In economic speech, Obama reveals true colors (and reveals he is insane)

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.

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

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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?

[sburnsey931]

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

[sburnsey931]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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?

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

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

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You own a business?

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

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

try 45%

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[RIJIMMY]

im not self employed

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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...

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Piscator

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.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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..

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

im not self employed

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

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

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.

[PaulS]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I still believe people whine way too much about taxes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.

Just so, in our still colonial way, it exists in America. The Tories don't mind the power of the king, or president, or government . . . take your pick. So long as their life is comfortable all is well. The form and size of government, the Constitution, the power of our magistrates . . . those are merely incidental . . . so long as we are comfortable.

The rebels understand that life, existence, flows in the direction that various principles and laws lead. That comfort is relative to the freedom to achieve it. That comfort given from higher powers is not dependable and can be taken or limited. That comfort earned, fought for, and created and protected by the hands of the comforted is more durable. And the principle that leads in the direction of the latter is liberty.

What many who "whine too much about taxes" are doing is verbally rebelling not so much about the taxes, but about the tyranny of their imposition.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

"Who implemented the income tax in Conn?"

Gov Lowell Weicker, who was an independent.

"Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs"

Yes, we did. But I'm not sure of your point, because (1) a republican, particularly in The People's Republic Of Konnecticut. is not necessarily the same thing as a conservative. And (2) even if the republican governors were fiscally conservative (which they were not), the legislature was dominated by liberals. I'm not sure how much you know about the way a democracy works, but the executive branch cannot unilaterally do away with the income tax. You see, the legislative branch controls the legislative agenda.

I love it when people say, as you were implying, that CT isn't all that liberal, because after all, we have had Republican governors. A state (or country) isn't defined as liberal or conservative simply by the party affiliation of its chief executive. The state's implemented policies define that state as liberal or conservative.

On that basis, you can't get more liberal than CT, you just can't. Astronomical taxes, massive government presence, massive spending, massive borrowing. Giving insane perks to labor unions. Endorsing gay marriage. Refusing to enforce duly constituted immigration laws. Giving tuition breaks to the children of undocumented citizens.

The political landscape of CT cannot be any more liberal than it is. It has been that way for 2 generations. And what have the liberals done? Created a liberal utopia with crippling taxes, staggering debt, astronomical cost of living, lousy business climate, shrinking population, horribly failing cities, forcing Catholic hospitals to offer abortions to rape victims, repeal of the death penalty, radically pro-abortion.

Yes, not every single elected official in CT is a Democrat. That doesn't mean this isn't a BLUE state.

There are Democrats in Texas. That doesn't mean that Texas isn't a very conservative place.

Paul, what policies exist in CT that you would define as "conservative" in nature? Our low taxes and balanced budget?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? .

Knockout blow...

[PaulS]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;949498Gov Lowell Weicker, who was an independent.

[/QUOTE]

you sure about that? Didn't he run for Pres. as a Repub?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

I love it when people say, as you were implying, that CT isn't all that liberal, because after all, we have had Republican governors.

I actually had to come back and respond again b/c your whole post made me laugh. So you can't label someone or thing based on one aspect of something?

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

Atleast I got a good laugh today. Thanks for the joke.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

you sure about that? Didn't he run for Pres. as a Repub?

Yes, he ran for President as a Republican. But he didn't ram the state income tax down our throats as a candidate for President. He did that when he was governor. And when he ran (successfully) as governor, he was representing the Independent party.

Paul, that is irrelevent. Simple political affiliation does not define a state as conservative or liberal. The state's political landscape defines that state as liberal or conservative.

CT isn't liberal because most of its legislature is Democrat. CT is liberal because this state has an almost unblemished record of adopting pure liberal policies.

Similarly, TX isn't conservative simply because most of its legislators are Republican. It's conservative because those elected officials have embraced conservative ideology.

Many of my liberal friends think liberal economics works, simply because Bill Clinton (a Democrat) turned the economy around. But do you know what he actually did? He cut taxes, cut spending, balanced the budget, and told millions on welfare to get back to work. The fact that Clinton was a Democrat does not mean that those ideas are liberal ideals...

A person's party affiliation doesn't define them as liberal or conservative. Their ideas define them as liberal or conservative.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I actually had to come back and respond again b/c your whole post made me laugh. So you can't label someone or thing based on one aspect of something?

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

Atleast I got a good laugh today. Thanks for the joke.

"ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO?????? "

Ummm, no, that isn't remotely what I do. I judge people on what they say and do. If a Democrat wants to cut taxes, I call him conservative. If a Republican supports abortion, I call that a liberal idea.

Your posts might make me laugh, if they weren't so breathtakingly wrong all the time.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This nation was founded on whining about taxes, taxes that were much, much lower than those being "whined" about now. So were the Founders wrong? They might have been if it was merely taxes that they whined about. But it was not merely taxes. It was principle. They were willing to pay taxes if they had a say in how much and for what. To merely pay taxes at the whim of a magesterial government broke faith with a principle by which they had created a better life than that from which their forefathers had escaped. It was a better life than the common man in the mother country across the sea was living. It was a fledgling principle of freedom that created that better life. Of individual liberty within a society that respected and promoted that principle. They recognized the intrusion of taxes against their will not so much as an incursion on their wealth, though that too, but as such against their liberty. And their violent adherence to that principle of liberty inspired not only the creation of this country, but a worldwide movement against tyranny. That battle still exists, and will probably always exist.

Doesn't get any plainer than that.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A person's party affiliation doesn't define them as liberal or conservative. Their ideas define them as liberal or conservative.

Bingo, too many painting with a wide brush.
Canidates need to be voted for on their policies and not blanket party affliation.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU CONSTANTLY DO??????

.

To clarify...I make conclusions when they are valid. For example, if a sitting President explicitly says that entrepeneurs didn't create their businesses, I would say that President (1) has no affection/understanding for free market capitalism, and (2) has a screw loose.

However...if a politician is a Democrat, I would not therefore conclude that he is liberal. YOU are the one who implied that CT is not a liberal place because we have had governors who were Republicans. You are therefore necessarily assuming that 'Republican' and 'liberal' cannot occur together. Nonsense.

I connect dots when the connection makes a great deal of sense. You do it out of blind desperation either to prove your points, or to refute mine. And it shows.