cgbJ-Fs1ikA?version=3&hl=en_US"

And then along came Bill Clinton...:whistle:

Boy... what makes you think republicans/conservatives approve of tax loopholes for anyone?

Boy... what makes you think republicans/conservatives approve of tax loopholes for anyone?

Being, as he is, well below the poverty line, the boy does not realize that it was during Clinton's reign that it became not only fashionable but suddenly quite legal and even encouraged to avoid paying at those silly high personal income tax rates by accepting the lion's share of your 'executive' compensation as long-term capital gains (stock options mainly) ..long being only a day over a year..and chit like that.

Like Reagan, I'm 100% against tax loopholes for everyone, including millionaires.

But, unlike nhboy, I'm NOT dumb enough to fall for Obama's Lies, and believe him when he calls people following the tax code as its intended, "Loopholes".

What is a tax loophole?

What is a loophole anything?



TR

What is a tax loophole?

What is a loophole anything?

1loop·hole noun \ˈlüp-ˌhōl\

Definition of LOOPHOLE

: a means of escape; especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

Loophole - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/loophole)

Obama and the current crop of Socialist, umm, I mean Democrats have been calling people following the letter of the law and the exact intent of the law, as using tax loopholes. The MSM just repeats their claims, and never points out or sets a context that they are calling things definitely NOT loopholes, loopholes. So they get away with it.

Thanks. The second definition is more appropriate.

My favorite is the "Gun Show" loophole. I slither through that at every opportunity.

TR

Boy... what makes you think republicans/conservatives approve of tax loopholes for anyone?

Given our tax code, the way we go about feeding our government and given that it is anything but fair or even rational let alone reasonable, I, for one, approve of 'loop holes' for everyone.

Loopholes are tax breaks people, groups, associations, have bought and paid for through our political process. Given the fact that we have all voted for government to vastly overstep it's constitutional limits, people who have money have two choices; stand by and watch government take money from them or, spend some of that money to buy exceptions and exemptions for themselves in an effort to keep the rest.

I would support a fair system which, by definition, would have no loopholes but, unless and until that happens, how can we honestly expect a person or a company or a union to not try and buy political favor? It is not sane or rational to expect someone to allow $1 million to be taken from them when they can spend some portion of that to keep the rest. Nor is it rational to expect someone to allow $1 to be taken from them when they can spend some of that to keep the rest.

I wonder if nhboy knows that the "green" tax credits are tax loopholes...

I wonder if nhboy knows that the "green" tax credits are tax loopholes...

Doubt it very seriously. And hey..lookit dis..nhboy managed to crawl up to the Occupy Wall Street event and have his picture taken..

Let's see...the AMT started in 1982. Wouldn't this be some of the loopholes Reagan tried to close?

And would someone please define "fair share" as it relates to taxes?

Doubt it very seriously. And hey..lookit dis..nhboy managed to crawl up to the Occupy Wall Street event and have his picture taken..

Wow $87k to go to printer repairman school?

Guess i got a deal only having $15k in loans getting two engineering degrees.

Wow $87k to go to printer repairman school?

Guess i got a deal only having $15k in loans getting two engineering degrees.
Yea, unfortunately for our children, the eduacation bubble is just about to pop. Hmmm, big government gets heavily involved in pushing home ownership, and we get a huge bubble that pops and wrecks the market and hurts the economy. Big government is heavily involved in pushing college education and gee, doesn't the higher education market look more and more like the housing market a few years ago, before the bottom fell out of it.

Doubt it very seriously. And hey..lookit dis..nhboy managed to crawl up to the Occupy Wall Street event and have his picture taken..

So now we have proof. The countries morons, and idiots are occupying Wall Street. Have they got an appointed lead idiot?

And would someone please define "fair share" as it relates to taxes?

Everyone in the same tax bracket actually paying the same effective tax rate +/-, let's say, 5% instead of the current margin of +/- 25%.

Everyone in the same tax bracket actually paying the same effective tax rate +/-, let's say, 5% instead of the current margin of +/- 25%.How about the 50% who don't pay taxes at all start paying their fair share??? :coffee:

How about the 50% who don't pay taxes at all start paying their fair share??? :coffee:

50% pay no taxes at all? Really? No sales tax? No property tax? No excise tax? I am not even mad that's impressive -- you'd have to live alone in a tent on someone else's property in New Hampshire to do that.

I am going to assume you're referring to the 47% of Americans who are either too poor to qualify for the Federal income tax or not quite too poor but poor enough that with tax credits their effective tax rate is zero.

That 47%, who control 6% of all wealth generated in the country, is definitely where we should look at to meet our budget woes. We would only have to tax them at 100% to almost close the deficit. That's like the people who want to reduce Federal spending by cutting the half a percent we spend in foreign aid.

That 47%, who control 6% of all wealth generated in the country, is definitely where we should look at to meet our budget woes.

I thought this was about paying their fair share, not about meeting budget woes. Meeting budget woes is easy...spend less.

That's like the people who want to reduce Federal spending by cutting the half a percent we spend in foreign aid.

Or the space program. I agree. Raising taxes on the poorest won't close the deficit.

But at the moment, the issue is "fair". That's the word being repeated ad nauseam by this administration. When nearly half the nation pays nothing in federal taxes, it's hardly "fair" to expect the spending gap to be closed by the more wealthy because they aren't paying their "fair" share.

It echoes the childish definition of "fair" heard on playgrounds - I don't like it, so it's not fair.

In actuality, nothing really could be more fair than a straight percentage of income. In *reality*, those at the lowest end of the spectrum have FAR less disposable income than those higher up, so that even a "fair" percentage bites into their livelihood far more than anyone else.

For example, for purposes of this post, consider all income beyond those for basic survival needs as income available for taxation. A flat income tax on gross income takes away a larger percent of that income than it does for someone making a lot more - so it then ceases to be fair.

I do agree that SOME form of progressive tax rate coupled with tax on sales is more "fair". I think the Fair Tax comes close to this. Everyone needs to have some skin in the game - it's kind of sickening if half the nation has NONE but has the gall to call themselves a "taxpayer".

I thought this was about paying their fair share, not about meeting budget woes. Meeting budget woes is easy...spend less.

Exactly. Without looking it up, I believe that we borrow about a third of every dollar we spend. I could check that, but I think it's right.

What's also scary is that the combined costs of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Dept of Defense and interest on debt --- exceeds our total revenue. This means in order to run any part of the discretionary part of our national budget with the exception of defense, we have to borrow money.

Think of how stupid that is - if it was your household, this would be the equivalent of having to borrow every dime to pay your bills after you've paid the mortgage and utilities.

Currently, the administration's solution is the equivalent of raiding your retirement, savings and selling off the household china - when the obvious answer is find a way to spend less.

That 47%, who control 6% of all wealth generated in the country, is definitely where we should look at to meet our budget woes. We would only have to tax them at 100% to almost close the deficit. That's like the people who want to reduce Federal spending by cutting the half a percent we spend in foreign aid.
The tax code is NOT set up on wealth, it is set up on income. How much someone owns is NOT the government's busines, nor anyone elses.

Socialism and Communism are the systems that it is the government's business how much wealth someone has, and how they will correct it.

Besides, the figure is disengenous, it does NOT include the wealth that is redistributed to them.
In Entitlement America, The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year (http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak)

I actually listened to Rush for about ten minutes the other day, and he suggested a new idea.

Tax the unions.

Why not? Why should they be exempt?

I'll add a few of my own. Tax universities and hospitals - at minimum, they should be paying state and local taxes, because they own property and consume local resources the rest of us pay for.

I wonder how much revenue this would generate.

I thought this was about paying their fair share, not about meeting budget woes. Meeting budget woes is easy...spend less.

Exactly what would you cut?

SamSpade - the unfairness in the current system comes with the cap gains tax rate. Taxing money made off of investments at a rate 20% less than, I don't what to call it so let say, regular income is flat out unfair because it only benefits those with the means to make money from money. In other words, it disadvantages those who earn their income from hard work. It also adds incentive for people who earn money through investment to be reckless with other people's money.

And my budget point is we can get as philosophical as you want but at the end of the day we still have a massive deficit. You can say we should spend less but 85% of our budget is spent on untouchable items so it's time to stop wasting time and raise the cap gains tax rate at least to 1990s levels or if you like Reagan's economic policy to the same level as the top marginal tax rate.

Mongo- I said wealth generated, another term for that would be income.



I'll add a few of my own. Tax universities and hospitals - at minimum, they should be paying state and local taxes, because they own property and consume local resources the rest of us pay for.

Interesting idea but I don't think we need to add further costs to education and health care -- they are the two most costly things we have in this country at the moment and the two things we need most.

Currently, the administration's solution is the equivalent of raiding your retirement, savings and selling off the household china - when the obvious answer is find a way to spend less.
I'd argue the administration's solution is to pay our bills with credit cards, while they live in McMansion, with a BMW, Mercedes and Boat in the Driveway, with the biggest cable/satellite package, health club memberships, personal trainers, gardeners, housekeepers and eat out every evening.

When Dad says we need to cut down on the expenses and stop spending on all these things, Mom says, "How dare you suggest we starve our children to death and drive them into poverty!".

Its bad enough we have to many entitlements, the ones we do have they keep expanding them way past what is even needed.

Even Bush, finally drew the line on the Dems "SCHIP" entitlement expansion, to folks well up in the tiers of the middle class that didn't have any problem paying for their children's healthcare. NOT that Bush didn't have his own expansions of entitlements.

The fact that gambling establishment set their schedule by the arrival of Federal Entitlement checks should tell us that there is plenty of room to cut the expansions in the programs, without anyone suffering a loss of service for "real" need. But, the first thing out of the left's mouth will be, you're going to starve children and kill the elderly.

Exactly what would you cut?

I like Stossel's plan:
JOHN STOSSEL: I Can Balance The Budget | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/03/john-stossel-balance-budget/)

You can say we should spend less but 85% of our budget is spent on untouchable items

No such thing. If Congress can create a budget item through legislation, they can change or remove a budget item through legislation.

I am going to assume you're referring to the 47% of Americans who are either too poor to qualify for the Federal income tax or not quite too poor but poor enough that with tax credits their effective tax rate is zero. That is who I am referring to.

The top 1% wealthiest people pay 40% of federal income tax. Time for the freeloaders to start ponying up their fair share!!

My sister believes that we should be a nation that just takes care of each other.

That goes against human nature. Why should I work twice as hard so that I can take care of you when I can sit back and expect to be taken care of...

Hmmm... I don't have to buy sugar because my neighbor has to give me a cup of sugar because I am his neighbor.

At some point in the chain someone has to be the rich guy who can afford to continue to buy enough sugar to keep his neighbors supplied.

The fact that gambling establishment set their schedule by the arrival of Federal Entitlement checks should tell us that there is plenty of room to cut the expansions in the programs, without anyone suffering a loss of service for "real" need. But, the first thing out of the left's mouth will be, you're going to starve children and kill the elderly.

Because, you know, the FIRST thing I'd do when I run short on the bills is starve my kids.

There's actually a tiny bit of truth to what they claim, but it's their own damned fault. And I am beginning to believe it is 100% deliberate - when you subsidize, through whatever means, someone's livelihood, they adjust their behavior to it. They work less, they live better, they live as comfortably as they are able. TAKE IT AWAY abruptly and they're screwed.

We now have millions accepting government money who at this point could not manage with their lives if it were all taken away suddenly. Some two or three generations ago, people got along just fine without it, but they can't, now. They've adjusted. Worse, some have grown up in a system where money ALWAYS flows from the government into their hands. They're not familiar with a life where it never happens.

So in that respect - it does threaten them.

But so should the reality of the end of unemployment checks have - people should function KNOWING the last check is coming, and they need to get their house in order. Since until recently, they only ran for six months, most sensible people found SOME means to get by - because they knew it was ending. For those who have never known anything other than free money from Uncle Sam, it's gone on way too long for them to know otherwise.

I like Stossel's plan:
JOHN STOSSEL: I Can Balance The Budget | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/02/03/john-stossel-balance-budget/)

Entirely eliminating the Department of Defense budget is the punch line to a bad joke. Again, we can get as silly as you want but it doesn't change the fact that we have a real deficit and a political process that makes entitlements and defense untouchable.



The top 1% wealthiest people pay 40% of federal income tax. Time for the freeloaders to start ponying up their fair share!!

This is my favorite game! The bottom 50% of Americans account for about 3% of Federal tax dollars and control about 6% of all income earned in the U.S. The next 49% contribute about about half of Federal tax dollars and control about 30% all income earned in the U.S. The top 1% contribute 40% of all Federal tax dollars and control just more 60% of all income earned in the U.S.

Time for the super rich to pony up and stop relying on the middle class (and I use middle class lightly since, let's be honest the upper end of the middle 49% ain't middle class).

My sister believes that we should be a nation that just takes care of each other.

That goes against human nature. Why should I work twice as hard so that I can take care of you when I can sit back and expect to be taken care of...


For those unfamiliar, this kind of freeloading even happened in the Bible, among Christians who were SUPPOSED to be the models of Christlike behavior but were just as susceptible to laziness, bigotry and greed. Paul admonished them with the words "If any will not work, neither let him eat."

But you don't have to even read the Bible to see that everywhere this kind of notion has been set up on a grand scale has been corrupted to a scale almost beyond belief.

It's not JUST that it is against human nature - it's that it is set up on the premise that while everyone needs to cooperate, it only takes a few NOT cooperating - or worse, exploiting others - for it to all completely fail. On the other hand, if everyone looks after themselves first, you have a much higher chance of survival than your previous choices of 100% or zero.

But the other reason is that, sooner or later, SOMEONE can't just give sugar to their neighbor in exchange for a cup of milk. Sooner or later, SOMEONE has to raise cows, plow the fields, mine the ore, make the furniture, cut the lumber - most people do not possess the ability to do all of these things for themselves so they dedicate themselves to one and buy and sell the fruit of their labor. It's worked fairly well for thousands of years.

SamSpade - the unfairness in the current system comes with the cap gains tax rate. Taxing money made off of investments at a rate 20% less than, I don't what to call it so let say, regular income is flat out unfair because it only benefits those with the means to make money from money. In other words, it disadvantages those who earn their income from hard work. It also adds incentive for people who earn money through investment to be reckless with other people's money.
Ummm, who doesn't earn their money through hard work?

Ummm, people invest their OWN money, and because of that they tend to be the opposite of reckless.

It's only days after Solyndra, and you're telling us private investors are reckless with our money, we need government to do the investing?

So, your going to discourage investment, because unemployment has been doing so well the last few years, huh?

And my budget point is we can get as philosophical as you want but at the end of the day we still have a massive deficit. You can say we should spend less but 85% of our budget is spent on untouchable items so it's time to stop wasting time and raise the cap gains tax rate at least to 1990s levels or if you like Reagan's economic policy to the same level as the top marginal tax rate.
And you have identified the crux of our problem, and the nature of the problem itself. The myth these are untouchable items. HELLO, if Democrats had left those untouchable items, UNTOUCHED, we wouldn't be in these problems. But NO, socialist entitlements just for the truly needy, lets keep expanding that out, more and more, and when they get the obvious fraud and abuse they were warned about, NO, thats no reason to try to fix it, let that stuff go on, lets expand it even more. Oh, when it came to SS taxes collected, yea, the government left that untouched, huh? As they have raided it again and again for different pet projects and other entitlements, oh, I'm sorry, they re-invested it into another branch of government, which only means we have to pay it back later. Yea, repbulicans aren't totally spotless on that one either.

The programs aren't untouchable, thats a myth, and if government had treated them as untoachable, we would have been ten times better off then we are now. BUT, funny, when it comes to touching the programs to build democrat's power, oh, they touch away, but when they believe they'll lose power by touching the programs, well then, they are untouchable.:bigwhoop:

This is my favorite game! The bottom 50% of Americans account for about 3% of Federal tax dollars and control about 6% of all income earned in the U.S. The next 49% contribute about about half of Federal tax dollars and control about 30% all income earned in the U.S. The top 1% contribute 40% of all Federal tax dollars and control just more 60% of all income earned in the U.S.

:killingme How are you taxed at higher rate, earn more income, and pay less tax then those earning less and taxed at a lower rate?

What you've just said is mathematically impossible.

You're counting wealth NOT income, or your demonstrating the Democrats hypoctrical legislation of tax policy over the years.

Entirely eliminating the Department of Defense budget is the punch line to a bad joke. Again, we can get as silly as you want but it doesn't change the fact that we have a real deficit and a political process that makes entitlements and defense untouchable.

Where did you get entirely eliminating the DoD? :confused: Maybe you need to read it again.

Ummm, who doesn't earn their money through hard work?

Investment bankers.

Ummm, people invest their OWN money, and because of that they tend to be the opposite of reckless.

That's simply not true. The financial crisis was a direct result of hedge funds and large banks investing your retirement funds for their own profit, which was taxed as capital gains at 15%.

It's only days after Solyndra, and you're telling us private investors are reckless with our money, we need government to do the investing?

Nope. I want the government to spend the money on infrastructure, schools and health care.

So, your going to discourage investment, because unemployment has been doing so well the last few years, huh?

The period of the highest job creation and economic growth in our nation's history was also the period when the highest tax rate was 90%. It's because the government spent that money building highways, rail roads, sewer systems that spurned economic growth for decade. Investment is not the only way to create jobs but even if it was, the 1990s saw massive investment and job creation with a higher capital gains tax rate than we have today.



The programs aren't untouchable, thats a myth, and if government had treated them as untoachable, we would have been ten times better off then we are now. BUT, funny, when it comes to touching the programs to build democrat's power, oh, they touch away, but when they believe they'll lose power by touching the programs, well then, they are untouchable.:bigwhoop:

It's not the government, it's the people. Have you ever seen how furious senior citizens get when you talk about changing entitlements? That's 55 million people (and more importantly, voters).

And if you think it's just Democrats, you're delusional Republicans use defense spending to do the same thing.

:killingme How are you taxed at higher rate, earn more income, and pay less tax then those earning less and taxed at a lower rate?

What you've just said is mathematically impossible.

You're counting wealth NOT income, or your demonstrating the Democrats hypoctrical legislation of tax policy over the years.

The top one percent aren't taxed at a higher rate. The average effective tax for the top 400 earners is 17%. That's because the overwhelming majority of income earned by the top earners comes from investments and that income is taxed at 15% not 35%.

I am not sure why you find this so complicated. I also enjoy how rather than refuting anything I say with... you know... facts... you try to reason your way out of it, sadly with faulty assumptions.

Where did you get entirely eliminating the DoD? :confused: Maybe you need to read it again.

"How about the Defense Department's $721 billion?"
Unless I am missing something (which is more than possible), he is including that figure in his count. If not he doesn't even get close to 1.5 Trillion.

"But my cuts still total only $246 billion" + "Raising the retirement age and indexing benefits to inflation would save $93 billion" + "Medicare and Medicaid $281 billion" = $620 billion. Then he talks about the $721 B from defense but if you go with the $150 B he talks about your still like $800 B short. Where did I go awry?

Either way though, his list is still not politically possible and not just because of Democrats. Ag subsidies? That's a sacred GOP cow. Raising the retirement age? That's asking for 55 million senior citizens picketing with walkers. That's my point.

Investment bankers.

That's simply not true. The financial crisis was a direct result of hedge funds and large banks investing your retirement funds for their own profit, which was taxed as capital gains at 15%.

Nope. I want the government to spend the money on infrastructure, schools and health care.

The period of the highest job creation and economic growth in our nation's history was also the period when the highest tax rate was 90%. It's because the government spent that money building highways, rail roads, sewer systems that spurned economic growth for decade. Investment is not the only way to create jobs but even if it was, the 1990s saw massive investment and job creation with a higher capital gains tax rate than we have today.

It's not the government, it's the people. Have you ever seen how furious senior citizens get when you talk about changing entitlements? That's 55 million people (and more importantly, voters).

And if you think it's just Democrats, you're delusional Republicans use defense spending to do the same thing.

The top one percent aren't taxed at a higher rate. The average effective tax for the top 400 earners is 17%. That's because the overwhelming majority of income earned by the top earners comes from investments and that income is taxed at 15% not 35%.

I am not sure why you find this so complicated. I also enjoy how rather than refuting anything I say with... you know... facts... you try to reason your way out of it, sadly with faulty assumptions.

"How about the Defense Department's $721 billion?"
Unless I am missing something (which is more than possible), he is including that figure in his count. If not he doesn't even get close to 1.5 Trillion.

"But my cuts still total only $246 billion" + "Raising the retirement age and indexing benefits to inflation would save $93 billion" + "Medicare and Medicaid $281 billion" = $620 billion. Then he talks about the $721 B from defense but if you go with the $150 B he talks about your still like $800 B short. Where did I go awry?

Either way though, his list is still not politically possible and not just because of Democrats. Ag subsidies? That's a sacred GOP cow. Raising the retirement age? That's asking for 55 million senior citizens picketing with walkers. That's my point.

You are rather naive, when Regan pushed for that 90% tax rate to be lowered he reduced loopholes and that resulted in the effective taxe rate paid to actually be higher than before. The 90% rate was a joke, nobody paid even close to that.

So everyone works hard but investment bankers, do you know one investment banker or are you basing your knowledge on watching the Oliver Stone film "Wall Street"?

This is my favorite game! The bottom 50% of Americans account for about 3% of Federal tax dollars and control about 6% of all income earned in the U.S. The next 49% contribute about about half of Federal tax dollars and control about 30% all income earned in the U.S. The top 1% contribute 40% of all Federal tax dollars and control just more 60% of all income earned in the U.S.

Time for the super rich to pony up and stop relying on the middle class (and I use middle class lightly since, let's be honest the upper end of the middle 49% ain't middle class).You need to try this again. :lmao:

The period of the highest job creation and economic growth in our nation's history was also the period when the highest tax rate was 90%. It's because the government spent that money building highways, rail roads, sewer systems that spurned economic growth for decade.

We've seen that really high tax rates on the very richest does not significantly increase total revenues. It doesn't. So it's kind of a moot point. Every one wants to think that high tax rates make everything more "fair" by taxing the crap out of the richest, but if the total revenue doesn't go up, you haven't done anything.

Obama did at least touch on something during the campaign but he didn't spell it out explicitly - infrastructure in the modern era no longer means railroads, highways and sewer systems. Democrats want to believe that, because they've love to just dump money on make-work and keep constituents happy on the failed premise that these kinds of projects "create jobs". They don't. They used to, for one simple reason - these things didn't exist at all at the time when they created the most jobs. In the 40's, we didn't have a massive interstate system, but once one was in place, the benefits seen were done. We don't "gain" anything by doing it a second time.

"Infrastructure" in the 21st century is going to be something entirely different. For one, we need to have much more highly skilled workforce than we do now, and that's going to happen when more people have more access to the kind of education and training that's going to be effective. I think that's going to be through secure networks throughout the country. I think college is going to HAVE to be mostly online. When I went to college in the 70's and 80's, we already had people taking classes online, albeit through proprietary lines. We need to elevate online schools to be on par with our best schools. I think it's high time colleges taught classes rather than be run as price-gouging publishing and research facilities.

Now he did touch on stuff like that in his campaign, but the party has hijacked the idea to what they want to see - wasteful, pork barrel road projects that don't do anything. We need new projects for this century that will create jobs, not just money down a hole.

You are rather naive, when Regan pushed for that 90% tax rate to be lowered he reduced loopholes and that resulted in the effective taxe rate paid to actually be higher than before. The 90% rate was a joke, nobody paid even close to that.

So everyone works hard but investment bankers, do you know one investment banker or are you basing your knowledge on watching the Oliver Stone film "Wall Street"?

The top marginal tax rate was 90% in the 15 years following WWII, not during Reagan tenure... he lowered it from 70 to 50. You really shouldn't call me naive and in the same sentence get your facts wrong, though I don't think you should call anyone naive purely on the off chance your wrong it makes you look like an idiot. And I was referring to him "closing loopholes," one of which was a special tax status for income earned through investment.

And I assume from your silence on the issue you now understand the top effective rate of 17%?

You misunderstood my point about hard work, people shouldn't be punished for earning their income by actually producing something, which is exactly what we do when we bizarrely reward people who play the stock market often for short-term personal gain.

You need to try this again. :lmao:

Good point, you really brought a lot of insight into the discussion. I hope we hear more from you.

We've seen that really high tax rates on the very richest does not significantly increase total revenues. It doesn't. So it's kind of a moot point. Every one wants to think that high tax rates make everything more "fair" by taxing the crap out of the richest, but if the total revenue doesn't go up, you haven't done anything.

It's not at all about "taxing the crap" out of the rich or even raising the top marginal tax rate. It's about raising the top effective tax rate by equalizing the capital gains tax rate with that top bracket rate. It's silly that Warren Buffet pays a lower effective rate than half the country.

And my point with the 90% rate following WWII is that it's possible to have high taxes on real income and invested income without affecting job creation. The idea that raising the cap gains tax rate amounts to a tax on job creation is little more than a political spin and straight up laughable if you look at the economic data.

Obama did at least touch on something during the campaign but he didn't spell it out explicitly - infrastructure in the modern era no longer means railroads, highways and sewer systems. Democrats want to believe that, because they've love to just dump money on make-work and keep constituents happy on the failed premise that these kinds of projects "create jobs". They don't. They used to, for one simple reason - these things didn't exist at all at the time when they created the most jobs. In the 40's, we didn't have a massive interstate system, but once one was in place, the benefits seen were done. We don't "gain" anything by doing it a second time.

I disagree. Trucks on roads is the best way this country has to move goods at the moment. It's slow, inefficient and costly. Not to mention it destroys the roads, which costs money to fix. Infrastructure investment today should be two fold. First investing in high speed rail, like the kind that is fueling both the Chinese and Japanese economies. And the second is high speed internet. St. Mary's county has the internet infrastructure DC had 6 years ago. Bringing high speed fiber optics opens up a whole new opportunity for businesses and ensures that the U.S. leads the way pioneering the internet.

"Infrastructure" in the 21st century is going to be something entirely different. For one, we need to have much more highly skilled workforce than we do now, and that's going to happen when more people have more access to the kind of education and training that's going to be effective. I think that's going to be through secure networks throughout the country. I think college is going to HAVE to be mostly online. When I went to college in the 70's and 80's, we already had people taking classes online, albeit through proprietary lines. We need to elevate online schools to be on par with our best schools. I think it's high time colleges taught classes rather than be run as price-gouging publishing and research facilities.

I couldn't agree more with this point though I think online classes should supplement not replace the traditional 4 year education. There is tremendous value to being a part of an actual academic community that you simply can't replicate online. Though doing a year or two online would go along way towards reducing costs and overall student debt.

First investing in high speed rail, like the kind that is fueling both the Chinese and Japanese economies.

EVERY analysis I have read regarding high speed rail has shown it to be money straight down a drain. Even now, California has been toying with a rail project where simply boarding a plane is both faster and cheaper. This is why several states have just said no.

I disagree. Trucks on roads is the best way this country has to move goods at the moment. It's slow, inefficient and costly. Not to mention it destroys the roads, which costs money to fix. Infrastructure investment today should be two fold. First investing in high speed rail, like the kind that is fueling both the Chinese and Japanese economies. And the second is high speed internet. .

You had my rapt attention until you threw the high speed rail talking point in to the mix. High speed rail has proven to be a complete bust economically, not even able to support itself moving people..much less goods. The Japanese system is heavily subsidized. The Chinese system is too, and to an even greater extent since fewer Chinese than Japanes can afford to travel on such expensive transportation. But now the Chinese system is no longer high speed; the sections that were completed are now operating at conventional speeds until further notice - too many accidents and too many deaths. Chain is rethinking the whole debacle.

Conventional rail is still the most cost effective land-based method of moving cargo and inland/coastal waterways are another. A bill was passed several years ago to support the further development of "marine highways" and to create new modern multi-mode hubs where all the major enablers (water, air, rail and road) can mix and transfer goods/cargo efficiently between them.

Obama has failed to put much more than one thin dime in to that bill; it remains largely an unfunded piece of legislation.

You want infrastructure and jobs? Approve the Keystone Pipeline.

You want infrastructure and jobs? Approve the Keystone Pipeline.

Seriously. Not to mention another click in our favor when it comes to reducing our dependence on off-continent oil imports. And the green benny of reducing the number of oil-gorged tankers hanging around in our coastal waters.

Every time I see the tired old "but look how high marginal tax rates were after WWII" arguments, I cringe. Always completely ignored are two HUGE factors:

1. Pent up demand was astronomically high; people were going to 'consume' no matter what costs were added as a consequence of taxes paid by the 'rich'. And consume they did, too, like seldom before and never since.

2. The biggie: There were no S-corporations..no LLCs either. The S-corp didn't even come in being until '58. So, back then, if you were making a million dollars, it was because some behemoth C-corp was paying you that kind of salary (rarer then, actually) OR you were living off old money and/or investment income.

Now?..the vast majority of 'millionaires" are simply folks who own some chunk of a small business (S, LLC, LLP..etc) that passes all of its income through to the shareholders to report on their individual 1040s every year. So now, you go taxing the average 'millionaire" all yr doing is stripping more of the money out of some small company..money they would much rather retain and use for the good of the company.

The top marginal tax rate was 90% in the 15 years following WWII, not during Reagan tenure... he lowered it from 70 to 50. You really shouldn't call me naive and in the same sentence get your facts wrong, though I don't think you should call anyone naive purely on the off chance your wrong it makes you look like an idiot. And I was referring to him "closing loopholes," one of which was a special tax status for income earned through investment.

And I assume from your silence on the issue you now understand the top effective rate of 17%?

You misunderstood my point about hard work, people shouldn't be punished for earning their income by actually producing something, which is exactly what we do when we bizarrely reward people who play the stock market often for short-term personal gain.



Good point, you really brought a lot of insight into the discussion. I hope we hear more from you.



It's not at all about "taxing the crap" out of the rich or even raising the top marginal tax rate. It's about raising the top effective tax rate by equalizing the capital gains tax rate with that top bracket rate. It's silly that Warren Buffet pays a lower effective rate than half the country.

And my point with the 90% rate following WWII is that it's possible to have high taxes on real income and invested income without affecting job creation. The idea that raising the cap gains tax rate amounts to a tax on job creation is little more than a political spin and straight up laughable if you look at the economic data.



I disagree. Trucks on roads is the best way this country has to move goods at the moment. It's slow, inefficient and costly. Not to mention it destroys the roads, which costs money to fix. Infrastructure investment today should be two fold. First investing in high speed rail, like the kind that is fueling both the Chinese and Japanese economies. And the second is high speed internet. St. Mary's county has the internet infrastructure DC had 6 years ago. Bringing high speed fiber optics opens up a whole new opportunity for businesses and ensures that the U.S. leads the way pioneering the internet.



I couldn't agree more with this point though I think online classes should supplement not replace the traditional 4 year education. There is tremendous value to being a part of an actual academic community that you simply can't replicate online. Though doing a year or two online would go along way towards reducing costs and overall student debt.

Where did I say the tax rate was reduced from 90% by Regan? The 90% refers to what it was post ww2. I actually thought you were thoughtful and pretty bright for a young naive kid but now I see your really just a snot nosed douche that jumps to conclusions in hopes you had a "gotcha" moment.

Warren Buffet is free to pay whatever he wants above his marginal tax rate, why doesnt he pay extra if its so important? It funny he wants income taxes raised but he doesnt get his money from income now does he?

Do we really need higher speed internet? I have Verizons slowest level of DSL and can stream video all day long with no hangups. How much porn do you need?

Where did I say the tax rate was reduced from 90% by Regan? ?

But Reagan did reduce it from 70% to 50%...a huge reduction.

At the end of the day, I don't think that an increase in the top marignal rate is that bad an idea and its probably inevitable..it is defensible at least; especially from a historical standpoint. My issue with any increase is simply one of being totally disgusted with the way our government wastes so much of now..and then has only the incredibly weak justification that "its all gone so we need more" to go a try to grab more. Wrong on too many levels.

I dont think raising the rate will do much of anything, if you know what you are doing or can afford to hire someone who knows what they are doing there are always arround that sort of thing.

I would be much more ready to raise the rates if pork, riders, congressional staff reduction, etc etc was first enacted as a good faith gesture. Bascially lower the overhead budget by reducing frivilous things then don't throw things unrelated into bills (ie student loans in the healthcare bill). Unemployment benefits only extended in exchange for service such as cleaning up along the highways etc etc.

Everyone in the same tax bracket actually paying the same effective tax rate +/-, let's say, 5% instead of the current margin of +/- 25%.

So what you are advocating is for the poorest to pay more?

Let's see Warren Buffet claims to pay only 17% because its all Capital Gains instead of income, where he would pay a higher rate plus FICA (5.65% for 2011). However if he's paying 17%, what is someone making say $40K paying?
Let see...$40,000 - $3,650 (personal exemption) - $5,700 (standard deduction) = $30,650. That puts them in the 15% tax bracket; $4,598 tax. Add in the FICA of $2,260 they have a tax burden of $6,858. Effective tax rate is 17.1%. Not much of a difference.

However someone making $21,000 (which is roughy $10/hr) less deductions of $9,350 has a taxable income of $11,650. Tax on that is $1,748 plus FICA of $1,187 = tax liability of $2,935. Effective tax rate is 13.9%

So to be "fair" the person making $21K needs to pay even more to pay the same effective tax rate as Warren Buffet. By the way, if Warren Buffet doesn't think he's paying enough, he could have those high priced tax guys rearrange his compensation package to pay him a salary and then he could contribute to FICA and pay his "fair" share.

Where did I say the tax rate was reduced from 90% by Regan?

First, there is an 'a' in Reagan, according to spell check. Second:

when Regan pushed for that 90% tax rate to be lowered

I am drunk and even I could find that ####.

More later.

Being, as he is, well below the poverty line, the boy does not realize that it was during Clinton's reign that it became not only fashionable but suddenly quite legal and even encouraged to avoid paying at those silly high personal income tax rates by accepting the lion's share of your 'executive' compensation as long-term capital gains (stock options mainly) ..long being only a day over a year..and chit like that.

"Government acts; the people react. They always find ways to get around government regulations." - Roy "Pat" Archer, PhD