OK. If I ask you to judge me based on what I am actually saying and what I actually stand for, I'm trailer trash. Got it.

Once again. I did not sincerely insult John R. My point, and it is valid, is that Obama is calling entrepeneurs like John R selfish. Obama insults these entrepeneurs almost every single time he opens his mouth, because he explicitly states that entrepeneurs (1) are not responsible for their own success, and (2) don't want to pay their fair share to help those less fortunate.

I say kudos to John for creating this site. I hope it keeps growing and he sells it for a zillion dollars, I truly hope that. I, unlike Obama, recognize that I'm here learning about fishing, thanks to his hard work. John deserves teh credit for this site, not the feds.

Likwid, you could not have missed my point any more thoroughly, and you're probably the only one here who thinks I was sincerely calling John R selfish.

I also hope you note that you insulted me personally, and that I did not respond in kind.

Pigs with JATOs strapped to them. Pigs with JATOs.

WHAT IS THAT STRANGE FLOPPING NOISE I HEAR?


ps: how's yer pushy?

"Jim, I agree that you didn't say that."

I figured you knew what I meant...

"but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here"

In my opinion, yes he did...he said this...

"Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

I took that as Zimmy specualting that half the country (the conservative half) thinks Obama hates America and wasn't born here...

Give it a rest Gents.....Likwid, stop poking the dragon Please

More like a skink.

Likwid, here is what I actually wrote, bold font added here for emphasis...

"JohnR, aren't you relieved to hear Obama declare that it wasn't YOU that built this great website? Nope, it wasn't YOU who toiled away with building this. Rather, it was the FCC! Hooray for the government!! John, therefore you OWE it to the rest of us to give even more of your revenue to the feds. Otherwise, you are a selfish, greedy, bastard."

Likwid, I was demonsrtating how crazy Obama's notion is, that it wasn't John who built this site, but "someone else". That's clearly what Obama believes, not what I believe.

I don't know how else to say it, sorry, I'm not a professional writer.

Our system created an environment where folks like John can create proprietary websites. Without that environment, John could not have built this site. But it was John, not "someone else", who created this site. I can't fathom how Obama could say otherwise, but he did. And I have no doubt he believes it.

I still cannot believe the words Obama used, and it may well haunt him in November. This could be his "Joe-the-plumber" moment for 2012. I hope that's what happens...

Since this is yet another Political Forum thread that has turned into poo poo... I'm just going to post semi-relevant pictures that amuse me.

http://i.imgur.com/wP6N3.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/kN986.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8jwqg.jpg

And my favorite...



http://i.imgur.com/Q7w8J.jpg

That is classic :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That last one made me laugh JD

Just as Spence, above the fray of us "funny" folk, instructed us to read the full transcript, but disdained from helping us understand Obama's true message with examples from the speech, you also dismiss us (from a better place than we occupy?) also without explaining what Obama was getting at.

I DO understant you were being sarcastic (nice). And, as I responded to Spence, with no return reply on his part, I DID read the whole transcript and found that other than the "sound bites" being discussed here, the rest of it was the usual platitudes, lies, distortions, contradictions, and promises one would expect from a politician running for office. So, in response to your "why would anyone want to do that?" I read it again, with the same conclusion.

Some examples:

His opposition's "theory is the economy grows from the top down . . . if the wealthy investors are doing well, then everybody does well." No, not just wealthy investors, most of us have some investments of some kind. If investments are doing well, it is a sign that the ecomony is doing well. Some investments, including those by wealthy investors may not do well . The economy may do well anyway. Investments, as a whole, do well when that in which is invested does well. But the economy is symbiotic. It requires more than wealthy investors, but it does well with them and with the investment of others. "Trickle down" requires a down as well as an up from which it trickles, and that obviously implies the necessity of the down, not an elimination of it. If you want to make a class warfare argument, then you separate all the elements and point to the element of your choice (that which gives you the most votes), and "fight" for it.

He goes on "So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that's somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden." More class warfare rhetoric--"gutting" various programs and projects some of which are not doing what their supposed to do, or not performing well, or are not really Federal Government responsibilities, and would be done better by some States and would actually empower the middle class in those States by giving it the power to accept or reject or improve those programs.

He goes on: "they believe if you tear down all the regulations that we've put in place . . . that somehow the economy is going to do much better. So those are their two theories. They've got tax cuts for the high end, and they've got rollback regulation. . .Now here is the problem. You may have guessed--we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work." More warfare rhetoric--"tear down all the regulations"--who wants to "tear" them ALL down. Actually tax cuts have historically worked to improve the economy not only in the past ten years but the last 30, and 50, and more. And many regulations were actually added, including even in the "past ten years." I don't point this out to endorse Bush, merely to point out the gibberish that we who read the transcript are supposed to discover to be the true message of Obama.

He says: "I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out." More class warfare. Choose a section to divide, then promise to fight for it, not for everybody.

Then he changes his mind: "I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up." Well, maybe he considers the middle class the bottom.

He says: "I believe when working people are doing well, the country does well." DUH! And none work harder than business owners.

He says: "I believe in fighting for the middle class because if they're prospering, all of us will prosper." Good old divide and conquer class warfare.

He goes on about taxes going up on 98% if Congress doesn't act and calls the extension of Bush taxes a cut when it is merely a status quo. But he doesn't want the status quo for the top 2%, so for them he wants a tax hike. So, net, his opposition wants to maintain the status quo, no tax hikes, but, net, he wants a tax hike. More class warfare.

Then he goes on about the Repubs trying for the 33d time to repeal the HCB which he says the SCOTUS declared constitutional. But it did so as a tax. So he is massively raising taxes on the middle class that he fights for. And he goes on and on about what he's done for us which, including the maintence of tax cuts for 98%, being what people need to succeed--government action, tax those who do well so that they don't do too well and don't tax the rest so they presumably will do well--and it all depends on government not the individual.

So not taxing what he considers the engine of economy, the middle class, is an admission that taxing our economic engine is anti-growth. It's just that he views the train of cars as the engine, and the engine as an obstruction to the train rather than what pulls it.

To the progressives/liberals here -

Let's consider the successful entrepeneur Obama is targeting with his rhetoric and proposed tax hikes. He's talking about folks whose taxable income is above $250,000. To get taxable income over $250,00, let's say your gross income is $300,000.

Here is my question to you. How much of that guy's income do you think it's reasonable for the government (federal, state, local) to confiscate in taxes? What percentage shuold that guy be able to keep?

I keep hearing liberals say "well, tax rates on the rich were more than 70% when Eisenhower was president, and the wealthy Americans got by OK...". Obama himself has used this argument. It's completely dishonest for 2 reasons. First, there were many loopholes and deductions then that don't exist today (for example, back in the day, credit card interest was a deduction), so that virtually no one payed that top rate. Second, other taxes exist today that didn't exist then. In CT, there was no state income tax then. Today, there is an average income tax of 5.5%. So we need to consider total tax burden.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the public has a right to more than 40% of what anyone else makes.

You can include Alternative Minimum Tax to the list.....aka extortion

Governments cute little way to force you to work a little less, make less money and be less productive………

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

I feel your pain. How do you think I feel as a business owner when you include all the other taxes I'm required to pay in addition to income tax? Touched almost 50% when I did all the math out a couple years ago.

I'll pay in 4 states this year. Not all reciprocial

Most states did not have an income tax before. Many states did not have sales taxes. Most towns did not have car taxes before (here in CT, I pay my town $900 a year in "car tax" for my 3 year old minivan and my 6 year old Accord).

We need to look at TOTAL tax rates. That's what really matters. I presume you chose not to look at total tax rates, because doing so would refute the point you were making...

Zimmy, Johnny D says his rate touched 50% recently. How does that fit into your data?

I am a Business owner in Mass. 10 years as a Commercial Drywall Company.
It's not glamorous but it's what I do.
Every job I get is a competive bid against a number of similar firms. Then further negotiated. I then proceed to build say Walmart or say maybe an offfice building. I have to purchase the material and provide the manpower to complete the job profitably. Oh yeah I finance the job also......at best in 90 days I'll start to see a monthly payment on the job. Most smaller jobs are completed out of pocket. the joke is every morning I wake up and say" I'm all in". the risks are high. After I make this gross profit of 17-20% I pay my matching FICA of 7.5%on my payroll, though I think I get a 1.5% break(bush tax cut). then 7% workers comp then 3% liability and don't forgot 12% uneployment on the first 14k per man...I have 30. I have 3 trucks and office estimator and secratary. My monthly gas bill is $1600. When it is all said and done we strive for 8-10% net profit. Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.
in the end I get 5% of the money or 1/2 the profit......It's sad but true.
Personally I would think employing 30 men would be enough of a contribution.
I pay about a 100k in just matching FICA yearly...that's more than most.
now if I do well in a given year......They would llike me to "contribute" more.
As the risk taker/owner I should be encouraged not discouraged or worse made to be the greedy owner.
The real problem as I see it the american worker is lazy and unproductive.
They think they are great...why because you showed up.....ya right.....
I always say you have no problem sticking your hand out friday for your check....well I have no problem on tuesday asking for you to work.....
everyone knows people they work with that do nothing all day...if they never showed up again the company would be just fine.... maybe they spend the day on the internet or talk to the girlfriend or my favorite...just brag all day how they don't do anything...
They are the problem...the keep costs high and force companies to build their products elswhere. Or the local tax on real estate is so high because when you hire a 24 year old fire fighter you will pay for him until he dies.....
I tell my 3 sons 1 thing ...work hard...it doesn't matter what someone else does...the system will flush them out...just like if my company can't compete and be profitable the system will flush it out...
Lately a lot of people are having a hard time finding work and corporate profits are up... sounds like the system is working....

If your income is 68000 and up, your total state, local, fed, was almost certainly between 28.3 and 30.4 percent. I am not sure what assumptions you have about my tax situation, but I can almost guarentee you it isn't very different than yours and is one of the highest as a percent based on total effective rates. I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That percent you give is before deductions and not effective tax rate. I am sure you pay a lot in taxes since that is a top tax bracket, but that is not the actual percent payed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

I am taxed as married filing seperately. After 185k the 2011 rate is 35%.
They want to return to the rates under clinton of 39.6% as a top rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since I have owned my business for more than a year I think my income should be taxed as a long term gain at the 15% capital gains rate. Kind of like a hedge fund guy...
But you see noone in washington is looking out for me...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you'd think he'd understand this as he was just recently arguing that the nearly 50% of Americans whose "effective federal tax rate" or federal income tax liability is currently "0"... are actually paying their "fair share' in taxes because they are paying things like sales tax etc.....guess it doesn't work both ways:)

so the President, once again engages in bomb throwing, intentionally provoking one segment of American Society or another.....which I guess is what you do when you are a community organizer, but not when you are an American President....and while many business owners clearly took it as a "shot", we're told, and even chastised by his defenders, that it is wrong to either react to the intentional provoking, or foolish to not understand the true and brilliant nature of the actual provoking, not the sound bite provoking, which can only be gleened from reading the complete comments over and over or, more likely, arrogantly regurgitating the talking points that were prepared for response to the reaction to the intentional provoking.....this is great:uhuh:

This post, in a nutshell, demonstrates the dilemma we are in. If Zimmy's facts are correct as they were presented, it might be rational to conclude that the tax problem is overblown by conservatives. JohnnyD, who has owned businesses, explains why Zimmy's assumptions are flawed, and distort the conclusions.

If JohnnyD is correct, (having never owned a business I don't know firsthand, but I haven't seen any outrageous misrepresentations by him, ever) I'm curious to see Zimmy's reaction. Because in my experience, it's difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational conversation with a liberal about economics. Once they buy into the liberal economic agenda, they cannot be persuaded by common sense, not even by facts.

Assuming JohnnyD is correct, he has destroyed the premise of Zimmy's post.

Yes. And what is as telling as Obama's "sound bite" that somebody else built your business is that his defenders have yet to actually agree with his comment. We are told to read the rest of the transcript, as if that were a defense or agreement. Well, the rest of the transcript is political gibberish. It is pablum to be fed to intellectual infants who have not learned to think critically and accept the words of those who feed them. The "sound bite" IS the true meat and heart of the rest of the transcript. It is what supports the whole notion of government uber all. It is the reason to vote for him and his party. Discussing the "sound bite" does get at the heart of the matter without being deflected to distracting arguments of fairness, or which class is the important one, or which class the government should fight for. It should fight for us all and defend us against those who would divide us. We are Americans first. Whatever class someone wants to analyze and divide us into is peripheral to what we are about. We are about liberty. That is an individual thing, not a class thing. And if some of us, like fburnsey931, or JohnnyD, create businesses, which in turn creates wealth and jobs, they have already done more to perpetuate what our free market system of liberty needs, than any politician or theory of class struggles.

Yes, we do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try 45%

Self employment tax does hit you hard. It is especially big if one doesn't have substantial section 179 deductions in a particular year.

im not self employed

You live in CT, and you don't think taxes are a problem? Do you work for the government in some way?

State income tax is north of 5%, state sales tax is 6%(I think), town property taxes are among the highest in the nation, most towns charge a 'car tax' that doesn't exist in most states, UCONN costs more than $20,000 for in-state tuition.

And for all that, our state has the highest debt-per-citizen in the nation, when you consider unfunded liabilities for public workers' retirement and healthcare benefits.

We have high taxes, and still manage to drastically overspend. Nope, nothing to see here. Keep voting liberal...

Glad those casinos helped........
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I forgot about that...

So here in CT, we have some of the highest tax rates in the country, applied to some of the highest incomes in the country. Meaning, the state has never had a problem with a shortage of tax dollars. On top of that, the state gets hundreds of millions of dollars from the casinos.

The liberals spent that, and then borrowed all they could, and then spent all that. Then they gave every labor union in the state a blank check and gave them an IOU which said the following...

"Dear unions, thanks for keeping us in office. In return, you can have fat pensions and free healthcare for the rest of your life. When the time comes to pay for that, I'll be retired in Florida, so what do I care?

XXXOOO, the Democrats"

CT is as blue as it gets. And in 2010, when the entire country turned to the right, we turned harder left. What was our liberal government's idea? They implemented the largest tax hike in state history in July 2011. Worse, they made the hike retroactive back to January 1 of that year, so for the rest of 2011, we had to absorb double the increase. Honest to God, that's what they did.

I phoned my legislator and asked why they only made it retroactive back to January 1, 2011? Why not make it retroactive back to 1975?

All that revenue, and the state is a disaster. If my family wasn't here, I'd just leave the keys in the front door and walk to New Hampshire.

CT is a perfect, pure experiment of what a lifetime of liberal economics gets you...an unmitigated disaster.

Oh, I forgot. Next, our legislature approved funding for a busway from New Britain (a failing sh*thole of a town) to Hartford (another failing sh*thole of a town). The busway is 9 miles long. 9 miles. The cost of paving 9 miles of road, plus buying a few electric buses? Only $550 million dollars. That's right. A state that is completely bankrupt, thinks it's a sound economic idea to pave 9 miles of road for the bargain-basement price of $60 million per mile. Are they paving the road with Hope diamonds? Fabrege eggs? I can do it for half that, and still have enough money left over to buy Australia.

When they write the book on what went wrong in CT, every chapter of that book can be called "chapter 11".

And this November, my side will get absolutely clobbered by liberals. Clobbered.

Don't forget second highest gasoline tax in the nation.

Do you own a business? It is the same tax. Typically it is paid by the employer. Small business owners pay it themselves. If you own a company, you pay it for yourself and your employees. If you work for someone else and you are at 45%, you might need a new accountant. :)

Always fill up in Joisey before heading North, currently $3.29.

Doesn't pay to buy a new car anymore, just take the $2000 + sales tax, which
you get nothing for, and put it your car to get another 100,000 miles
out of it.
If you added up every tax you paid you would never believe it.

Who implemented the income tax in Conn? Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs?