Posted by bleedingheart (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Then you have the candy poor who came into the game late. They had just transferred into the school or had been home sick for several days. They were already behind in the game. They decided to work hard and save what candy they could.
When it came time to get their candy, the teacher suddenly ran out. The students who were in the program got their share first and the latecomers were left out. The teacher left it up to the students, you can share your candy with those who earned (but did not receive) candy or you can keep it. What do you think they did???

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 9:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Great story Joe and an excellent example of how capitalism works and can work for all that desire to succeed. Bleedingheart, your example is an excuse. An excuse used by too many in this country. In capitalism, the pie is not finite. It is there to be shared by those who work for it. For those who choose not to work for it, the pie then becomes a product of what you can bleed from the government and the charity of others. Then the pie does become finite. And it dwindles with each and every person who decides to draw from it instead of making their own way in the world. You can only take so much from the producers before the producers decide they will produce no more. Then where will the takers be?

Posted by keta (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Freeman is singing that old offensive right-wing song called The Poor Have Only Themselves To Blame. Really, you're still singing that? Our biggest investment - equity in the homes we worked and saved to own - is a memory. Two million families will declare bankruptcy because of medical bills this year. Most of them will have medical insurance, but deductibles and co-pays and non-covered services will have pushed them over the edge. And that doesn't even take into account even more families who refuse to take that extreme step, opting instead to struggle and juggle the best they can. Millions have lost their jobs, and stay awake nights trying to figure out a way to meet their responsibilities. A family on my street has children who just became participants in their school's free lunch program. Their youngest child has leukemia, and they're on the road to and from Columbus most of the time, in a desperate fight to save her life. They have health insurance, and spend a lot of time on the phone, learning some truly alarming things about what is and isn't covered. So which one of them is the lazy pig who's taking advantage of the candy-wealthy? I feel sorry for you, Mr. Freeman, for both your dim view of fellow human beings, and for your I-got-mine-now-you-get-yours attitude. I don't have a mortgage, I have a job I enjoy,and I've never been hospitalized for injury or illness in my life, knock wood. But I'm part of a community, and part of a larger community of Americans. There are always people who think like you, and sometimes they're the people in charge. That's always followed by a period of their not being in charge - a pendulum effect. It swings both ways, thank God.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr Freeman, Keta loves exaggerating. Only 1.5 million people a year declare bankruptcy a year and out of those, 60% said it was due to medical bills. http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/ban...

The "60%" (900,000 not the 2 million like Keta says)- was determined by anybody who owed more than $5,000 (or 10% of their income) on their medical bills. The study also said that the average that people who had insurance owed was $18,000. The study also said that the majority of people who did claim bankruptcy were the middle class.

Are you telling me Keta that the middle class can't afford basically what comes down to the payments of a new car? Or, was it due to people who ran up credit card bills, bought new toys stuff they didn't really need and had medical bills on top of that? A dissenter of the study seems to think so:

However, Peter Cunningham, Ph.D., a senior fellow at the Center for Studying Health System Change, a nonpartisan policy research organization in Washington, D.C., isn't completely convinced. He says it's often hard to tell in which cases medical bills add to the bleak financial picture without being directly responsible for the bankruptcies.

"I'm not sure that it is correct to say that medical problems were the direct cause of all of these bankruptcies," he says. "In most of these cases, it's going to be medical expenses and other things, other debt that is accumulating."

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

In keeping with the "Candy Economy" theme:

Father / Daughter Talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, 'How is your friend Audrey doing?' She replied, 'Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.'

Her wise father asked his daughter, 'Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.'

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, 'That's a crazy idea, and how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!'

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, 'Welcome to the Republican party.'

Posted by keta (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There you go. Democrats are wasteful and lazy. Republicans are prudent and industrious. Like it says on the Palin bumper sticker: EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST TOO CONFUSING.

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good job Keta. You figured it out.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, America is the land of opportunity. We can be who we want to be. You can strive to work and be successful or, you can live off the riches of others and be a democrat.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey 79Tiger, at least she didn't claim that all those voters in Massachusetts were paid off by Insurance companies or that they were bussed in. Looks like Massachusetts was one big tea party. Now here excuse was that they didn't have a good candidate. What's that, three bad candidates in a row now? And speaking of bumper stickers:

1-20-2013 THE END OF AN ERROR

Obama: And we thought Carter was bad?

Posted by 79Tiger (anonymous) on January 31, 2010 at 10:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe,

In your next letter, please explain to the liberals who visit here what will happen to your business if the Bush tax cuts are not made permanent. If they expire that will cause economic turmoil. I cannot imagine what will happen if Obamao succeeds in getting his full agenda passed. So far, Americans are fighting darn hard against it. Keep it up folks. If you think it is bad now, if this fool is successful in implementing his vision for America, we are all in big trouble.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 12:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very good article joe.
I felt this country was in trouble years ago when I questioned how these younger couples could possibly afford a $200,000 house. And drive a brand new suv.
With both working,every dime went on the house and car.
Not much room for error.
Footnote:Knew a couple that lost their $3000.00 house to the bank during the great depression. Breadwinner hopped a train to Chicago looking for work. Flat broke he went into a restaurant and offered to wash dishes for a bowl of soup. The owner said: buddy you can have a bowl on me becaues most people lately will just eat the soup and run without paying.
Couple raised two nurses, a dentist,two college grads, and one that had a few criticize hm at work because he worked too hard .

Posted by bklibrary (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am glad Joe has prospered just like 79tiger but both of them live in a dream world that will cause our great nation to be a Third World country. You cannot rob from working people and the older generation of retirees who want to have a liveable retirement. However what the picture of the candy story portrays is totally false. There is a good capitalism and a tyrant capitalism. We in the United States live in a tyrant climate of capitalist's who do not believe in a society where the poor working class can own a home, send their kids to college, go on vacation,and have affordable healthcare. I have worked two jobs all of my life and have went to college to try and achieve success. I think people should work if they are able and earn their way through life. But on the other hand it is not humanly moral nor a good policy to rape the lower class worker of their earnings to go to 1,000.00 dollar or $500.00 a month prescriptions to have to spend out so the capitalists who are afraid their party might end soon from seducing everybody with high medical and lawyer fee costs on medial and pharmacy bills. By the way my thought for today is Whenever a politician says Government is to big! Why don't he or she just withdraw from the elective process. That is the same as a preacher holding his hand out and saying you do not have to give to the Church ties today.

Posted by bklibrary (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way all of you neo-cons celebrated your victory in Mass. the other week and boasting that now they had a Senator for Pro-Life. Guess what! Wrong he is Pro Choice! Now you Right wingers remember Bushie had the majority in Congress and the Supreme Court and they did nothing about abortion ZERO, Nadda in eight years of his tenure. Now do you honestly think the Republicans are going to do anything about it. They wil not because that is their ace in the hole. They use that issue to garnish votes. Just like gun rights NRA. You ask the gun shop owners how business is going. They love the threat of gun control. They always sale more guns and ammunition. Business could not be better for them. So move on forward with the candy capitalism.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 5:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama and his fellow libs apparently will go down kicking and screaming!

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The simple fact is that conservatives want to complain about poor people and welfare, however, they overlook the fact that Dubya handed out more Rich people welfare than anyone could imagine. That's all the tax cuts were. Wealthy Welfare. So lets turn this conversation on end....why should I pay taxes to give the wealthiest 2% in the country welfare? They don't work any harder than I, and they sure have more than I do.
And No, noesis, this isn't class envy. I don't need to be rich, just comfortable. But if you guys are going to complain about welfare, at least complain about ALL FORMS of welfare.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 5:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you don't like it, get rich or get poor, and take the welfare that comes from both ends. However, I would say the living conditions on one end are a tad bit more appealing than the other.

You all want to say how good the folks on assistance have it. Go live their life for a week, and see how you describe it then. True definition of Elitist wannabe's. They way you think is deplorable at best.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

and leave it to a conservative to reduce the situation we find ourselves in, thanks to Dubya and his cronies, to such an immature, inconsequential ideal like "candy.'

This is real life people. We aren't playing tiddly winks here. Get a grip on reality.

The party of NO will unravel at the seams, just as they did in 08. They have no clear cut party direction. Other than saying no to democrats, what is there? No substance whatsoever. Their biggest hope? A pro-choice senator, and a governor who has been on the job, what, two weeks now? Ha! Good luck with that. Maybe HE can be all MAVERICKY this time.....

I'll stick with hope and change thanks.....

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Countdown until Obama leaves Office
1083 Days, 17 Hours, 15 Minutes, 25 Seconds.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pretty pathetic stance on politics if you ask me. But, exactly what I would expect from the right winged.

If we just lay low, and say no a bunch, maybe nothing good will come out of his presidency, and we can win! Woo-hoo!

What a pathetic existence.....

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Only a few students did not eat the candy daily and ended up with quite a sizable amount of candy."
__________________________________________
Only a few? Just another anecdote to lend to my theory that Republicans and Democrats are really the same. If we are, in fact, the two-party country that the Republicrats want us to believe, I would think that the statistics would have been closer to 50/50. Right?

Although it's cute how some Republicans automatically assert that they would be in the "few" group that saved their candy, when only a "few" actually did.

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 6:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I mean, if only a "few" people are actually like that, then how are Republican presidents even getting elected? Hmmm...

Posted by AlisonMiller (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 6:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Or, maybe, only the "few" have actually been bothering to vote...So who's been making the decisions for this country for the past decades? I love the above story.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by bklibrary

By the way all of you neo-cons celebrated your victory in Mass. the other week and boasting that now they had a Senator for Pro-Life.
---------------

Dude you make stuff up just as bad as Keta does.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by jonferguson

The simple fact is that conservatives want to complain about poor people and welfare, however, they overlook the fact that Dubya handed out more Rich people welfare than anyone could imagine.
----------------
Handed out??!!! That was their money! Only a liberal would think that letting you keep your money is a handout, LOL!!!

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think we've had this conversation before. Even Warren Buffett thinks it's nuts that he's allowed to keep a bigger percentage of his money than his secretary does. And Pull 'Em Down Brown isn't only pro-choice, he also says he'd have voted for Sonia Sotomayor, and he doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. Unless HE was making stuff up to appeal to centrist Americans as well as teabaggers, I'm afraid you have to take him at his word. Not BkLibrary's word, but Pull 'Em Down Brown's - the dude in the barn coat.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Alison, maybe only a "few" children saved their candy because most kids grow up naive and sheltered... but then reality comes as they get older...

"If you're not liberal when you're young, you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're older, you have no brain."

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

But Keta, I thought you called him a right wing extremest!!! Please, make up your mind!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, the reason Buffet gets to keep a larger percentage of his money is because where he gets it from. Stocks are taxed at a lower rate.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 8:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, duh. The people we're talking about are the recipients of Bush's tax cuts, the wealthiest of wealthy Americans.Capital gains and dividends central. Let me guess - people who earn the bulk of their income in that way are entitled to keep a larger percentage of it. Noesis, your fierce love for rich people is weird. They and the legislators who advocate for them day in and day out don't represent you. They exist to help each other, not you. You're not in the loop, buddy, except for your blind devotion to them.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta, that's another one of your typical lies. All Americans benefited from Bush's tax cuts. Not just the wealthiest.

And Keta, I don't have a blind devotion to the rich. What my position is, it's your money, you should be able to keep most of it. Treat all people equal. You're the one who wants people treated differently.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Despite all of the political rhetoric about "tax cuts for the rich" and the "middle class squeeze," a recent analysis by the Tax Foundation shows that federal income taxes have fallen for groups at all income levels as a result of the Bush tax cuts, compared to the 1999 tax rates under Clinton (see chart above). And in fact, the group in the chart above that experienced the largest percentage decrease in taxes were the married taxpayers with $50,000 of household income (clearly middle class by most definitions) - they paid 21% less in taxes under the Bush tax rates compared to the Clinton rates. By contrast, "rich" single taxpayers with income of $125,000 paid only 10% less in taxes. In other words, some middle-class taxpayers received twice the tax cut on a percentage basis as some of "the rich." .....So much for the claim that "the Bush Administration and Congressional policies are failing middle-class Americans."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/67479-co...

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

21% of 50000 is 10,500. 10% of 125,000 is 12,500. So, someone who makes more than twice the money as the other saves 2000 more by that "piddly" 10% savings. Yeah, that sounds about right....conservatively speaking.

Your math sucks Noesis.....

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its not about "failing the middle class" Its about rewarding the top 1 or 2 percent. Another silly conservative spin tactic

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonferguson. I see reading comprehension isn't a strong point of yours. It said taxes went DOWN by 21% and 10% not that taxes WERE 21% and 10%. Makes all your calculations moot.

Dang, don't you just hate it when you look so stupid?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Rewarding the top 1 to 2%?

The top 1% already pays 40% of all income taxes. The top 5% pay 60% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% pay 71% of all taxes and the top 25% pays for 87% of all taxes.

The bottom 50% pays only 3% of all federal income taxes.

And you parasites want the rich to pay more?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Really....hmmm...what part of that don't you understand....let me simplify for your 3rd grade mind:

Tax reduction = savings

$50,000 X .21 = $10,500 in SAVINGS (stay with me)

$125,000 X .10 = $12,500 in SAVINGS (Keeping up?)

$12,500 - $10,500 = $2000

$2000 is how much more money was SAVED by someone making $125,000 with a 10% reduction in tax than someone making $50,000 with a 21% reduction in tax.

There Dubya, is that easy enough for you?

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone should pay the same PERCENTAGE of taxes. Your percentages are based on dollar amounts of taxes paid. a million dollars of tax doesn't hurt someone who brings in 600 million a year. YOUR calculations are moot, because that isn't a percentage of their income, its a percentage of the entire tax base.

If I pay a certain percentage of my income, so should warren buffett, oprah, bill gates, etc.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 1, 2010 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dang, don't you just hate it when you look stupid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's the oddest thing - Noesis, if you were to win an argument, it would be apparent that you had indeed won. It's lame to constantly declare yourself a victor. Settle down. The top 2% pay a smaller percentage of income in taxes than the middle class. Bush's talking points regularly contained misleading references to "average" tax cuts, meaning the very largest averaged with everyone else's. With the entire burden shifted to the next generation, and the next. Sweet.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 2:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow Jonferguson, I really really hope you don't disperse meds.

Lets go back to the original article and what it said and, what you misinterpeted:

"the group in the chart above that experienced the largest percentage decrease in taxes were the married taxpayers with $50,000 of household income (clearly middle class by most definitions) - they paid 21% less in taxes under the Bush tax rates compared to the Clinton rates."

In other words Jonferguson, under the Clinton tax rates, they paid $5,085. Under the Bush tax cuts they paid $4,012.50.

A reduction of their taxes of... 21%

And the single person who made $125,000 under Clinton paid $29,000 but under Bush paid $26,000.

A reduction in their tax of...10% (did I type that to fast for you or do I need to slow down so you can understand it?)

When somebody says that they paid 21% less in taxes, that does not mean that they paid a 21% tax rate.

How does it feel to be stupider than Dubya?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 2:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Everyone should pay the same PERCENTAGE of taxes.
---------------------------

Do you and Keta have any idea what you are talking about?

Lets look at the current tax brackets:

0 - $8,350 = 10%
$8,350 - $33,950 = 15%
$33,950 - $82,250 = 25%
$82,250 - $171,550 = 28%
$171,550 - $372,950 = 33%
$372,950 - Above = 35%

And lets not forget that even if the rich have a bunch of deductions, they still have to pay at a minimum the 28% AMT.

So, when you say that the rich pay a smaller tax rate than you... you're lying.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and FYI... to join the "top 1%" club, you only have to make >$450,000 per year. So, it's not just filled with people making millions of dollars a year.

The top 1.5% of the richest earn >$200,000

The top 5% if you earn more than $150,000 (I wonder if this is where Obama got his cutoff point?)

And you can join the top 16% of the richest Americans if you make over a $100,000 a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_i...

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow...Like Ron White says....you can't fix stupid.....I should have known better.

Kool Aid anyone? Noesis, you've already had 3 cups, let someone else have some......Oh wait...that's just communistic talk!

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taxes, taxes blah de blah de blah. Regardless of how you spin it, the incomes of the super rich are all about dividends and capital gains, taxed at around 15%. Imagine if your income was taxed at only 15%. Yikes. The fact is that the middle class has never paid so much of our incomes in taxes, regardless of the constant spin cycle on this subject. I have to steel myself before I open my property tax statement - it's astronomical, and so are my federal income taxes, and my city taxes, and so on and on and on. We worker bees just don't get the tax dodges enjoyed by corporations and the wealthy. Corporations don't ship jobs overseas because of high taxes, regardless of more spin designed to lower their taxes even more. They ship jobs overseas so they can hire scientists and engineers for $20,000 a year.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 2, 2010 at 6:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joe Freeman; My compliments on a very well written and presented article. A biased and selfishly motivated Right wing politician would do well to offer you employment as a speech writer. bleedingheart; Your post of 1/31/10 at 9:12am was upper class, my compliments. keta; Your post of 1/31/10 at 3:33pm was excellent, as usual. bklibrary; Your post of 2/01/10 at 2:17pm was on the money, my compliments, however your post of 2/01/10 at 4:07pm I think was a little inaccurate pertaining to the killing of the unborn. I am thinking in particular of Partial Birth Murder. Didn't President George Bush and the Republican party help put a stop to this. In my later years my memory and comprehension fails me sometime or maybe I am just becoming more lazy.

Posted by jonferguson (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's some Noesis - like facts for you:

Between 2002 and 2007, income growth looked like this:

Bottom 90% growth for the period : 3.9% Yearly avg increase: .8%

Next 9% growth for the period: 13% yearly avg increase: 2.5%

Top 1% growth for the period: 61.8% Yearly avg increase: 10.1%

Top .1% growth for the period: 94.1% Yearly avg increase: 14.2%

Seems fair doesn't it? Rich get richer....poor stay poor. Conservatism at its best

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 2, 2010 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As a PS: to my previous statement. I realize President George Bush was not perfect (who of us is?) but there was something I liked and admired about him. I also must say the same about his brother who was our Governor here in Florida. President Barack Obama, I have grave reservations about. I think he lacks the moral fortitude this country needs in a leader. I am a registered Pro-Life Democrat although I vote independently and for the best man or woman in my opinion. The Democratic Party, historically speaking, has been the party of the common man. I think they have sacrificed this prestigious leadership to a self centered, selfish, immoral and self grandiose philosophy.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keta: "Regardless of how you spin it, the incomes of the super rich are all about dividends and capital gains, taxed at around 15%."
-----------------------

Keta, what part of "the rich still have to pay the AMT" don't you understand?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1...

Growing AMT Wiping Out Capital Gains and Dividend Tax Reductions

by Andrew Chamberlain

The reduced 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividend income was a centerpiece of the 2003 Bush tax cut. But as noted in a Bloomberg report this morning, the growing reach of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) is quietly invalidating part of that tax reduction for a growing number of taxpayers (for a detailed explanation of the AMT quirk causing the effective tax increase, see here). From the piece:

When Jeff Trinca liquidated part of his stock portfolio to satisfy a divorce decree in early 2005, he calculated he would owe 15 percent tax on his capital gain. A year later, he got a nasty surprise: a much higher bill from the Internal Revenue Service.

If anyone should have known what to expect, it's Trinca: He's a Washington tax lobbyist. Still, he lives in one of some 2 million U.S. households that were denied the lower rate on capital gains last year because of a little-noticed quirk in the alternative minimum tax, originally created almost four decades ago to make sure a much smaller number of affluent Americans were paying their fair share.

Instead of paying the 15 percent rate established by President George W. Bush's 2003 tax cut, Trinca, 45, and other taxpayers with incomes between $150,000 and $400,000 are required to pay rates of up to 22 percent (28% on millionaires Keta) on their investment income. If left unchecked, the AMT anomaly may deprive millions more six- figure earners -- 60 percent of whom voted for Bush in 2004, when he won 51 percent of the vote nationwide -- of the low rate...

Affected taxpayers have a right to be angry, given the emphasis placed on the lower rates by Bush and congressional Republicans, says Nina Olson, the national taxpayer advocate at the IRS.

"In this case, you had a lot of placing of importance on lower rates on capital gains and its importance to the economy, yet the AMT undermines that policy,'' Olson said in an interview. "When people make a decision based on a stated policy and end up paying higher taxes, of course they're going to feel frustrated.''
-----------------
So even though Buffet mislead you when he said he only had to pay 15% (on his stocks), at the end of the year he had to pay the AMT of 28%.

So I'll reiterate "So, when you say that the rich pay a smaller tax rate than you... you're lying."

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 8:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jonferguson, Who's stuck on stupid? Keta tells me that ONLY the rich benefited from Bush's tax cuts and I proved once again that she doesn't know what she's talking about by showing a married couple making $50,000 paid 21% in taxes and a single guy making $125,000 had a tax decrease of 10% from the Clinton years. What do you do? In a valiant attempt to defend her lies, you interpret that a decrease in their taxes paid of 21% and 10% is their actual tax rate. Since when did we have a tax rate higher the less money you make? That should have been your first clue that you were on the wrong track.

How about next time trying to use some common sense when you want to discuss something?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, My respect for Obambi has gone up... slightly. He allowed a $6 billion arms deal to go through with Taiwan and has agreed to meet with the Dali Lama. Of course, that may be payback for China humiliating him at the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit. He may finally be growing some spine... and he put it to good use bowing to the Mayor of Tampa.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 8:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Between 2002 and 2007, income growth looked like this:

Bottom 90% growth for the period : 3.9% Yearly avg increase: .8%
----------------
And let me guess... included in that bottom 90% were retired people, people on disability, social security and other government programs that only get small government increases. Probably illegal aliens too.

I really doubt that number. You, me, Keta and 79Tiger... have we seen our wages stagnate? Mine sure didn't. Mine went up by around 30%.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Payback for China

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I proved once again

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noesis, you need someone to support and encourage you, so you won't have to keep doing it yourself, which is both weird and sad.
No, that was to make it harder to bully Taiwan, to keep things stable there. And you're embarrassing yourself again. Americans who made more than $10 million last year paid an average tax rate of less than 20%, regardless of what they're saying over at Kill Obama Now dot com. The only reason the AMT exists is because of wealthy people with so many exemptions they were paying zero income tax. As Warren Buffett said, he wasn't TRYING to pay less - that's just the way it is, and wants congress to do something about it.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Americans who made more than $10 million last year paid an average tax rate of less than 20%"
---------------
Do you have any proof of that number Keta or are you just making stuff up again.

"Payback for China"

I wonder why you left out what I really said... MAY be payback for China. And how do you know what Obama was thinking? Did you read it? Did he tell you?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 2, 2010 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and Keta, I found this:

And many people classified as millionaires aren’t millionaires at all. Out of the 300,000 or so joint tax filers earning more than $1 million, about 90 percent have small business income. That’s because 75 percent of America’s small businesses are structured as pass-through entities and pay their business taxes at the individual level. So the $1 million isn’t going into those individuals’ pockets; it’s money they use to run their businesses. To avoid the new tax, those businesses would have to adopt a new structure and start paying the complicated corporate income tax.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/13/wh...

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 2, 2010 at 11:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; I am sorry but I do not harbor any respect for President Obama. His past voting record is not impressive and not conducive to good moral leadership. I feel it is still a little early to pass judgement on his presidency. I have not been impressed by his actions so far and feel there is a lot to be desired.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 2, 2010 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; Taiwan (Free China) and the Dali Lama (Tibet) two very important examples of political and religious freedom, worthy of preservation and protection.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 3, 2010 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, you better watch it... Keep talking about Obama like that and Jonferguson and Keta will call you a racist for expressing your viewpoints. Dissension about our dear leader will not be tolerated! You will be branded a tea-bagging right wing extremest!

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on February 3, 2010 at 2:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Mickakers did you see this?

Canadian official seeks heart surgery in US

The Associated Press
Tuesday, February 2, 2010; 3:03 PM

ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland -- The premier of Canada's east coast province is undergoing heart surgery in the United States this week because the treatment he is seeking was not available in his home province.

But I thought socialized medicine was soooo much better?

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 3, 2010 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; Mutual corporation, Great! This is what the world needs. Again, you are being selective and narrow minded. I prefer not to get into an argument (because that's what it is). Many Americans get their prescription drugs from Canada. People in the US also go to other countries to receive medical treatment. The US is not the leader when it comes to Health Care. Sometime discretion is the better part of valor.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on February 3, 2010 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I have great respect and admiration for all the people who post on here. Our varying opinions contribute to the the betterment of humanity and I emphasize humanity. There is no such thing as Isolationism any more. This is a Global society due to modern communication and technology. However, our opinions must be open-minded, fair and informed. It is primary that our philosophy be based on the Love and Concern of our fellow man.