USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
Yeah, Colbert is taking two weeks off. Believe me, I tried to get tickets for a Thursday taping when I was in NYC last weekend, and while I won't begrudge a guy taking PTO at the same time I did, I was bummed when I found out a week or two beforehand that he would be off.
Yeah, Colbert is taking two weeks off. Believe me, I tried to get tickets for a Thursday taping when I was in NYC last weekend, and while I won't begrudge a guy taking PTO at the same time I did, I was bummed when I found out a week or two beforehand that he would be off.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
That would have been a bit more honest had he also included how much the top 1% earn relative to the rest. I'm willing to bet it's significantly more than 38% of the wealth.
The second paragraph has always been a tragedy of American politics.
That would have been a bit more honest had he also included how much the top 1% earn relative to the rest. I'm willing to bet it's significantly more than 38% of the wealth.
The second paragraph has always been a tragedy of American politics.
unofan
Well-known member
Note it is also limited to income taxes, thereby excluding the payroll taxes, and things like sales and property taxes at the state and local levels.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
Oh, those poor poor 1%'ers, having to pay so much taxes. Hey joe, if you feel so bad for them, hand over your paycheck to Donald Trump and his pals if you'd like. Just don't try to make the rest of us.
Good article here about how Trump represents his party, and they're not going away even if he gets crushed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/why-trumpism-will-outlast-donald-trump-214166
Oh, those poor poor 1%'ers, having to pay so much taxes. Hey joe, if you feel so bad for them, hand over your paycheck to Donald Trump and his pals if you'd like. Just don't try to make the rest of us.
Good article here about how Trump represents his party, and they're not going away even if he gets crushed.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/why-trumpism-will-outlast-donald-trump-214166
Your candidate is bought and paid for by those 1%ers, too.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
Didn't you say that about Obama too and then he turned around and raised taxes on the 1%?
Looks like you're getting two minutes in the penalty box for concern trolling joe.
Didn't you say that about Obama too and then he turned around and raised taxes on the 1%?
Looks like you're getting two minutes in the penalty box for concern trolling joe.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
Uh huh...is that the Pat already claiming the election is rigged? The one who is in the pocket of tDon?
I notice you left out the part where he tried to pretend he is not a xenophobe and how he seems to imply that diversity is the cause of the racial issues we have today...
Uh huh...is that the Pat already claiming the election is rigged? The one who is in the pocket of tDon?
I notice you left out the part where he tried to pretend he is not a xenophobe and how he seems to imply that diversity is the cause of the racial issues we have today...
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
And?
Trump's stated policy is to reduce taxes, mostly up at the high end- which should have the effect of broadening the gap. (trying to bring back trickle down economics, which we know doesn't actually work thanks to the high savings rates at the top)
Clinton's stated policy is to reduce the breaks that the top get (and I hope she does it to the rule her husband put in) and use that extra money to build infrastructure. Which does 2 things- it gets us some better infrastructure AND gets some more middle money moving through the economy. Seems like nobody recognizes that a lot of government spending just cycles money through the economy- and given that we are a consumer based economy- that is not a bad thing.
Anyway, even if Hillary is "bought" by the 1%, they are the 1%'ers that recognize what is going on.
And?
Trump's stated policy is to reduce taxes, mostly up at the high end- which should have the effect of broadening the gap. (trying to bring back trickle down economics, which we know doesn't actually work thanks to the high savings rates at the top)
Clinton's stated policy is to reduce the breaks that the top get (and I hope she does it to the rule her husband put in) and use that extra money to build infrastructure. Which does 2 things- it gets us some better infrastructure AND gets some more middle money moving through the economy. Seems like nobody recognizes that a lot of government spending just cycles money through the economy- and given that we are a consumer based economy- that is not a bad thing.
Anyway, even if Hillary is "bought" by the 1%, they are the 1%'ers that recognize what is going on.
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
(the break I don't like is the capitol gains tax- where you get a tax break on good gambling of the value of something. Income is income- should all be the same. If they want to benefit people in direct investments to companies- fine- do it JUST for people buying into IPO's, and for home owners, JUST the primary residence.)
(the break I don't like is the capitol gains tax- where you get a tax break on good gambling of the value of something. Income is income- should all be the same. If they want to benefit people in direct investments to companies- fine- do it JUST for people buying into IPO's, and for home owners, JUST the primary residence.)
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
I'm good with this. You have to filter Clinton's presidency through the times we lived in. During peace and prosperity, you should reduce the debt which is what he did, and make investments which he also did, but with the opposition party controlling Congress you have to throw them a bone and I suspect that's what the capital gains cut was about.
I'm good with this. You have to filter Clinton's presidency through the times we lived in. During peace and prosperity, you should reduce the debt which is what he did, and make investments which he also did, but with the opposition party controlling Congress you have to throw them a bone and I suspect that's what the capital gains cut was about.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
The problem with that was the side effect. I think we are now more obsessed with Wall Street than we ever have, and it's not healthy. And with the long term gains that are taxed at 1/2 rate, it also leads to suspect ways to invest, as well as suspect ways to see the rules- a lot of which happened for the economic meltdown in '08. Pretty much all parts can be traced to lower taxed income as a selling point for your money.
That one needs to go away, even if we benefit by it.
The problem with that was the side effect. I think we are now more obsessed with Wall Street than we ever have, and it's not healthy. And with the long term gains that are taxed at 1/2 rate, it also leads to suspect ways to invest, as well as suspect ways to see the rules- a lot of which happened for the economic meltdown in '08. Pretty much all parts can be traced to lower taxed income as a selling point for your money.
That one needs to go away, even if we benefit by it.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
It's almost comical how much knucks like Joe care about the poor 1%'ers while at the same time not giving a **** about the less fortunate (especially if they are brown and don't speak English all that well).
It's almost comical how much knucks like Joe care about the poor 1%'ers while at the same time not giving a **** about the less fortunate (especially if they are brown and don't speak English all that well).
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
Depending on method or source you prefer it is in the neighborhood of 16-20%. Most likely about 18%, so no.
Can't agree with you here. As an example a roughly $250k earning CA resident would pay 33% plus 10.3% on long term returns in an environment where the real world average tax of this sort is around 18%. Investing has risk so there needs to be reward or Mr./Ms. California might just as well stuff the mattress with $100 bills. Setting aside the double taxation argument, raising long term capital gains rates in this manner, despite the notion that we'd all be really sticking it to the rich, would very likely have an extremely negative economic result. Since capital formation is critical to improved productivity and, therefore, to GDP and real-wage growth it is important to find a proper balancing point in which investment is still encouraged by real return incentives. (And it would hardly seem fair to me to advantage IPO's for capital investment over existing concerns that they are often entering the market to compete against.)
I think that unless we're prepared to just have the state seize assets of the rich above a certain valuation, the fact of the matter is that job growth, GDP growth, and even wage growth is going to come at the expense of some rich people getting even richer.
Depending on method or source you prefer it is in the neighborhood of 16-20%. Most likely about 18%, so no.
Can't agree with you here. As an example a roughly $250k earning CA resident would pay 33% plus 10.3% on long term returns in an environment where the real world average tax of this sort is around 18%. Investing has risk so there needs to be reward or Mr./Ms. California might just as well stuff the mattress with $100 bills. Setting aside the double taxation argument, raising long term capital gains rates in this manner, despite the notion that we'd all be really sticking it to the rich, would very likely have an extremely negative economic result. Since capital formation is critical to improved productivity and, therefore, to GDP and real-wage growth it is important to find a proper balancing point in which investment is still encouraged by real return incentives. (And it would hardly seem fair to me to advantage IPO's for capital investment over existing concerns that they are often entering the market to compete against.)
I think that unless we're prepared to just have the state seize assets of the rich above a certain valuation, the fact of the matter is that job growth, GDP growth, and even wage growth is going to come at the expense of some rich people getting even richer.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
You need to do a better job explaining why investments income gets some kind of advantage over regular income. It should not be treated any differently.
So if $250k family pays 18% on all of their income (thanks to other deductions), it will stay that way earning $10k on capitol gains. Nothing is going to change.
But it also means that if said family earns that money actually working and contributing to a companies bottom line, they would end up paying the same tax for someone earning $250k on that company's stock value change. Right now, one is at it's nominal tax bracket, the other is at 15%. It's kind of stupid that a CEO has to pay full tax rates on his $10M earned when a stock trader can pay a fraction of that earning more money.
I don't see "risk" as a reason to get a tax rate reduction. I risk my money betting on blackjack, too.
Again, I'm pointing out that I agree that there is a difference in an IPO purchase of a stock vs. trading. Yes, raising capitol is a big deal. But almost all stock sales are trades, and the company gets no money out of stock trades. So that's out.
Double taxation? If you gain $100k in buying stock- where is the double tax in that $100k of gain?
And big deal "sticking it to the rich"- all income should be equal. Nothing needs any tax break. Income is income, no matter where you get it.
This isn't seizing assets, this is taxing income evenly. Don't bring up that BS argument, also. Or the one that people pretend that they will take their money someplace else- there is no other market in the world that you can make this kind of money in stocks.
You need to do a better job explaining why investments income gets some kind of advantage over regular income. It should not be treated any differently.
So if $250k family pays 18% on all of their income (thanks to other deductions), it will stay that way earning $10k on capitol gains. Nothing is going to change.
But it also means that if said family earns that money actually working and contributing to a companies bottom line, they would end up paying the same tax for someone earning $250k on that company's stock value change. Right now, one is at it's nominal tax bracket, the other is at 15%. It's kind of stupid that a CEO has to pay full tax rates on his $10M earned when a stock trader can pay a fraction of that earning more money.
I don't see "risk" as a reason to get a tax rate reduction. I risk my money betting on blackjack, too.
Again, I'm pointing out that I agree that there is a difference in an IPO purchase of a stock vs. trading. Yes, raising capitol is a big deal. But almost all stock sales are trades, and the company gets no money out of stock trades. So that's out.
Double taxation? If you gain $100k in buying stock- where is the double tax in that $100k of gain?
And big deal "sticking it to the rich"- all income should be equal. Nothing needs any tax break. Income is income, no matter where you get it.
This isn't seizing assets, this is taxing income evenly. Don't bring up that BS argument, also. Or the one that people pretend that they will take their money someplace else- there is no other market in the world that you can make this kind of money in stocks.
WeAreNDHockey
\../ \../
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!
There are standard things that happen every election. Want to bet once the meeting alleged to be scheduled between Donald Trump and some national intelligence personnel actually takes place, Trump is going to have his own personal spin on it? Something along the lines of how "the intelligence community knows I am actually running far ahead of Hillary and the polls are all wrong, so THAT'S why they took this meeting with me." He will make it look like it was his idea, its totally unprecedented, and the meeting itself was proof that he already knew more about whatever threats this country faces --real or imagined only in his heads and then the heads of his dumbest supporters -- than the "experts" and his minions will eat it all up. Never mind that this is SOP for any candidate of the two major parties once the conventions are done. But the troglodyte, mouth breathing idiots who are still supporting him despite all of the evidence he is treating them like the rubes they are will swear he is telling nothing but the truth.
I'm reminded that at the beginning of both Clinton's and Obama's second terms the conservative talking heads on TV, radio and the internet gleefully pointed out how many members of their cabinets and other high ranking aids were leaving the administration. Made it sound like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Never mind that it is often standard fare for these people to move on as the president's priorities often change from the first term to the second and new vision is both needed and expected, the fools who listen dutifully to Beck or Limbaugh took it as gospel and proof that their presidencies were corrupt, failing or both. They eat this slop up like starving pigs at a trough.
There are standard things that happen every election. Want to bet once the meeting alleged to be scheduled between Donald Trump and some national intelligence personnel actually takes place, Trump is going to have his own personal spin on it? Something along the lines of how "the intelligence community knows I am actually running far ahead of Hillary and the polls are all wrong, so THAT'S why they took this meeting with me." He will make it look like it was his idea, its totally unprecedented, and the meeting itself was proof that he already knew more about whatever threats this country faces --real or imagined only in his heads and then the heads of his dumbest supporters -- than the "experts" and his minions will eat it all up. Never mind that this is SOP for any candidate of the two major parties once the conventions are done. But the troglodyte, mouth breathing idiots who are still supporting him despite all of the evidence he is treating them like the rubes they are will swear he is telling nothing but the truth.
I'm reminded that at the beginning of both Clinton's and Obama's second terms the conservative talking heads on TV, radio and the internet gleefully pointed out how many members of their cabinets and other high ranking aids were leaving the administration. Made it sound like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Never mind that it is often standard fare for these people to move on as the president's priorities often change from the first term to the second and new vision is both needed and expected, the fools who listen dutifully to Beck or Limbaugh took it as gospel and proof that their presidencies were corrupt, failing or both. They eat this slop up like starving pigs at a trough.
- Status