Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Acapulco Kevin's column >>

ACAPULCO KEVIN

"Those willing to give up freedom for security deserve neither and will lose both."
Articles Posted: 62  Links Seeded: 112
Member Since: 5/2010  Last Seen: 12/17/2010

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Hey sheeple this is what the "Tax deal means for you"

Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:11 PM EST
politics, stimulus, tax-cuts, teapublicans, incentives, sheeple, obama-tax-deal, complainers
By Acapulco Kevin
Advertise | AdChoices

"1.PAYROLL TAXES. It would reduce the 6.2 percent Social Security payroll tax on all wage earners by two percentage points for one year, putting more money in the paychecks of workers.

2.CAPITAL GAINS, A.M.T. The top rate of 15 percent on capital gains and dividends would remain in place for two years, and the alternative minimum tax would be adjusted so that as many as 21 million households would not be hit by it.

3.TAX CREDITS. The deal would also renew the American Opportunity Tax Credit, for undergraduate expenses, for two years (it was set to expire in 2010). Meanwhile, the child tax credit — which reduces your tax bill by $1,000 per child — will be extended for another two years.

4. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. The agreement provides for a 13-month extension of jobless aid for the long-term unemployed. Benefits have already started to run out for some people, and as many as seven million people would potentially lose assistance within the next year.

5. ESTATE TAX. In addition to dropping his opposition to any extension of the current income tax rates on income above $250,000 for couples and $200,000 for individuals, President Obama agreed to a deal on the federal estate tax that has infuriated many Democrats. The deal would ultimately set an exemption of $5 million per person and a maximum tax rate on estates of 35 percent — a higher exemption and far lower rate than many Democrats wanted." NY Times

This is what the deal includes. When life hands you lemons ~ make lemonade.

If Republicans don't get the tax cuts for the richest Americans they will screw the unemployed, allow tax incentives from the stimulus to expire and will continue to use Americans as pawns in a suicidal game of chess.

The compromise package is not what we all want but is probably the best the Republican party is going to allow through congress.

Q Mr. President, what do you say to Democrats who say you’re rewarding Republican obstruction here? You yourself used in your opening statement they were unwilling to budge on this. A lot of progressive Democrats are saying they’re unwilling to budge, and you’re asking them to get off the fence and budge. Why should they be rewarding Republican obstruction?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me use a couple of analogies. I’ve said before that I felt that the middle-class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts. I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage-takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. Then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

So why exactly is everyone so angry with the President? Voters created this mess by electing Republicans and creating a "Lame Duck Session". What did you expect? You shackle the President and expect him to walk on water. At the very least he is doing the best with what he has been handed.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Acapulco Kevin's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: American_Politics, Anti-Discrimination, Bar Room Debates, Centervine, cheapdirtystuntsbyGOPfascists, DemGuys, Democrats, FIRED UP DEMOCRATS!, Free Thinkers, Grey Boomers, Unite!, Gut Check America, Heated Debate, Invisible Viners, Left of Center, Mad For Rachel Maddow, NeoConservative Watch, Obama Supporters, ObamaVine, Politics in USA, Rational Progressive Party, RepubliCON Watch, Respectful Debate, Seeders and Posters w/ Manners, Soapbox, US News and Views
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (162)
Acapulco Kevin

So what the hell is everyone's problem? Were you expecting cheese to go with your whine?

  • 8 votes
Reply#1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:15 PM EST
GaryColumbus

Repeal the tax cuts!

Which do Americans want repealed more, ObamaCare or Boehner/McConnell/Bush Tax Cuts?

  • 2 votes
#1.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:26 PM EST
J. W. Welch

I would rather see the tax cuts ended. They don't seem to have had much positive impact on our crummy economy while the idiots in government respond with printing more money.

  • 3 votes
#1.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:46 PM EST
ZenFreedom

I liked your article very much Kevin. It would be nice for the country to see the monster that it has created by letting these moron republicans into the hen house. But the blame will fall on him because the majority of Americans are fickle chowderheads.

  • 6 votes
#1.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:44 PM EST
Naughtia

At the very least he is doing the best with what he has been handed.

w/e I dont buy it.

Boehner already said if he had no choice he would vote for the middle class tax cuts.

teh GOP wouldnt let teh UE expire right before christmas i dont care what they said.

The GOP understand in a negotiation you pick an extreme view and slowly temper your view in bargaining.

Obama comes right out with his centrist view and ends up being pulled way right when negotiating.

he basically got zip. and gave the GOP everything they wanted. and more.

  • 1 vote
#1.4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:59 PM EST
jawill11

The problem is that the President didn't even attempt to fight. The polls were overwhelmingly on the side of letting the tax cuts on the rich expire. The GOP were fighting a losing battle.

The problem is also that the Bush policy of cutting taxes on those who don't need it is now the Obama policy by default. By agreeing to this, he now is in the position of having to make the Republican case for these tax cuts. He is already doing it, convincing the Senate and putting his advisors out in the media defending the failed bush tax cuts. There are already Republicans such as Karl Rove saying that the President is finally admitting that tax cuts for the wealthy is the best solution for the economy. What does he think will happen when they come back up for debate in 2012? He is already on record now defending them. If he goes against them, he will be lambasted.

This is not just about politics, though. If the President actually fought for what is right and true, he could have easily made the case that the tax cuts could be put to better use in other stimulative ways and beat the GOP over the head with their deficit hypocricy. He did none of that. He simply handed them everything they wanted including extra goodies with an estate tax cut.

Furthermore, the payroll tax is a terrible idea. It simply makes SS less secure and betters the GOP argument that it isn't self sufficient and should be dismantled. Their argument is 100% BS now, but this tax cut will make it the slightest bit true, which we have seen is more than enough for them to shout from the hills in triumph.

The President could have gotten much better policies for the people and not set himself up to lose much worse battles in the future with bigger implications for the people if he had just fought for what is right even a tiny bit.

    #1.5 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 8:33 AM EST
    Boudicea

    jawill - above all else, this President wants to be re-elected. He's not stupid, after all. He SAW what happened in November and knows damned well that the progressive liberals are definitely in the minority this time around. He just hopped on the bus (trying, obviously, to re-invent himself life Clinton had to do)

    • 2 votes
    #1.6 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:54 AM EST
    Nicey-1026620

    A true stand would have been to let them all expire.

    For me, (even though that impacts my taxes), I would have respected that. And perhaps, Pubs would have actually caved. Because, they can't change it after expiration. It would require a new law to be written and they don't have the numbers and he has the veto.

    While our middle class tax cuts are nice, most responsible people understand they were made on a surplus basis. We have no surplus. While difficult to deal with, I'd respect current responsibility rather than the kicking the can down the street method.

    If we don't take action soon, this situation is going to accelerate pretty rapidly.

      #1.7 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:16 AM EST
      jawill11

      He SAW what happened in November and knows damned well that the progressive liberals are definitely in the minority this time around

      He may have misinterpreted what the election results meant and dug himself deeper in the hole. The Dems lost only partially because the GOP base was upset with him and turned out in large numbers. The other half was the Dem base not energized because they have been laying down to the bullying, self-serving behavior of the GOP minority with detrimental and unpopular policies.

      The facts are stuborn things and in this case, like most others, the "liberal" position is the one most popular by far. A majority of the people did not want to extend tax cuts to the rich and that is without anybody in the media, much less anybody in the Dem party even beginning to make the case against them.

      • 1 vote
      #1.8 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 12:48 PM EST
      Boudicea

      I don't know about all that, jawill. I think that the UBER-LIBERAL dems are in a minority here. We'll have to wait and see but I'm thinking that the moderate dems will go right along with the GOP in the near futre.

      • 1 vote
      #1.9 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:20 PM EST
      jawill11

      Just what do you think the position of those uber-liberal dems is? If it is extending all the tax cuts except those for $250k+, then that is the position favored by a majority of the people. I'm not aware of another liberal position on this issue.

      • 2 votes
      #1.10 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:33 PM EST
      Boudicea

      sorry jawill the people have spoken and they do NOT want tax increases.

      • 1 vote
      #1.11 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:04 PM EST
      Chief CRD

      So what is wrong with people who earn the money, keeping as much as they can? I know people that are on the edge - if they cuts expire, then they go under. The federal government will sink thousands of families if the cuts don't remain - permanently. The government has over-taxed the people of this nation for years and squandered the money away on too many social programs instead of smart spending. It's time they tighten their belts and stop handing out tax money like it's candy. Bottom line is every time the government raises taxes, they find even more ways to spend it on junk. SO if you want to voluntarily start handing over half your paycheck to Uncle, er Comrade, Sam, then go right ahead - I'll keep most of what I worked hard to earn.

      • 5 votes
      #1.12 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:05 PM EST
      Reply
      greg-709692

      It's a Liberal "You took my dolly" thing, after all.

      What more can we expect from them!

      Someone has to make up for Liberal shortfalls the last two years (really the last 6 years), and, it may as well be us, Right?

      • 6 votes
      Reply#2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:22 PM EST
      Jerryf11

      Someone has to make up for Liberal shortfalls the last two years (really the last 6 years), and, it may as well be us,

      6 years? Before I know it, hacks everywhere will be suggesting the Dems controlled Congress throughout the Bush years, and that is why borrow and spend and deregulation killed the economy. Right.

      GOPers had control in 2004, sorry, no points for you, only more BS partisan rhetoric.

      • 12 votes
      #2.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:44 PM EST
      greg-709692

      hacks everywhere will be suggesting the Dems controlled Congress throughout the Bush years, and that is why borrow and spend and deregulation killed the economy

      Golly Wally!

      Dems did control the Congress from 2006 until November 2nd, 2010.

      Whose fault should it be after 2005? The Russians?

      • 8 votes
      #2.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:47 PM EST
      Jerryf11

      Whose fault should it be after 2005?

      The GOP controlled the House, Senate and Oval office in 2005, unless you're trying to re-write history......

      The Dems did not control Congress in 2006, they Dem majorities were not sworn in until Jan 2007. Please try to understand how your govt works before you try to debate someone who does. Thanks.

      Ripples of the pending economic tsunami were already being felt by the time they came into office. It is clearly, demonstrably, the policies of the right that caused the meltdown. Even Mr Free Market himself, Alan Greenspan, has conceded he was wrong and that the market cannot regulate itself.

      • 13 votes
      #2.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:57 PM EST
      fireryone

      are you having a math problem greg? that's 4 years, not 6.

      • 3 votes
      #2.4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:59 PM EST
      greg-709692

      Whoooooooosh!

      Right over your head on my comment.

      Bwarney Frank, Who said specifically, Fannie and Freddie are AOK and all the other Democraps who backed this up, helped cause this problem.

      Sorry I wasn't so specific in my time line (Jan2007). Geeez.

      The Liberals still ignored everything going wrong, and did nothing to fix it.

      Liberals are the "We need the downtrodden to stay down" to stay alive.

      They could care less about responsibility, culpability, or Common Sense.

      It's like the crap the Liberals give us about how they were so for the civil rights.

      What a bunch of morons!

      • 10 votes
      #2.5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:03 PM EST
      Don't you people have jobs?

      So the democratic congress managed to destroy our whole economy in ONE year? (2007-2008)

      That's some good work.

      Now try pulling the other one...

      • 8 votes
      #2.6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:19 PM EST
      fireryone

      Really? And who just forced the tax cut extension on the top 2% after bitching about the deficit? How passed the tax cuts in the first place? Where is the common sense in gutting tax revenue and going to war? Don't forget the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

      stop being so partisan, it isn't serving any of us well.

      • 7 votes
      #2.7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:20 PM EST
      greg-709692

      So the democratic congress managed to destroy our whole economy in ONE year?

      Yep!

      The "I voted for it, before I didn't" helped too!

      • 6 votes
      #2.8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:21 PM EST
      goober.70

      Dems did control the Congress from 2006 until November 2nd, 2010.

      By 2006 the damage had been done and the obstructionism begun and well on the road to drive us all into theditch. But don't let the truth wake you to the facts, Greg

      • 4 votes
      #2.9 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:25 PM EST
      jawill11

      Furthermore, Frank made his comments at the time when he was in the minority in the House and the GOP never let any bills out of committee that would fix the financial situation. That is all ignoring the facts the FMFM were not the causes of the crisis.

      Of course Greg has been shown this time and time again, but he apparently would rather ignore reality just to root for his team.

      • 3 votes
      #2.10 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 8:38 AM EST
      Nicey-1026620

      For anyone tracking the Fannie/Freddie Crisis...

      2001-2006 One party had complete control. During that time, they allowed Fannie and Freddie to further expand the purchase of Subprime Loans and raise the recommended goal.

      Not only that, but all those Presidents made housing a goal. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr.

      • 3 votes
      #2.11 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 10:37 AM EST
      Reply
      Vlad's dog

      Can I have the cheese plate please? I think he compromised too early. He has to step up his political game I think.

      • 6 votes
      #3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:24 PM EST
      Acapulco Kevin

      And what about all of the people losing unemployment insurance before Christmas? Do you think they can wait? What about the 7 million others that will also be losing benefits? Do you think their children, mortgage, car payments can wait too?

      • 5 votes
      #3.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:28 PM EST
      Jerryf11

      And what about all of the people losing unemployment insurance before Christmas?

      Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen? That would've been political suicide.

      Obama has no spine, and it showed in this negotiation.

      Tax cuts are popular, even though they may not be the most effective stimulus to the economy or good for our debt/deficit conditions.

      Obama followed the GOPBagger playbook, tell the people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear. This compromise is based on winning the next election, not responsible governance.

      Obama has become, or maybe has always been, just like the rest, an empty suit.

      Still would vote for him over McCain, still will vote for him over any GOPBagger candidate the right trots out, but am certainly thoroughly disappointed in his leadership.

      • 7 votes
      #3.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:41 PM EST
      Vlad's dog

      I don't know kevin. I do know that I am struggling without unemploment. I do know that I have to deal with the lack of funds to buy anything. I am not happy with this situation but I do think he has not done all the things who could have done to grasp the message and use it to his advantage.

      I do hope this works well for all of us, Right now my own situation makes me very depressed and I have to struggle everyday to just live. It is hard for me to think of others when my own situation looks dire. We may have to leave our dream next year and it is all that I can do to keep on trucking. Sounds a little selfish but I can't really help it at the moment.

      My tractor is now broke and I don't know how I will pay to get it fixed. I don't know how I will keep the driveway cleaned and I don't know how to change what I have to deal with. My depression at my situation has really brought me down last night and you are seeing it here. Sorry I have to rant or I will break my hand on the wall.

      • 5 votes
      #3.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:42 PM EST
      maximillio

      Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen? That would've been political suicide.

      Yes, they would have and they did. They do not care.

      • 13 votes
      #3.4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:55 PM EST
      GraysonS

      Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen? That would've been political suicide.

      Yes. I honestly think that the GOP would have let that happen. Those that support the GOP, at this point, no longer care whether that their representatives are harming the American people. The tea-baggers and their ilk are actively harming this country, and have been so brain-washed by their ideology that they no longer have any perspective to understand the effect of what their representatives are doing. They simply want to see others fail. And, as long as they can have that victory, they are completely blind to the consequences of the fight.

      • 10 votes
      #3.5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:56 PM EST
      Acapulco Kevin

      Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen? That would've been political suicide.

      Yes, they would have and they did. They do not care.

      I second this comment. They would have quickly abandoned 7 million people to push their agenda. Ultimately it was the Republicans that sold out to their party by including Tax cuts and incentives from President Obama and the stimulus. The objective, with all other thoughts being minor or secondary was to get the Republican backed Tax cuts for their corporate sponsor lobby money buddies.

      • 6 votes
      #3.6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:08 PM EST
      greg-709692

      Gee!

      7 million compared to 300 million.

      I'll take the many over the few, thank you very much!

      The extension of the tax cuts does not raise any debt. It's already been in place, and it's nothing new!

      Liberals just call it "An Extra Debt" because they want more of our money to spend!

      Hello!

      • 4 votes
      #3.7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:15 PM EST
      fireryone

      Greg, you don't understand how the world works do you? 7 Million people pay rent, mortgages, buy goods and services and their loss of income would have a hugh impact on the other 300 million one way or another.

      The tax cuts have already been in place...but spending wasn't cut, instead spending was increased, so yea any additional extension adds to the debt.

      • 8 votes
      #3.8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:24 PM EST
      evilgenius

      Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen? That would've been political suicide.

      Yes, and furthermore I believe the GOP see the situation as a win-win for them. If the tax extensions pass they please their corporate masters - if the tax extensions fail they come back during the next campaign cycle saying they tried to get everyone a break, but the Dems wouldn't work with them.

      Good article Kevin.

      • 5 votes
      #3.9 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:49 PM EST
      greg-709692

      7 million people is less than 2% percent of the total population that actually pay into the system.

      Anyone that wants the few to make out at the expense of the many, is a progressive for sure.

      • 4 votes
      #3.10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:51 PM EST
      J. W. Welch

      greg

      Are one of those no nonsense businessmen I read about in the papers?

      • 1 vote
      #3.11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:59 PM EST
      GraysonS

      Anyone that wants the few to make out at the expense of the many, is a progressive for sure.

      Never thought I'd see greg describe himself as a progressive.

      • 2 votes
      #3.12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:08 PM EST
      greg-709692

      Aaaaa!

      Your using the tax break argument.

      Try looking at the real cost's to the people before you go after just the rich, for once that is.

      Funny how liberals think, what has been, is now defined as an extra perk for getting extended.

      • 2 votes
      #3.13 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:23 PM EST
      GraysonS

      Call it anything you want to. I don't care whether you call it a hike or an expiration. That does not change the fact that it helps the wealthy and harms the middle and lower class. In your words, it allows "the few to make out at the expense of the many."

      • 3 votes
      #3.14 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:44 PM EST
      Boudicea

      How do you figure this harms the middle and lower classes when it EXTENDS their ability to avoid all income tax up to $50,000 a year (for a family) and increases their chances of getting back thousands and thousands more than they ever paid in the first place?

      • 5 votes
      #3.15 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:49 PM EST
      GraysonS

      Because extending the tax cuts for the wealthy reduces tax revenue. Tax revenue is what we use to pay for social programs.

      Not to mention that these artificially low tax rates are helping destroy the middle class. When you stretch the economic spectrum by increasing the wealth of the top, everyone in the middle gets a little closer to the bottom. It squeezes out the middle-class and no, by the way, trickle-down economics is not a valid theory.

      • 3 votes
      #3.16 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:50 PM EST
      Boudicea

      NO, it does NOT reduce tax revenue. The revenue will be the SAME because taxes are not going up OR down. It stays the SAME. SPENDING goes up to increase the deficit. So cut spending because tax REVENUE STAYS THE SAME.

      Basically, you guys are all bitching because you can't spend any more money. That does NOT have anything at all to do with taxes. Taxes are income. Spending is not income. One is not the same as the other. One is an apple. The other is an orange.

      • 6 votes
      #3.17 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:54 PM EST
      greg-709692

      Because extending the tax cuts for the wealthy reduces tax revenue

      Hahahahahaha! Sorry! (cough)

      That's hard to believe, someone actually believes that kind of statement.

      • 5 votes
      #3.18 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:00 PM EST
      GraysonS

      NO, it does NOT reduce tax revenue. The revenue will be the SAME because taxes are not going up OR down.

      Eh. Revenue is less than what the tax code says it should be, because of the temporary cuts being extended. I don't actually care what phrasing you want to use. That has zero effect on the impact of it.

      • 3 votes
      #3.19 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:00 PM EST
      Boudicea

      You're kidding right? LOL

      • 4 votes
      #3.20 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:12 PM EST
      GraysonS

      No. I am stating a simple fact.

      • 3 votes
      #3.21 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:13 PM EST
      Acapulco Kevin

      @evilgenius

      Thanks.

      • 1 vote
      #3.22 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:14 PM EST
      Drizzey

      kjmgirl, you need to remember that liberals have a static view of the economy. no matter what taxes do business will behave the same. that is so wrong and simple minded I don't know where to begin. throughout history it has been shown that when taxes are reduced revenue goes up and the economy does better. increasing taxes only punishes business and halts investment.

      • 3 votes
      #3.23 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 10:59 AM EST
      Don't you people have jobs?

      Then explain why this was NOT happening for the last 10 years? Why is it NOT happening NOW? (the taxes are still "lowered").

      Oh, you can't? Because it didn't work?

      (Or was it something the evil democrats were doing to prevent businesses from prospering during the last 10 years?)

      Maybe you let them "trickle down" your back and tell you it's raining... I'm not falling for it...

      • 2 votes
      #3.24 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:50 AM EST
      werinasadstate

      I can tell you why it didn't work: Bush only used it to help his "good ole boys". Look at outsourcing, etc. Reagan did it right, Clinton reaped the rewards. You have to make tax incentives dependent on DOMESTIC hiring, otherwise it won't work. It is too easy to let greediness take over. And I think the tax liabilities for those who outsource to other countries need to be drastically increased!!!!

      • 2 votes
      #3.25 - Fri Dec 10, 2010 12:24 PM EST
      Reply
      Bad Fish

      Don't look at me i was hoping the President would adopt Ron Paul's bill to abolish the income tax. Finally a tax plan i can afford. I had my hopes the President would have an epiphany. I was going to take the money and buy my kids jeans that fit in the waist and didn't hang below their cracks. See my kids only like hip hop because it justifies their dads hand me down jeans that don't fit them. I told them when they finally grow into them and they are too tight, they will have to listen to alternative rock and get goofy white belts for them.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:50 PM EST
      evilgenius

      Don't look at me i was hoping the President would adopt Ron Paul's bill to abolish the income tax.

      Riiiggghhhttt. That idea would have passed both Houses of Congress. I want what your smoking!

      • 2 votes
      #4.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:51 PM EST
      Bad Fish

      Passes it up one! cccccccccccccccccccough

      • 1 vote
      #4.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:00 PM EST
      Reply
      GraysonS

      So why exactly is everyone so angry with the President?

      The complaint is that it's the constant compromising, before the election, that lead to a situation where compromise on something ridiculous like giving the wealthy more money and harming the economy, is necessary to pass bills that help middle-class Americans, and the economy as a whole. It's the compromising that came before that lead to the current state.

      So yeah, we're a little resentful of him for it. That said--he absolutely made the best choice from the options available, in this situation.

      Who I'm really mad at, though, are the Republicans that are actively trying to harm the American people, and those that are being duped into supporting them. The Republicans are actively causing harm to all US citizens, and our economy, and people are still supporting them. It's insanity.

      • 4 votes
      Reply#5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 12:52 PM EST
      aMiddleAmerican

      My question is for the liberals on the estate tax issue. If I somehow amass 10 million dollars, pay income and capitol gains taxes on it, what right do the Gov't have to take 1.75 million of MY dollars when I die? 1.75 million is 35% of the 5 mil after exemption. Explain to that to me and maybe we can get somewhere.

      • 4 votes
      #6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:05 PM EST
      Acapulco Kevin

      And let's imagine you go to Las Vegas and win $10 million. How much do you get to keep? A windfall is a windfall and it costs.

      • 4 votes
      #6.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:09 PM EST
      fireryone

      You earned it, while who you leave it to didn't. It adds to their income without them earning it.

      • 5 votes
      #6.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:26 PM EST
      Don't you people have jobs?

      Why don't you just start moving "your millions" to an offshore account, so you don't have to worry about the taxes. That's what the other rich folks do...

      It's so awesome that the GOP has poor people who think "one day, when I'm rich..."

      So they can use these "someday" dreamers to keep more money in their own pockets... 97% of Repub voters will never have to worry about the taxes on a $1MIL/yr income or what the inheritance tax on $10MIL is. But the GOP sure wants them to think they will.

      Suckers...

      • 6 votes
      #6.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:35 PM EST
      fedupwithliberals

      You earned it, while who you leave it to didn't. It adds to their income without them earning it.

      And what, exactly, did the government do to "earn it"? If I make $5M, pay my income taxes on it, pay sales tax on everything I buy, pay property tax on my home for 50 years, then leave it to my children, why should the government be able to double-tax what I've already paid taxes on?

      • 8 votes
      #6.4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:23 PM EST
      fireryone

      it is new income to your kids. it isn't that hard to figure out.

      • 2 votes
      #6.5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:26 PM EST
      fedupwithliberals

      it is new income to your kids. it isn't that hard to figure out.

      It's more revenue for the government. It isn't that hard to figure out.

      If it's MY money that I earned, and I want to leave it to MY kids, and I've already paid MY taxes on it, what right does the government have to a penny of it? NONE.

      Again, you question what the kids did to earn that money, but I question what the government did to earn it. Answer...not a darn thing. Why do you feel they deserve my hard earned, already-taxed money more than my children do?

      I've seen situations where the family farm or ancestral home has had to be sold, because the children couldn't afford to pay the inheritance taxes. How on earth is that fair?

      • 6 votes
      #6.6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:37 PM EST
      fireryone

      You paid tax on it. When it changes hands it is subject to tax again. If you want to give it to your kids...do so while your alive...slowly so you can avoid the gift tax too.

      I've seen situations where the family farm or ancestral home has had to be sold, because the children couldn't afford to pay the inheritance taxes. How on earth is that fair?

      it isn't. Maybe you should prepare them for that fact. They need to be able to afford the taxes on the things you will leave to them. It isn't like this is a new or unknown scenario.

      • 2 votes
      #6.7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:51 PM EST
      fedupwithliberals

      it isn't.

      So you're now agreeing that it's not fair? Or is it only unfair in certain situations that you deem unfair?

      Maybe you should prepare them for that fact.

      What? Like tell them, "Sorry, kids...I have all this property that's been in our family for generations, but you'll have to pay $350K if you want to keep it when I'm gone, so start saving now"?

      They need to be able to afford the taxes on the things you will leave to them.

      Again, you've agreed that this isn't fair. Why should my kids have to save up money to pay exhorbitant taxes on what should rightfully be theirs, or risk losing something that's been in the family for years?

      It isn't like this is a new or unknown scenario.

      No, just a completely unfair one that should be done away with.

      • 3 votes
      #6.8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:58 PM EST
      Beau7890

      And what, exactly, did the government do to "earn it"?

      I'll assume you're talking about federal government. Here's some of what the government does to earn your tax dollars:

      • Builds and maintains interstate highways
      • Maintains your delivery system for electricity and water
      • Protects you against invasion from foreign enemies
      • Gives you tax breaks, subsidies and grants to build your business
      • Protects you against unscrupulous food processors who, before governmental regulation, used to routinely sell poisoned food to consumers
      • Forced employers to abide by laws banning child labor, and (before corporatists bought the government) ensured you were compensated for working 16-hour days abnd 7-day weeks.

      You didn't think you were getting all that for free, did you?

      • 3 votes
      #6.9 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:10 PM EST
      aMiddleAmerican

      fiery, thanks for the reply.

      acapulco kevin, an inheritance to me is a gift not a windfall.

      Like i said, i would consider an inheritance a gift not a lottery type windfall, so whats next, taxing Christmas presents

      Don't you people have jobs- you seem like an angry person, i was just trying to see the other sides thinking behind the matter. as to whether there is an estate. no, not at present. as for your thinking the GOP likes poor people who want to be rich. Well, trying to amass wealth to me is better than bashing the people who already have it, and trying to take that wealth.

      • 2 votes
      #6.10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:11 PM EST
      Don't you people have jobs?

      Not angry in the least. But thanks for your observation.

      Where did you see me bash anyone for having money? Please show me.

      I'm just trying to explain why the money is being taxed.

      And your "theoretical millions" IS exactly what the GOP is counting on for your votes to help them add to their ACTUAL millions.

      I'm not trying to "take" anyone's wealth. I just think everyone should pay their fair share. And 14% for billionaires vs. 35% for you and I just isn't fair.

      • 1 vote
      #6.11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:35 PM EST
      fireryone

      fedupwithliberals, I don't think it is fair that those who inherit property from a loved one face loosing it because they can't come up with the tax money. That should be the responsibility of the person leaving the estate. Can't you leave enough cash so that they can afford to pay the estate taxes? Set up a trust fund for the estate for the estate taxes. I've heard that's done all the time..

        #6.12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:50 PM EST
        aMiddleAmerican

        It's so awesome that the GOP has poor people who think "one day, when I'm rich..."

        my apologies, i must have got the bashing part confused with another comment. this is the comment i was referring to you about. its not about theoretical millions for me. its about being able to keep what you earn within reason. i never said anything about billionaires tax rates versus mine, i agree with you. but the estate tax is what i disagree with.

        i am not unlike you in wanting everyone to pay their fair share, maybe its time we considered a modified flat tax system ( i wrote a seed earlier today)

        like i said, i don't consider inheritance "earnings or a windfall" so i guess we can agree to disagree on that. thanks for the conversation though, my apologies again.

        • 3 votes
        #6.13 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:21 PM EST
        Don't you people have jobs?

        Explain to me how this is me bashing people for having money?

        This is me bashing the GOP for feeding people who don't have money a pipe dream (that they'll one day be rich and need these laws) in order to further their own agenda.

          #6.14 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:25 PM EST
          fedupwithliberals

          And what, exactly, did the government do to "earn it"?

          I'll assume you're talking about federal government. Here's some of what the government does to earn your tax dollars:

          You didn't think you were getting all that for free, did you?

          And if I've already paid my taxes on the money I earned, and assuming my children are paying their taxes on the money they earn, then the government is already getting my taxes. Thus, I'm paying for those services and my children are paying for those services. Why should either of us pay twice for those services?

          As aMiddleAmerican stated, the inheritance I leave my children is a gift, not a "windfall". I earned that money; it did not magically appear in my bank account. I paid taxes on it. I chose to leave it to my children because it was my money and I should get to decide what to do with it.

          • 3 votes
          #6.15 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:48 PM EST
          Don't you people have jobs?

          #7.17

            #6.16 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:52 PM EST
            fedupwithliberals

            fedupwithliberals, I don't think it is fair that those who inherit property from a loved one face loosing it because they can't come up with the tax money. That should be the responsibility of the person leaving the estate. Can't you leave enough cash so that they can afford to pay the estate taxes? Set up a trust fund for the estate for the estate taxes. I've heard that's done all the time..

            Sure, if the parents/owners have enough extra cash lying around, that might be an option (although I still don't think they should need to). However, in the case of many families whose homes or farms have been passed down through several generations, they may have "land wealth", but not liquid assets.

            Case in point: my cousins live on a farm that has been in the family over 100 years. They don't make a lot of money, and never have, but the land (about 120 acres) has continued to rise in value. They have faithfully paid their property taxes every year. When the dad dies, my cousins inherit the land, which is now worth a considerable amount. They will most likely lose the property unless they can come up with hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay the inheritance tax.

            So no, in answer to your question, my elder cousin will not have the hundreds of thousands of dollars set aside so his children can keep the family farm they have lived on for five generations. They will probably be forced to sell in order to pay the taxes.

            This isn't an isolated incident; it happens all the time.

            • 2 votes
            #6.17 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:58 PM EST
            Don't you people have jobs?

            Then why wouldn't he just transfer ownership to them while he's still alive?

              #6.18 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:04 PM EST
              fedupwithliberals

              Then why wouldn't he just transfer ownership to them while he's still alive?

              I'm not an expert, but I know there are a lot of legal ins-and-outs with transferring property, depending on where you live. Some states will tax the transfer. In most cases, there is a multi-year time limit (i.e. the transfer must have taken place at least 7 years before the parent dies). There are also limits on the dollar value that can be transferred.

              In the case of my cousins, he deeded each one a parcel of the property when they got married, as a wedding gift. However, I believe the bulk of the property is still in his name.

              Seems kind of strange, though...it's okay to give your kids the property (that they didn't earn) before you die, with few penalties, but if you wait till you die, the government feels entitled to a chunk.

              • 1 vote
              #6.19 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:28 PM EST
              fireryone

              seriously, look into trusts. It might be the way to go. Another option is to sell a parcel of the land to pay the taxes.

                #6.20 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 11:04 PM EST
                Reply
                Boudicea

                aMiddleAmerican - I don't understand WHY liberals cannot understand that any money I make while I am alive - and pay taxes n while I am alive is MINE not theirs. Estate tax is about the most ridiculous tax we've come up with yet! It should be COMPLETELY ELIMINATED, IMO.

                And Kevin, a "Windfall" from gambling is certainly NOTHING like amassing a small fortune over 40 years of working hard

                • 7 votes
                #7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:27 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                Not to YOU.

                But is certainly is to the beneficiary of your estate, since they didn't earn it.

                At least if I make a bunch of money gambling in Vegas, I had something to do with it beside DNA or who I slept with.

                • 5 votes
                #7.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:37 PM EST
                Boudicea

                Big deal, DYPHJ. You think that I have no right to hand you money if I want to? What's next? Not allowed to buy our kids a car without government approval? Can't give our children FOOD without government approval? How in the hell is this any different?

                How about if my kids took care of me for 10 years before I died? Are the "entitled" to my money then?

                WHAT - anything, just name ANYTHING - entitles the GOVERNMENT to the fruits of my labor?

                • 5 votes
                #7.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:48 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                It's not yours anymore when you're dead. There is no more "you".

                If they were taking care of you, then why wouldn't you just pay them?

                There are plenty of ways around the "death tax", especially if you know you're gonna die... (or rather, roughly WHEN you're gonna die).

                (I thought you repubs were against "entitlements")

                also, see #6.3

                • 4 votes
                #7.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:56 PM EST
                fireryone

                Yes, you can pay your kids to take care of you, but they will still have to pay tax on that income. Why are you having a hard time understanding that people have to pay taxes on income whether earned or inherited.

                • 3 votes
                #7.4 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:04 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                I know this, but income tax is lower than windfall tax.

                I'm with you on this one fiery...

                I mean I'd like to inherit a ton of cash, and maybe I'd be mad if I had to give up 35% of it in taxes. (But since this isn't going to happen for me (OR 97% of the rest of the country), I'm not going to let it sway the way I vote)

                • 5 votes
                #7.5 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:07 PM EST
                Boudicea

                fieryone - do you understand the question? I don't think you do. My QUESTION is not about income tax it's about ESTATE tax. WHY does the government have a right to take money on my assets when I have been paying taxes on that money all along? AND my heirs will be paying taxes on any money that grows from that money.

                You know what - it simply comes down to this - WHAT IN THE HELL gives the government the right to ANY of it? It's MINE

                • 7 votes
                #7.6 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:15 PM EST
                greg-709692

                WHY does the government have a right to take money on my assets when I have been paying taxes on that money all along?

                It's a Liberal thing. They don't care that you've already paid taxes on it, they just want the rest!

                With a smile that is.

                • 5 votes
                #7.7 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:18 PM EST
                GraysonS

                Yes--we expect you to pay a debt to the society you benefit off of. Oh no! Responsibility and paying ones dues!? What terrible people we liberals are!

                • 3 votes
                #7.8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:20 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                So, is there an actual "estate" or is this just wishful thinking (the kind the GOP is counting on) that someday you "might" have a huge pile of money to leave to your "heirs"?

                (Take your time and make up something good. But think about who you're really trying to get this money for (Hint: it's not you, since you don't have millions of dollars socked away for your "heirs").)

                • 1 vote
                #7.9 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:21 PM EST
                greg-709692

                Yes--we expect you to pay a debt to the society you benefit off of

                You just can't get a better Liberal response than that !!!

                The Liberal bolsters a conservative argument . LMDAO!

                "It's yours, but, but, we need it, but it is yours, but, what the heck, we'll take it".

                Sound familiar GraysonS?

                • 6 votes
                #7.10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:27 PM EST
                fedupwithliberals

                Yes--we expect you to pay a debt to the society you benefit off of

                The taxes were already paid once on the money in one's estate. It's double taxation to tax the heirs.

                Oh no! Responsibility and paying ones dues!?

                Again, the "dues" have already been paid. Responsibility taken.

                What terrible people we liberals are!

                When you want to double-tax someone just to get more for your social welfare programs to redistribute wealth you believe was unfairly gained, then yes - I think it's terrible.

                • 5 votes
                #7.11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:30 PM EST
                Boudicea

                don'tyou people have jobs - LOL!!!! Typical prog-lib response. Don't have a REASONABLE answer then go on the attack! You people crack me up!

                • 6 votes
                #7.12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:35 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                The taxes were already paid once on the money in one's estate. It's double taxation to tax the heirs.

                No. It's only taxed to the heirs ONCE. when it was taxed previously, it was YOURS. (The money is not an entity, it's just money)

                Again, the "dues" have already been paid. Responsibility taken.

                Again. See above.

                When you want to double-tax someone just to get more for your social welfare programs to redistribute wealth you believe was unfairly gained, then yes - I think it's terrible.

                No one is being "double-taxed". Since you'd be DEAD they aren't taxing you again. An entirely new person(s) is being taxed on money that was not previously theirs.

                • 3 votes
                #7.13 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:36 PM EST
                GraysonS

                Sound familiar GraysonS?

                No.

                The taxes were already paid once on the money in one's estate. It's double taxation to tax the heirs.

                No it isn't. It's taxing the people receiving the money for the money that they receive. That's like saying that taxing me for my earnings is like double taxing, because the company that pays me already paid taxes on the money they earned to pay me with. That's ridiculous.

                • 3 votes
                #7.14 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:47 PM EST
                greg-709692

                Are you really serious in your comment #7.14 GraysonS?

                That's like saying that taxing me for my earnings is like double taxing, because the company that pays me already paid taxes on the money they earned to pay me with.

                Pretty much is. Do you pay taxes on what you make? If you do, that money you received in your paycheck, which had taxes pulled out of it before you got it, and the company paid taxes on the income to pay you with, just got double and possibley triple taxed.

                • 4 votes
                #7.15 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:00 PM EST
                GraysonS

                Are you really serious

                Yes.

                just got double and possibley triple taxed.

                Wrong. The company paid taxes on their income. I pay taxes on my income. Simple.

                • 4 votes
                #7.16 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:07 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                @GraysonS:

                Exactly!

                Everyone is talking about money like it's a traceable entity, when it's just money. The individual is the one being taxed, not "the money".

                For example:

                If I buy a new car, I pay sales tax on that car. When I trade it in on a new car, that car goes on the lot and someone else buys it. Then THEY pay sales tax on the same car again. then they trade it in for another car and someone else buys it again.... (repeat as necessary).

                Every time a new person buys that same car, they get to pay the taxes on it, even though the car already had the taxes paid on it initially by me.

                Seriously.

                • 3 votes
                #7.17 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:16 PM EST
                greg-709692

                Wrong. The company paid taxes on their income. I pay taxes on my income. Simple.

                Sorry I'm Right.

                The company paid taxes on their income first, then they deduct taxes on the money they paid you (which you pay), then you have to file income tax on the money you claim, so, you Actually paid taxes twice where the company paid once, triple taxed, on the same money.

                • 7 votes
                #7.18 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:28 PM EST
                Boudicea

                What don't you people get? How hard is this to understand? The Estate Tax is nothing but a government grab for cash. That's all. There is absolutely no rational justification for it, no reasonable situation where it makes sense at all. It's a typical government response tothe old joke "the only things you HAVE to do is pay taxes and die"

                And by the way, the Estate tax CAN be double taxed. The FEDERAL estate taxes are paid by the heirs, but some STATES also have additional taxes assessed to the estate itself.

                • 5 votes
                #7.19 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:35 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                Sorry I'm Right.

                Um.

                No.

                You're pretty wrong.

                The company paid taxes on their income first,

                Right. Which they should.

                then they deduct taxes on the money they paid you (which you pay),

                Right. Which I should.

                then you have to file income tax on the money you claim, so, you Actually paid taxes twice where the company paid once, triple taxed, on the same money.

                Wrong. When I file my taxes at the end of the year, those taxes that I already paid, ARE ALREADY PAID. I do not pay them again at tax time. I simply record that they were already paid (usually over-paid, so I generally get some of that money back, in the form of a tax refund) with the record of my W-2 (or whichever form you might get from your employer).

                Once again. Why do keep acting like this money is an entity?

                It's not. It's money, not a person.

                The company is an entity; it gets taxed. You are an entity; You get taxed. The money is really inconsequential - except for the amount (which it how the tax is determined).

                (Oh, and I accidentally "liked" your post. I didn't.)

                • 2 votes
                #7.20 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:43 PM EST
                greg-709692

                Sorry, companies have been relegated to entities by Liberals. They are actually run by People. You know, the ones that actually made a name for the "Entity".

                usually over-paid, so I generally get some of that money back, in the form of a tax refund

                Only if more taxes were withheld than should have been. When I was just an employee, I actually had to pay again because the company accountant had not taken enough taxes from my paycheck in the first place.

                Must be nice to have that problem.

                I pay again and again. Damn Rich folks, they're always required to pay more taxes than the others.

                By the way Don't you people have jobs?

                Ever looked at the bills you pay and the receipts from purchases, or anything else you use your money for. You do pay more taxes than is taken out of your paycheck. Your money use is taxed possibly 10 fold or more.

                • 5 votes
                #7.21 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:51 PM EST
                Don't you people have jobs?

                Sorry, companies have been relegated to entities by Liberals. They are actually run by People. You know, the ones that actually made a name for the "Entity".

                OK. Then the "person that owns the company" (read: company) is taxed. Better?

                Only if more taxes were withheld than should have been. When I was just an employee, I actually had to pay again because the company accountant had not taken enough taxes from my paycheck in the first place.

                Must be nice to have that problem.

                YOU TELL THE COMPANY HOW MUCH TO WITHHOLD (that's in the paperwork you fill out when you get hired). If you didn't withhold enough, that's your own fault.

                Ever looked at the bills you pay and the receipts from purchases, or anything else you use your money for. You do pay more taxes than is taken out of your paycheck. Your money use is taxed possibly 10 fold or more.

                That's called sales tax. It's a different tax for a different purpose. It's a local tax, not double taxing, just more taxing. That's how things like roads and schools are paid for.

                I pay again and again. Damn Rich folks, they're always required to pay more taxes than the others.

                They pay more tax because they have more money. Proportionally, "rich folks" pay less in taxes than "normal folks" (except possibly in sales tax, which everyone pays the same amount, but "rich folks" buy more expensive things and more things, therefore: more sales tax).

                • 2 votes
                #7.22 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:02 PM EST
                J. W. Welch

                kjmgirl

                I assume you are referring to the federal estate tax.

                Maybe the repubs should have repealed when they had the chance.

                • 1 vote
                #7.23 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:19 PM EST
                greg-709692

                When people bitch and moan about needing to tax the rich more, they need to sit down and count up all the taxes they pay, whether income, sales , property, use, or whatever tax it is.

                You'll end up throwing up in the john when you see how much money you loose to taxing.

                Proportionally, "rich folks" pay less in taxes than "normal folks"

                35% of a million dollars is way more than 0% of thirty five thousand dollars and the thirty five thousand person gets money back on top of not having to pay anything..

                • 4 votes
                #7.24 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:22 PM EST
                GraysonS

                They pay the same taxes as anyone else, on the income within those brackets. Then the taxes go up. No--it doesn't make me sick. 35% is not high enough. These are the people who benefit most from living in this society. Therefore, these are the people that owe the most to this society. It's quite simple.

                • 2 votes
                #7.25 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:24 PM EST
                greg-709692

                So, You want the one that hires you to pay more taxes, and yet, you want them to pay you more money for your work.

                Am I right on that?

                • 2 votes
                #7.26 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:36 PM EST
                GraysonS

                Yes.

                • 1 vote
                #7.27 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:37 PM EST
                greg-709692

                LMDAO!

                No wonder we keep getting into mess's like this.

                What's your name again. I need to put it on my list of people "Not to Hire".

                • 4 votes
                #7.28 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:42 PM EST
                GraysonS

                The owner of Lego, in Denmark, makes approximately $250,000 a year. The least paid employees, the janitors, make approximately $55,000 a year. Every single employee has comprehensive health insurance, and so does everyone else in the country. Every single student can afford to go to college. Every single citizen can afford to live in a home.

                Your greed does not interest me.

                • 3 votes
                #7.29 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:46 PM EST
                greg-709692

                Any links to your statements I can research.

                • 3 votes
                #7.30 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:53 PM EST
                GraysonS

                Nope. The information is a few years old, and I no longer have a link for it. You can probably find it if you google for a while.

                  #7.31 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:55 PM EST
                  greg-709692

                  Gee, I found that Copenhagen Denmark ranks 14th in the world for highest cost of living city.

                  Copenhagen is currently ranked 14 overall, most expensive place in the world for expatriates to live, out of 282 international locations

                  I'll let you google it though.

                  • 4 votes
                  #7.32 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:03 PM EST
                  GraysonS

                  Yes, it is. So what? Denmark also has one of the 5th highest nominal GDP per capita in the world. Which means, guess what? Even those at the low-end of the pay spectrum can afford to live there.

                  • 3 votes
                  #7.33 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:09 PM EST
                  greg-709692

                  Denmark is confirmed as the OECD’s highest-tax country

                  What a place to live.

                  Pay most of the money you make, back to the government, so they can supply you with the same thing you could have supplied yourself with, from the money you made.

                  What a Hoot.

                  You can google that to if you want.

                  • 6 votes
                  #7.34 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:17 PM EST
                  GraysonS

                  What is your point? The $250k and $55k, by the way, were after taxes. I know that the idea of a free society with social safety-nets, a strong middle class, and virtually no poverty scares the hell out of you people on the right wing, but it doesn't make any sense to those of us that are good people, working to build a better world.

                  • 3 votes
                  #7.35 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:20 PM EST
                  greg-709692

                  Depends on what work you will be doing, most of Denmark's population are very well educated and have a specialist skill of some degree.
                  Denmark is a very small country with just over 5 million people living in the capital Copenhagen, compare that with 70 million living in the UK's capital London.
                  Your chances of finding unskilled work (e.g shop work) is very slim there in Copenhagen and outside of the city almost near to impossible.
                  As Denmark has a high standard of living, with taxes and the price of food, general accommodation being much higher the average rate of pay is around £10 per hour.
                  As Denmark does not have in place a national minimum wage in place it is up to the employers discretion on the rate of pay you will receive.
                  If you do move there although it is a beautiful country be prepared to pay for it...
                  Housing prices are sky-high, skat ...(tax on food and other products)

                  250k and 55k are for high end jobs as the average.

                  Google that too please.

                  • 2 votes
                  #7.36 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:57 PM EST
                  werinasadstate

                  working to build a better world.

                  What Grayson MEANT to say is "take the money from those working hard to get ahead and give it to the poor so they can build a better world for themselves, instead of making them work hard to earn it themselves". He just shortened it up a bit... :-)

                  • 3 votes
                  #7.37 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:05 PM EST
                  greg-709692

                  I was wondering what that "Better World" thing was.

                  No thanks if what you said is it werinasadstate.

                  • 1 vote
                  #7.38 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:09 PM EST
                  GraysonS

                  250k and 55k are for high end jobs as the average

                  You're proving my point, silly boy. £10 per hour is? What's that you say? About double US hourly averages.

                    #7.39 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:16 PM EST
                    greg-709692

                    Umm! No.

                    It needs to be high wages with the tax rate they have.

                    Evens out in the wash, or, Denmark may even be worse on the pay/tax ratio.

                    Did you read my post on comment #7.36?

                    They don't have Unskilled worker jobs apparently.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.40 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:21 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    They don't have Unskilled worker jobs apparently.

                    You're ridiculous. Did you just suggest that no one in Denmark is a waiter?

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.41 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:27 PM EST
                    greg-709692

                    I got that directly from a demark website.

                    It ain't me saying it.

                    I didn't know waitress was an unskilled labor!

                    That 55 to 250 you quote, is not waitress pay I'll bet.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.42 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:31 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    I no longer think you're following this conversation well enough to be worth talking to. You don't appear to be grasping even the things that you're quoting, let alone what I've said.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.43 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:35 PM EST
                    greg-709692

                    I know that the idea of a free society with social safety-nets, a strong middle class, and virtually no poverty scares the hell out of you people on the right wing, but it doesn't make any sense to those of us that are good people, working to build a better world.

                    I understood it quite well.

                    1. You want safety nets if you mess up.

                    2. you want a strong middle class, which is a good thing since that's the calas that gets screwed everytime.

                    3. There is no such thing as no poverty, unless you take or force those with money, including the middle class, to give over what they earned.

                    and:

                    but it doesn't make any sense to those of us that are good people,

                    4. Your very "stewart Smally" driven if you think you are the good person and the others that don't agree with you are the bad people. Pretty small of you to think that way.

                    And by the way, your the one that used Denmark as your choice for good country. One of the most expensive countrie to live in with only 5 million or so Rich People.

                    Apparently you really aren't a nice person, because the poor people could never make it in a society like that.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.44 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:49 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    And by the way, your the one that used Denmark as your choice for good country. One of the most expensive countrie to live in with only 5 million or so Rich People.

                    Again with the not understanding the things you quote.

                    Copenhagen is currently ranked 14 overall, most expensive place in the world for expatriates to live,

                    You know what an expatriate is, right? The reason it's expensive? Because they have a very strong economy. It's cheaper to move to Vietnam than Denmark for the very reasons that Denmark has such a high standard of living and virtually no poverty, because the wealthy are taxed heavily enough that there are no poor people because everyone can be paid a living wage.

                    None of this is complicated. You're refusing to understand on ideological grounds. And no, I have no respect for your position and yes, I think that the people who want to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class are bad people.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.45 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:01 PM EST
                    greg-709692

                    It's redistibution of wealth, plain and simple.

                    We don't want that here. Didn't need it before, don't need it now.

                    Besides, they have little population to deal with compared to America. Their population equals what they say needs Health insurance in this country, and that's out of 300 million or so.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.46 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:11 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    It's redistibution of wealth, plain and simple.

                    Yes.

                    We don't want that here.

                    Not true. You don't.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.47 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:17 PM EST
                    werinasadstate

                    Well Grayson, the people who worked hard to EARN the wealth don't want it either. It is their money, it should be their decision.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.48 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:22 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    Well Grayson, the people who worked hard to EARN the wealth don't want it either. It is their money, it should be their decision.

                    You're talking to one of those people. In fact, most of those who oppose the tax cuts for the wealthy are amongst those people, and the vast majority of Americans opposed them.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.49 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:37 PM EST
                    werinasadstate

                    Can you back that up? I can tell you one thing Grayson, if I am ever among the wealthy and someone thinks they can have some of my money, they had better damn well EARN it because I'm not handing it to them. It doesn't help them become a better human being to hand it to them.

                    • 2 votes
                    #7.50 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:46 PM EST
                    GraysonS

                    Can you back that up?

                    Yes.

                    • 1 vote
                    #7.51 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 7:51 PM EST
                    Boudicea

                    Just a question for anyone out there who wants to answer - what's the difference between making $55000 in denmark which has double the cost of living of America and making $27500 in a country that has half the cost of living? Duh.......

                    • 3 votes
                    #7.52 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 9:56 AM EST
                    Don't you people have jobs?

                    Because in Denmark, college & medical is FREE. What's THAT worth?

                      #7.53 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 11:28 AM EST
                      Boudicea

                      Not worth anything if you dont' go to college and don't buy medical insurance. (and many, many, many young people CHOOSE not to purchase medical insurance)

                      • 4 votes
                      #7.54 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 11:48 AM EST
                      fireryone

                      People choose not to purchase medical insurance because it expensive, not because they don't want coverage.

                        #7.55 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 12:06 PM EST
                        Boudicea

                        wrong. YOUNG people can and do chose not to purchase health insurance because they feel they will not need it. We all know that young people are indestructible. MOST young persons would rather make a $500 monthly car payment than a $125 monthly health insurance payment

                        • 3 votes
                        #7.56 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 12:20 PM EST
                        Don't you people have jobs?

                        Well, that's a well thought out and valid argument.

                        (hardly)

                          #7.57 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:15 PM EST
                          Boudicea

                          DYPHJ - yeah, well since I've been in the insurance business for the last 30 years I'll bet I've seen a LITTLE BIT more of that than you!

                          • 3 votes
                          #7.58 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:21 PM EST
                          Don't you people have jobs?

                          That makes you an expert on what "most young persons" do and why? Fantastic.

                          I know when I was younger, I wanted to have health insurance, but it was too expensive. (I wanted to have a place to live and groceries MORE...). And that was years ago. NOW it's a strain even for adults with decent paychecks to afford...

                          • 2 votes
                          #7.59 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:23 PM EST
                          werinasadstate

                          Here is the REAL point regarding purchasing insurance and the HCB: this is the United States of America, it is against our constitutional right to FORCE us to purchase any product and fine us if we do not. It doesn't matter what your age, or anything else is, if you don't want to purchase health insurance and choose to pay for your medical care out of pocket, that is NO ONE'S BUSINESS!!! Period!! I DO NOT WANT HEALTH INSURANCE! When I did pay health insurance, my insurance company made a hefty profit off of me - EVEN WHEN I HAD TO HAVE MAJOR NEUROLOGICAL (spinal) SURGERY! Insurance companies are con artists and criminals and I am not going to give them one dime of my money. I also am NOT going to pay the fine for not having insurance and if they try to force me to, I will take it to the Supreme Court.

                          • 3 votes
                          #7.60 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:32 PM EST
                          Don't you people have jobs?

                          It is against MY Constitutional rights to have to pay 30% more every single year in insurance premiums to cover the doorknobs like yourself who decide not to get insurance and then get jacked up in the hospital and have to get fixed up on the backs of people who DO HAVE insurance.

                          So, yes... It IS MY BUSINESS if you don't have insurance. Because, chances are, if something big happens to you, you don't have deep enough pockets to cover the medical bill, so I will be paying for it.

                          • 1 vote
                          #7.61 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:42 PM EST
                          Beau7890

                          I also am NOT going to pay the fine for not having insurance and if they try to force me to, I will take it to the Supreme Court.

                          Good luck with that. So far, federal courts have not been very supportive of people arguing against the Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act on constitutional grounds.

                          • 3 votes
                          #7.62 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 2:43 PM EST
                          Boudicea

                          Don't you people have jobs - ok after 3 days around you I've discovered that you're way too high maintenance for me. I can't be bothered with your foolishness any more. You use no logic and your comments often make no sense. Consider yourself on "ignore".

                          • 1 vote
                          #7.63 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:06 PM EST
                          Chief CRD

                          Because in Denmark, college & medical is FREE. What's THAT worth?

                          It's not "free," it's paid for by some of the highest taxes in the world. How would you like to have half of your paycheck taken away from you to help pay for your neighbor's rotten kids to go to college (which in this country equates to high school in other countries) AND pay for the diabetic meds for the guy upstairs that hasn't worked in 6 months because he's so obese (that's why he's diabetic and hasn't worked). That's the way it will work in this country if Pelosi, Obama and company get what they want.

                          • 2 votes
                          #7.64 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:15 PM EST
                          Don't you people have jobs?

                          Awwww... That hurts my feelings.

                          Get called out... so you "take your ball and go home".

                          Fine with me.

                          Bye.

                          • 2 votes
                          #7.65 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:18 PM EST
                          werinasadstate

                          DYPHJ doesn't know how to comprehend what he/she is reading either. It is not your business if I choose to pay my medical care out of pocket. What in the hell makes you think you are going to have to pay it? I'm not on welfare, I have a job, I'm pretty sure if I rack up a big hospital bill I will have to pay it myself. Besides, I worked in hospitals for years and I know they will negotiate with individuals just as they do with insurance companies. I wonder, does that argument you use actually convince anyone with brains?

                          Beau - I really don't care if I win or lose, I'm not paying it. I will go to jail first. I am an independent contractor so they can't garnish any wages, and I have no problem handling all of my transactions in cash, so no bank accounts are needed. It is not right to force anyone to purchase a product.

                          • 4 votes
                          #7.66 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:19 PM EST
                          Don't you people have jobs?

                          I wonder, does that argument you use actually convince anyone with brains?

                          If you meet anyone like that, send 'em my way.

                            #7.67 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 3:31 PM EST
                            Reply
                            Vlad's dog

                            Hey Kevin, I mat be a newt right now but I'll get better. :)

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#8 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:31 PM EST
                            Bad Fish

                            All our arguments center around taxes. Everyone points to someone else to bare the bulk of the tax burden. The largest segment of the population always looses because their isn't enough tax revenue at the top or bottom. Eliminate 45% of the annual budget. Return our military to U.S, Soil, closing all foreign bases. Reduce defense spending by 75%. Eliminate corporate welfare. Increase tariffs and duties and excise taxes. Abolish the Income Tax and heal America.

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#9 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:53 PM EST
                            The Gunshark

                            In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed.

                            Um, Mister President? This is a horrible analogy.

                            If negotiating with the hostage-takers doesn't work and the hostages are harmed, you storm the damn building with a Special Operations Team and take them down.

                            • 2 votes
                            Reply#10 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 1:56 PM EST
                            fireryone

                            Sounds good to me. LOL /Just kidding.

                              #10.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:07 PM EST
                              Boudicea

                              Of course, this is the same President who called half of Americans our "enemies". What a jerk!

                              • 5 votes
                              #10.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 2:16 PM EST
                              fireryone

                              hmmm...where have we heard that before?

                              • 1 vote
                              #10.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:16 PM EST
                              Reply
                              fuzzy mathematician

                              Too many lefties aren't viewing this with a sense of proportion. The tax cuts for the wealthy are only about 1/5 of the total deal, and the rest of it will be reasonably stimulative to the economy. This wasn't a time to create hardship for the middle class and unemployed. The left is too often just an equally wing-nutty mirror image of the right, viewing everything in terms of some vast conspiracy.

                              • 1 vote
                              Reply#11 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 3:58 PM EST
                              Don't you people have jobs?

                              True. It's only about 20% of the whole. But there was no need to cave on this. They could have gotten it through without the cuts for the rich...

                              It would have sucked for the unemployed for a month or so, however. Because I guarantee that the GOP would have let them flap in the wind as long as it took.

                              As for the "tax increase" for the middle class for a few weeks, that could have been put into effect retroactive to Jan 1, so in effect it would have been no increase.

                              • 1 vote
                              #11.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:07 PM EST
                              fuzzy mathematician

                              I think the President weighed the alternatives on this and decided to do the sensible thing.
                              I don't believe it would have gotten through, the whole rest of the lame duck session would have been wasted, then it would have faced a Republican House and a stronger Senate opposition, which would not have given in and possibly would have forced a plan that was even weaker for the middle class.

                              The Congressional leadership made the big mistake by not making this a priority before the election.

                              Of course the biggest mistake of all was made by millions who failed to vote.

                              • 1 vote
                              #11.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:20 PM EST
                              J. W. Welch

                              fuzzy math

                              And the job creators, as McConnell fondly refers to them, have enjoyed the tax cuts for years now without any meaningful job creation.

                              While I have benefited from them as far as having more monthly income to spend/save, all the job creators have realized is surplus savings/income which they don't need to spend to live on like millions of us middle class peons.

                              Since a deal has now been made extending the cuts to one and all it remains to be seen whether McConnell has been blowing smoke about job creation and tax breaks for the job creators. They didn't work yesterday or today. Let's see about tomorrow.

                              The question now is "Where are the jobs, Mitch?"

                              • 1 vote
                              #11.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:45 PM EST
                              Reply
                              Edward-453134

                              With the Bush tax cuts, did anyone see their insurance premiums going up, and the take home pay, go down and not up?

                                Reply#12 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:26 PM EST
                                Don't you people have jobs?

                                My Insurance premiums have been increasing, steadily for as long as I can remember.

                                So, YES.

                                Which, in-turn, makes my take home pay go down, not up. (since the insurance rates always go up far more than your standard cost-of-living raise)

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.1 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:32 PM EST
                                slr76-1299710

                                Every year when we get our annual raises, we joke about how we better enjoy that few months at that extra bit of pay, because as soon as our new benefits packages come around that raise goes right towards health care costs (usually with a little extra beyond that taken too!) We can't keep up much less get ahead at that rate.

                                • 2 votes
                                #12.2 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:21 PM EST
                                Don't you people have jobs?

                                Right?

                                But I thought the rising health insurance rates were caused by Obamacare? (/sarcasm)

                                • 2 votes
                                #12.3 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:23 PM EST
                                fireryone

                                It amazes me also, that the rate increases are attributed to HCR. My company has been seeing 15-20 percent increases annually since I started working for them...long before the bill passed.

                                • 1 vote
                                #12.4 - Thu Dec 9, 2010 1:31 AM EST
                                Reply
                                werinasadstate

                                The only fair tax would be a Federal Income tax. That way people pay what they can afford! It is NOT fair that someone who busts their ass to "make it to the top" has to pay up to 50 times more percentage of their earnings in tax than someone who is content to "stay where they are". So, libs advocate penalizing success, basically. And the Earned Income Credit is a JOKE!!! Where does that money come from??? Those who have busted their ass to make something of themselves, that's where. So they work hard to make it, and have to hand over some of their hard earned money to those who can't. And you know what - that is not fair to ANYONE! Where is the incentive to make something of yourself? Why should someone want to work hard if they are going to have to hand over their money to someone who doesn't have the ambition to better themselves?? At the same time, if you are a corporation/company that earns a lot of money, how can you pay your employees as little as you can get away with? Do you think you would be a successful company without your employees? And don't you know that employees with better pay and better benefits are far more happy and PRODUCTIVE, which leads to a positive work environment and MORE PROFITS? BOTH SIDES have alot to learn!

                                And don't even get me started on Estate Taxes!! It is CRIMINAL to tax money and property that has already been taxed. And for those of you who are using the RIDICULOUS argument that it is "earnings" for the person who inherited it, let me ask you this: If you are an employer, you don't have to pay taxes on the money (earnings) money you pay your employee, do you? No, that would be double taxing!

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#13 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 4:42 PM EST
                                Bob-970091

                                "And what about all of the people losing unemployment insurance before Christmas?

                                Do you honestly believe the GOPBaggers would've let that happen?"

                                Yes, they are fundamentally opposed to ui. Now is 99 weeks too long, not sure, but does it matter..no, because 27 weeks would not be possible by kicking the can down the road. If lefties want to whine because they did not get revenge by raising tax rates, have a blast, but blame Reid and Pelosi, who would NOT bring votes up throughout 2010. That changed momentum, and 11/2 sealed the deal. I did not vote for BO, but yes, this week, I feel sorry for him, since the blame he is reserving is deserved by Pelosi and Reid..totally. This week, for once, his actions are courageous; I suspect BC would have thrown 2 million under the bus to gain 4 more points in personal poll data.

                                  Reply#14 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 5:56 PM EST
                                  Bob-970091

                                  "They could have gotten it through without the cuts for the rich..."

                                  With 64 fewer House seats and a 52-48 Senate, oh please!! What are you smoking? By late-Jan, the deal with tax cuts for all for 5 years would likely be a willingness to extend ui through Tier 1 or 2. With no FICA stimulus, no enhanced EITC, etc.

                                  One does not gain influence by waiting until they have less power.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  Reply#15 - Wed Dec 8, 2010 6:01 PM EST
                                  Leave a Comment:
                                  You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                  You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                  (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                  Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                  As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                  FUN STUFF:
                                  • Leaderboard |
                                  • E-Mail Alerts |
                                  • Top of the Vine |
                                  • Newsvine Live |
                                  • Newsvine Archives |
                                  • The Greenhouse |
                                  COMPANY STUFF:
                                  • Code of Honor |
                                  • Company Info |
                                  • Contact Us |
                                  • Jobs |
                                  • User Agreement |
                                  • Privacy Policy |
                                  • About our ads
                                  LEGAL STUFF:
                                  • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                  • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                  • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com