obama: You didn't build that....

• gut

  Con_Alma;1240223 wrote:Put me down in support of that.

  You'll get that on top of your income tax and you'll like it. It's inevitable, the only way to break from the historical 18% of GDP average revenues is to fundamentally change the tax structure (even Romney is only targeting 20%, which is miles better than Obama at 24-25%). A national sales tax is about the only thing left not being taxed. They could easily raise $1T in additional revenues, except by the time liberals get done making it "fair and progressive", you'll only get a few hundred billion from the top 20%.
  
  Just exclude food and energy and tax the rest. I don't care if you're poor, if you can afford an IPhone and cell/data plan you can afford to give the govt more in taxes on it.
  
  It's disgusting really, but effectively the candidates and Congress are telling us they can't run this country on 18% of GDP. I don't see any other solution - either you cut social programs or you implement a VAT, because it's simply not enough to soak the rich.
• QuakerOats

  bho: "we should bail out every industry" ........ a close second to, "you didn't build that".
  
  
  
  he has perhaps skipped over marxism on his way to communism.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1244226 wrote:bho: "we should bail out every industry"

  This guy is truly drunk with spending.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1240088 wrote:1. I believe in picking winners and losers? How do you draw that conclusion? I've posted numerous times of my hatred of the US Tax Code and it's social engineering. I'd be for a Flat Tax, a Fair Tax, a simple tax....anything but the turd we have to bow to now. How is this anything BUT neutral? Your use of the phrase, "..ought to be taxed", proves that you believe that money/wealth belongs to the government, not the individual. The Death Tax should be abolished.

  No, "ought to be taxed" means that, if we're going to have an income tax, consistent with income tax norms, like any other accession to wealth, the transfer of wealth to the heirs or estate at the inevitable realization event of death should be a taxable event. To single out the realization event of death and not doing so for similar windfall gains is what people mean when they say "pick winners and losers."
  
  You say you support the fair tax and that is fine but you shouldn't also support abolishing the estate tax if we're going to keep tax regime ultimately grounded on income tax norms.
• BGFalcons82

  

  QuakerOats;1244226 wrote:bho: "we should bail out every industry" ........ a close second to, "you didn't build that".
  
  
  
  he has perhaps skipped over marxism on his way to communism.

  Here's a guy that was:
  Fathered by a communist
  Raised by a communist
  Educated and lived in a socialist country for several years
  Mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis
  Wrote collegiate papers decrying capitalism
  Got married by a socialist
  Attended the same reverend's socialist church for 20 years
  Appointed known communists to high level czar positions
  Authored, promoted and signed the largest government intrustion into the private economy into law and will oversee 1/6th of the nations GDP
  
  And there are millions that believe he has no socialist nor communist leanings, tendencies nor desires because he says he doesn't really believe in those things.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1240088 wrote:
  2. Where did the concept of hiding profits under the mattress come from? Name one of the Fortune 500 companies that got to their current level by sitting on cash and never investing? One of the building blocks for an expanding growing economy is access to capital. Taxing capital at 23.8% is NOT the way to achieve growth and jobs. Yet, here you are saying it is along with raising income taxes on small businesses in order to create jobs. Can you name one country that taxed itself into prosperity? How's California's economy since they enacted tax hikes?

  When I was talking about "sticking money under the mattress" you were saying categorically it always makes more sense to have private individuals keep their own money...that is not true if they are trying to rapidly pay down private debt or store it under their mattress rather than use it for mutually beneficial exchanges and create wealth (i.e. a liquidity trap). In those instances, it would make more sense to let those folks lend that money to the government who could spend it. That is what corporations and businesses do in this environment. But we're on a different topic now.
  
  I've said before and I will say it again that it'd be better not to raise rates now and at wait until full employment or interest rates rise much higher.
  
  But, fwiw, I can tell you a country that raised taxes "on small businesses" and capital and did just fine...the United States in the 90's. We "taxed ourselves into prosperity." Just like your doomsday prophecies about inflation will never come true now...the same folks making doomsday prophecies about tax raises destroying the economy in the 90's didn't come true then.
  
  But either way, you missed the whole point...if you suggest capital income deserves a lower rate of taxation than labor income, you're supporting picking winners and losers again in our income tax regime. So just come out and say it...people who earn capital income should get special treatment whereas people who earn money from their labor shouldn't.
• BoatShoes

  BGFalcons82;1244281 wrote:Here's a guy that was:
  Fathered by a communist
  Raised by a communist
  Educated and lived in a socialist country for several years
  Mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis
  Wrote collegiate papers decrying capitalism
  Got married by a socialist
  Attended the same reverend's socialist church for 20 years
  Appointed known communists to high level czar positions
  Authored, promoted and signed the largest government intrustion into the private economy into law and will oversee 1/6th of the nations GDP
  
  And there are millions that believe he has no socialist nor communist leanings, tendencies nor desires because he says he doesn't really believe in those things.

  I also hear he got a blow job from a dude in the back of a limo once.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1244282 wrote:..the United States in the 90's. We "taxed ourselves into prosperity." Just like your doomsday prophecies about inflation will never come true now...the same folks making doomsday prophecies about tax raises destroying the economy in the 90's didn't come true then.

  And all we need to make that happen is another internet bubble, which was a key precursor in fed policy that led to the housing bubble. That's a winning path to prosperity worth repeating.
• BGFalcons82

  

  BoatShoes;1244286 wrote:I also hear he got a blow job from a dude in the back of a limo once.

  Quite likely, since he has publicly proclaimed his love for blow and mary jane. As I recall the day...sex, drugs, and ROCK N ROLLLLLLLLL was the rage.
• QuakerOats

  BGFalcons82;1244281 wrote:Here's a guy that was:
  Fathered by a communist
  Raised by a communist
  Educated and lived in a socialist country for several years
  Mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis
  Wrote collegiate papers decrying capitalism
  Got married by a socialist
  Attended the same reverend's socialist church for 20 years
  Appointed known communists to high level czar positions
  Authored, promoted and signed the largest government intrustion into the private economy into law and will oversee 1/6th of the nations GDP
  
  And there are millions that believe he has no socialist nor communist leanings, tendencies nor desires because he says he doesn't really believe in those things.

  
  And it is shrugged off, and guys like you are labeled whacko.
  
  The Manchurian Candidate.
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1244303 wrote:And it is shrugged off, and guys like you are labeled whacko.
  
  The Manchurian Candidate.
  
  Change we can believe in ....

  Yes that is it. Raised by anti-colonialists and communists to hypnotize voters with his teleprompter speeches to obtain power and take America down a peg from the inside. (Even though he passed laws nearly identical to what Romney would have passed in all likelihood if he had won in 2008:laugh: The guy that QuakerOats is going to vote for :laugh::laugh.
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1244269 wrote:No, "ought to be taxed" means that, if we're going to have an income tax, consistent with income tax norms, like any other accession to wealth, the transfer of wealth to the heirs or estate at the inevitable realization event of death should be a taxable event. To single out the realization event of death and not doing so for similar windfall gains is what people mean when they say "pick winners and losers."
  
  You say you support the fair tax and that is fine but you shouldn't also support abolishing the estate tax if we're going to keep tax regime ultimately grounded on income tax norms.

  So let me get this right.
  
  If I manage to accumulate millions in my lifetime, during this time my wife is a stay at home mom/housewife. When I die I, of course, leave her everything.
  
  Now, of course all of my earnings were taxed once as income, taxed a 2nd time as capital gains (assuming I made the big money in the market), and now you believe it should be taxed a 3rd time before my wife gets it?
  
  That is ludicrous, she was a 50/50 partner in growing the family and deserves the money without the government taking their "fair share" a 3rd time on the same money.
  
  Let's not forget that the government (state and local) will tax her a 4th time as she spends the money.
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1244316 wrote:So let me get this right.
  
  If I manage to accumulate millions in my lifetime, during this time my wife is a stay at home mom/housewife. When I die I, of course, leave her everything.
  
  Now, of course all of my earnings were taxed once as income, taxed a 2nd time as capital gains (assuming I made the big money in the market), and now you believe it should be taxed a 3rd time before my wife gets it?
  
  That is ludicrous, she was a 50/50 partner in growing the family and deserves the money without the government taking their "fair share" a 3rd time on the same money.
  
  Let's not forget that the government (state and local) will tax her a 4th time as she spends the money.

  Um, there is no tax imposed on transfers to the surviving spouse. You can transfer unlimited amounts to your wife without incurring estate or gift tax as husbands and wives are treated as a single economic unit for transfer tax purposes....
  
  The issue is transfers to "issue" because the purpose of the estate and gift tax ultimately from the time the founders first imposed similar taxes was to mitigate lineal concentration of wealth.
  
  Additionally, all of those accrued capital gains you claim would have been taxed twice could very easily not have incurred a realization event and have never been taxed.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;1244282 wrote:But either way, you missed the whole point...if you suggest capital income deserves a lower rate of taxation than labor income, you're supporting picking winners and losers again in our income tax regime. So just come out and say it...people who earn capital income should get special treatment whereas people who earn money from their labor shouldn't.

  I'll say it- capital income comes with risk. You could've easily just "stuffed it under the mattress", but you chose to risk potential loss and invest it. So yes, tax it less.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BoatShoes;1244282 wrote: But, fwiw, I can tell you a country that raised taxes "on small businesses" and capital and did just fine...the United States in the 90's. We "taxed ourselves into prosperity." Just like your doomsday prophecies about inflation will never come true now...the same folks making doomsday prophecies about tax raises destroying the economy in the 90's didn't come true then.

  No, we printed ourselves into "prosperity". And look how that turned out. You realize that bubble burst before Clinton even left office, right?
• stlouiedipalma

  BGFalcons82;1244281 wrote:Here's a guy that was:
  Fathered by a communist
  Raised by a communist
  Educated and lived in a socialist country for several years
  Mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis
  Wrote collegiate papers decrying capitalism
  Got married by a socialist
  Attended the same reverend's socialist church for 20 years
  Appointed known communists to high level czar positions
  Authored, promoted and signed the largest government intrustion into the private economy into law and will oversee 1/6th of the nations GDP
  
  And there are millions that believe he has no socialist nor communist leanings, tendencies nor desires because he says he doesn't really believe in those things.

  
  You left out the part where he was born in a foreign country and is a closet Muslim.
  
  If you're going to go all Jerry Fletcher on us, at least stick to the same conspiracy theories the rest of the crazies embrace.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1245337 wrote:You left out the part where he was born in a foreign country...

  It doesn't matter where he was born if his mother was a U.S. Citizen...which she was. He would be born as a U.S. Citizen even if was delivered in Russia.
• BGFalcons82

  

  stlouiedipalma;1245337 wrote:You left out the part where he was born in a foreign country and is a closet Muslim.
  
  If you're going to go all Jerry Fletcher on us, at least stick to the same conspiracy theories the rest of the crazies embrace.

  Which fact is incorrect? I'm not a birther, but he sure has milked that one dry.
  
  One more fact for ya, being born of a muslim makes a muslim.
• Footwedge

  jmog;1244316 wrote:So let me get this right.
  
  If I manage to accumulate millions in my lifetime, during this time my wife is a stay at home mom/housewife. When I die I, of course, leave her everything.
  
  Now, of course all of my earnings were taxed once as income, taxed a 2nd time as capital gains (assuming I made the big money in the market), and now you believe it should be taxed a 3rd time before my wife gets it?
  
  That is ludicrous, she was a 50/50 partner in growing the family and deserves the money without the government taking their "fair share" a 3rd time on the same money.
  
  Let's not forget that the government (state and local) will tax her a 4th time as she spends the money.

  Estate tax at today's rate is not a burden at all to the pro aristocracy crowd. And even then, the huge estates can avoid federal taxation through estate planning. (the Ohio estate tax is presently zero as well)
  
  Not a big fan of spawn of the extremely wealthy rolling in luxery without working a day in their life. That, BtW, is the true conservative view on that subject.
• jmog

  Footwedge;1245529 wrote:Estate tax at today's rate is not a burden at all to the pro aristocracy crowd. And even then, the huge estates can avoid federal taxation through estate planning. (the Ohio estate tax is presently zero as well)
  
  Not a big fan of spawn of the extremely wealthy rolling in luxery without working a day in their life. That, BtW, is the true conservative view on that subject.

  I've never understood why people care so much about what other people do with their money.
  
  If the government has already taxed the money earned multiple times, why does the government have the right to tax it again when someone passes it down to their kids?
  
  If the kids are that stupid to just "wallow" and be lazy with their money then you will have your wish as they won't stay rich for long.
• Heretic

  

  BGFalcons82;1245478 wrote:One more fact for ya, being born of a muslim makes a muslim.

  Wait, what? Is there a muslim rule stating that it's ironclad that children WILL be muslim if the parents were?
  
  I mean, my parents were all christian and stuff and made me go to church-like things and be a member growing up, but I looked at that shit as a big waste of time, so when I got old enough to move out and make my own decisions, stuff like that got jetted and I don't really look at myself as Methodist, christian or whatever (unless I feel like mentioning my long-ago membership in a church would help in chameleon-ing myself into something).
  
  Comments like that just seem stupid.
• QuakerOats

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/13/obama_a_new_vision_of_an_america_which_prosperity_is_shared.html
  
  
  
  And there you have it, in case there was any doubt whatsoever as to whether he is a Marxist.
  
  
  Change we can believe in ...
• gut

  ^^^"No matter who you are, you can make it here if you try".
  
  Why, then, does he continue to reward and spoil lack of effort and punish those who try (and succeed)?
• believer

  

  gut;1245849 wrote:^^^"No matter who you are, you can make it here if you try".
  
  Why, then, does he continue to reward and spoil lack of effort and punish those who try (and succeed)?

  Because marxists do not view individual success and achievement through the same lenses. Personal success and achievement is to be confiscated and shared by all in the the name of utopian fairness.
  
  After all, your personal success cannot be accomplished through hard work, individual sacrifice, and perseverance. Personal achievement is only possible due to state control, regulations, and taxation.
  
  Without government oversight, nothing can exist.
  
  C'mon gut, do we have to send you back to indoctrination camp?
• ts1227

  

  Have you seen (or in your case potentially masturbated to) the sign regarding this quote on the front of Salem Welding, Oats?
  
  If you haven't, take a drive by, you won't be disappointed.