxes or pheasants and have their taxes prepared.
Now, a half-dozen states in this recession-driven movement are nervously eyeing New York to see if it’s wise to demand so much from people rich enough to have a second home in less taxing states — and for whom a change of address can be its own tax break.
Early data from New York show the higher tax rates for the wealthy have yielded lower-than-expected state wealth. Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that’s just what happened.
Paterson said last week that revenues from the income tax increases and other taxes enacted in April are running about 20 percent less than anticipated.
The concern about millionaire flight has prompted some states, including New York, New Jersey and California, to increase the highest tax rates only temporarily. For New York, it’s the second temporary increase for high earners since 2001.
The first one ended as scheduled after three years. But Paterson and economists warn that came as the economy began to grow fast into another boom, something that isn’t expected now because Wall Street — which historically provided 20 percent of state revenues — is perhaps permanently downsized…
So far this year, half of about $1 billion in expected revenue from New York’s 100 richest taxpayers is missing…
State officials say they don’t know how much of the missing revenue is because any wealthy New Yorkers simply left.
But at least two high-profile defectors have sounded off on the tax changes: Buffalo Sabres owner Tom Golisano, the billionaire who ran for governor three times and who was paying $13,000 a day in New York income taxes, and radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. Golisano changed his official address to Florida, and Limbaugh, who also has a Florida home, announced earlier this year that he was relinquishing his home in Manhattan.
Donald Trump told Fox News earlier this year that several of his millionaire friends were talking about leaving the state over the latest taxes…
Maryland enacted higher tax rates for wealthier residents in 2008 to boost revenues but income from those taxes is down 6.7 percent so far this year…
The approach has been tried before.
The conservative-leaning Tax Foundation said that through the early 1990s, several states maintained double-digit income tax rates for the higher earners. Those rates were dropped, however, in the boom of a fast-growing economy.
States also realized that having a higher tax rate than their neighbors would cost them talent, lose jobs and hinder economic growth, the foundation reported in May after Hawaii joined Maryland, New Jersey, California and New York to adopt a "millionaire’s tax." New York, for example, has been careful not to raise its highest rates above New Jersey’s, according to the foundation…
In May, the most recent calculation available, Maryland reported that taxes collected from top earners fell by about $100 million. The number of Marylanders with more than $1 million in taxable income who filed by the end of April fell by one-third, to about 2,000.
Often pushed as a "fair tax" measure and backed by public worker unions, pinching the rich could backfire.
"You can say, ‘The millionaire is evil,’ but they don’t just put their money in a coffee can," said Christopher Summers, president of the nonpartisan Maryland Public Policy Institute. "They employ people … That fact is, you need rich people to keep working hard so they will invest."
Mind you, it’s just the limousine riding, race horse owning, fox and pheasant hunting crowd who will have to pay more taxes in New York.
It doesn’t really affect people like you or me.
Gov. David Paterson, who had always warned targeting the rich could backfire, fears that’s just what happened.
And when the Associated Press says “who had always warned,” they of course mean that he has never warned.
The same trend can happen nationwide when multi-national companies choose to do business in foreign countries with friendlier tax structures.
General Electric has shown the way.
ubertroll
So always to tyrants.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Posts
- 11,822
Did you actually read your links? They're hilarious. One of them actually quotes Krugman saying, in January 2009, before Obama took office, that he foresaw the stimulus being pared down to get GOP votes, unemployment peaking at around nine percent (because the pared down stimulus was too small) and the GOP shrieking that "therefore stimulus doesn't work," when in fact, had the pared-down bill not been passed, it would be even worse.
This is exactly what happened (other than the fact that Krugman, making an incredibly prescient prediction a year out, was off by a few tenths of a point on the unemployment rate).
Those links actually reinforce how good the man is at his job.
And if that's not evidence enough,
Here's the man's Nobel Prize in Economics lecture!
Not saying everyone with a Nobel is always right, or anything, but Dude with the Nobel In This Field, all else being equal, can usually be taken as more reliable than Random Idiot on the Internet.
By the way, fleeing from a state with high income taxes to one with low income taxes is often possible, because they're nearby. By contrast, if you want to move to a COUNTRY with low income taxes... have fun with that. Not only do they usually have low *incomes* but they're NOT AMERICA. And most Americans LIKE living in America. Even if you hate this country. Why do you hate America?
Dude, you need to learn how to read carefully.
He actually says for a plan that was less stimulative than what was passed (i.e. the 'pared down' scenario didn't happen...)
"suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure."
Oops. 7.3 vs. 9.9 is a big miss.
And tell us about the other links, before creaming your jeans over the Nobel laureate turned political hack.
cebalrai
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2003
- Posts
- 3,343
Hrm, compared to Bush tax cuts that were financed on 2 trillion of borrowed Chinese money that the Repubs didn't think they should pay for, I'll take the Dems' idea.
byejune121
Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 3, 2008
- Posts
- 289
Is that the best you can do? A short statement that says nothing without a source. Come on already.
ubertroll
So always to tyrants.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2003
- Posts
- 11,822
Um, no, he repeatedly called for a plan that was 1.4 trillion, not 787 billion, and repeatedly disparaged the AMT patch, which burned 100 billion of the stimulus on a worthless tax cut to appease the Princesses of Maine.
Um, you know that "suppose" indicates a counterfactual. By contrast, in that SAME POST, Krugman makes an actual PREDICTION:
You have to be deliberately obtuse to misunderstand which Krugman thinks is really going to happen. And Krugman was exactly, spot-on right, before Obama even took office.
By the way, the day before, Krugman wrote this in his NYT column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/opinion/09krugman.html
I don't feel the need to comment on the other links when the first one I clicked is so laughably dishonest.
Krugman himself has commented on some of his critics cries of "you said something different before!" by pointing out that they'll quote his policy recommendations for "what you should do in a recession" versus "what you should do in a financial crisis with a liquidity trap" in spite of the fact that he's literally written books on the differences between those two situations.
You're an imbecile speaking ill of a Nobel winner in his field, based on deliberately obtuse misquotes you found on the Internet. Ultrafail.
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Ending the income tax and making everyone vested in the proper functioning of government...
Why would I see Krugman? He's another academic who has managed to make a perfectly good career out of proving a broken clock is right twice a day...
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Hayek and von Mises won the Nobel too...
Just sayin'...
Just sayin'...
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Hell, even Obama has one...
Byron In Exile
Frederick Fucking Chopin
- Joined
- May 3, 2002
- Posts
- 66,591
*fucking speechless*
Ishmael
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2001
- Posts
- 84,005
*sigh* It's sorta sad when one realizes that everyone knows agout the gay marriage ruling in California, a ruling that in the end will have little effect on the lives of the citizens taken in isolation, but these same people haven't a clue about proposed tax policy that effects everyone.
What the democrats are floating is in regard to the Bush tax cuts. Many democrats want them to expire while some others want to extend them until the economy recovers. There is also an alternate plan whereby the cuts will be extended for all but the top income earners.
The plan that is being floated that I'm speaking of is a plan whereby the tax cuts will be extended for all but the top earners EXCEPT that that income category will be indexed to the cost of living in the state in which the individual is filing their tax return. This is in effect a 'Red State' tax in that with the exception of Alaska all of the high cost of living states happen to be blue states.
Ishmael
What the democrats are floating is in regard to the Bush tax cuts. Many democrats want them to expire while some others want to extend them until the economy recovers. There is also an alternate plan whereby the cuts will be extended for all but the top income earners.
The plan that is being floated that I'm speaking of is a plan whereby the tax cuts will be extended for all but the top earners EXCEPT that that income category will be indexed to the cost of living in the state in which the individual is filing their tax return. This is in effect a 'Red State' tax in that with the exception of Alaska all of the high cost of living states happen to be blue states.
Ishmael
jeninflorida
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2003
- Posts
- 22,463
All one has to do is look at princess michelle and her little Spain vacation.
Spend baby, spend! After all its not our money
U
unregistered
Guest
Frisco_Slug_Esq
On Strike!
- Joined
- May 4, 2009
- Posts
- 45,618
Wow, that's 3:1...
850 billion but who's counting...seems it cost more than advertised, who'd a thunk it?
So that's another $550B over two years, and by Krugman's own math, that buys us another 1% of unemployment reduction. (There's another problem that that math isn't actually what happens, but let's not go there for now.) 8.9% unemployment would be so worth another half a trillion in debt, right?
Like I said, if you want to keep your head in the sand, go for it. Krugman's an unprincipled, partisan hack, and people who look at his Nobel prize for research in international trade as justification for thinking his fiscal policy ideas are inspired get what they deserve.
Similar threads
