Biden - We want to raise taxes 1 TRILLION dollars! by AURaptor

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

When those mythical so-called "job creators" were paying higher tax rates, there were many more jobs created.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 6:18 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

"...tax increase on our successful job creators that will cost us 700,000 jobs in just two years". I'd need facts and figures to show a tax increase on the ultra-wealthy would cost us jobs, first off.

What Biden was talking about was taking away tax breaks from the rich; letting the Bush Cuts expire for them. In which case he's not talking about "raising" their taxes, he's talking about AVOIDING the cost to the country of continuing to give them the tax cut which was supposed to expire anyway. Those aren't new taxes.

Secondly, I have no problem with taxing the ultra-rich; calling them "job creators" is dog whistle that's been utilized for ages to make them seem more worthwhile and it's bullshit in reality.

Romney and Ryan will have to produce verifiable facts and figures on ANYTHING they say from this point forward to convince me they're not lying. Given their record thus far, it is patently obviously they've decided on the tactic of saying anything, any time, that will encourage their base, and they have no desire whatsoever to be factual. They've already stated plainly that they're "not going to let our candidacy be run by fact checkers", and have been shown to lie consistently, so why sould I buy one word they say?

""a tax hike on top earners", "gave Republicans fresh fodder to criticize", "pounced on the quote at a campaign stop". They're characterizing letting the Bush tax cuts expire as "a tax hike". Bullshit. It's old news made new again. Nothing new whatsoever in this, it's just more twisting of facts to make what Biden said seem like other than it is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 6:26 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: When those mythical so-called "job creators" were paying higher tax rates, there were many more jobs created.

So, you think that is the sole reason for how the economy works ?

No wonder you're an idiot.

Our govt has outspent our tax revenue. That's the point you should focus on, NOT blaming the citizens for trying to live free and pursue their dreams.

Highest corp. tax rate in the world. How's that workin' out for us ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 8:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Highest corp. tax rate in the world. How's that workin' out for us ?

And if you think THAT is the sole reason for how the economy works, you're a bigger idiot than anyone here has previously thought.

You realize that we actually don't have the highest effective corporate tax rate in the world, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 9:29 AM

America loves a winner!

Yes, we do, but that's only part of the problem.

Quote:
U.S. corporate tax rate: No. 1 in the world

By Chris Isidore @CNNMoney March 27, 2012: 1:44 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- On Sunday, the United States gets a distinction no nation wants -- the world's highest corporate tax rate.

Japan, which currently has the highest rate in the world -- a 39.8% rate on business income between national and local taxes -- cuts its rate to 36.8% as of April 1. The U.S. rate stands at 39.2% when both federal and state rates are included.

Allowing the people to keep more of the $ they earned is NOT what got us into this mess. And govt taking more of our money won't get us out of this mess either.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 12:12 PM

The effective corporate tax rate for the U.S. is actually 27.1%, but you prefer to overlook that. How very convenient.

Also, quite a few companies pay nothing at all.

So saying that we have the "highest" tax rate is like saying that Mittens is in the highest tax bracket. It *sounds* good, but it's just not true when you get right down to it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 12:28 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: The effective corporate tax rate for the U.S. is actually 27.1%, but you prefer to overlook that. How very convenient.

Tell it to the CNN Money folks.

Quote:
Also, quite a few companies pay nothing at all.

So saying that we have the "highest" tax rate is like saying that Mittens is in the highest tax bracket. I *sounds* good, but it's just not true when you get right down to it.

Uh - huh,riiight.

lol.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 1:02 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Crazy Joe's best recent campaign line was when he finally told a truth and said the middles class has been "buried" for the last four years. He really punched Obama in the gut on dat one. Love The Drake!

Hmmm, better than Reuben's. ..One more. Ben! ..My last one. Okay.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 1:41 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: Allowing the people to keep more of the $ they earned is NOT what got us into this mess. And govt taking more of our money won't get us out of this mess either.

As far as the budge deficit, yes it was part of it and yes it can be part of the solution. It's called math!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: The effective corporate tax rate for the U.S. is actually 27.1%, but you prefer to overlook that. How very convenient.

Tell it to the CNN Money folks.

That's a good line. If I told it to the CNN money folks, I would have double the audience of the CNN Money folks.

Quote:

Quote:
Also, quite a few companies pay nothing at all.

So saying that we have the "highest" tax rate is like saying that Mittens is in the highest tax bracket. It *sounds* good, but it's just not true when you get right down to it.

Uh - huh,riiight.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 06, 2012 3:34 PM

HERO

Democrats want to raise taxes, also sky is blue and water flows downhill. World in shock. Next thing you knw what goes up must come down and 2 + 2 really does add up to four.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 6:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2: What Biden was talking about was taking away tax breaks from the rich; letting the Bush Cuts expire for them. In which case he's not talking about "raising" their taxes, he's talking about AVOIDING the cost to the country of continuing to give them the tax cut which was supposed to expire anyway. Those aren't new taxes.

Then why not let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire? That way we could AVOID even more costs to the country.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:14 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

As to the corporate tax rate--yes, ours is highest, but what is actually PAID, after incentives, loopholes, subsidies, etc., isn't:

Quote:
Republicans have been kvetching today about the fact that, as of Sunday, the U.S. will have the highest statutory corporate tax rate in the world following a scheduled cut in Japan’s corporate tax.

While the U.S. has a high statutory corporate tax rate (meaning the rate on paper), U.S. corporations actually pay incredibly low taxes due to the ever-proliferating loopholes, credits, and deductions in the tax code and the use of overseas tax havens.

U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:

So let's get real about the corporate tax rate: What it's listed as is NOT what corporations pay.

As to CNN, we don't need to TELL them, they already know...so let's ASK them:

Quote:
The corporate tax myth

U.S. corporations pay one of the highest tax rates in the world. There's little debate about that. Still, the difference in the overall tax burden for U.S. companies isn't nearly as great it appears.

In fact, the United States collects less corporate tax relative to the overall economy than almost any other country in the world.

And that's a more objective measure of tax burden. Different accounting rules around the world means what's counted as income in one country isn't counted in another -- that makes comparisons of tax rates misleading.

U.S. corporate tax collections totaled only 1.7% of GDP in 2009, the most recent year for which complete data is available, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

On that measure, the United States had the third lowest corporate tax burden, behind France and Germany. The worldwide average was 2.8%.

U.S. businesses have another edge over countries with lower tax rates: They don't pay a Value Added Tax or VAT, a type of sales tax. All other developed nations raise a significant part of their tax revenue through VATs, but it is not included in the comparisons of corporate tax collections. http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/23/news/international/corporate_taxes/ind
ex.htm

CNN also has an interesting article on another way big corporations in America dodge that tax rate:

Quote:
When big companies offshore profits to dodge taxes, small business owners say they are left footing the bill -- and they're not happy about it.

A U.S. Senate panel recently reviewed how Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard shaved billions off their taxes in recent years by moving profits offshore. Small business owners say they can't offshore profits and take advantage of these opportunities. The strategies require a worldwide presence and are either too complex or too costly.

But those business owners say that's not the only issue. They're bothered by the effect of depleting the government's revenue stream, which creates pressure to cut government spending that the nation's 27 million businesses rely on.

"This tax money goes to support the infrastructure that allows our businesses to be successful," said Joseph Rotella, owner of Spencer Organ, an instrument repair company in Waltham, Massachusetts. "These big companies avoid paying their fair share," Rotella said, noting that highly profitable firms rarely pay the actual top federal rate of 35%.

To hotel owner Sue Edgington, whose Adventure Inn is located deep in the woods of northeast Minnesota, the issue of paying taxes is one of patriotism. Like most small business owners, she's fiscally conservative and doesn't gladly fork over more in taxes. However, she said that when companies avoiding paying them, it threatens funding to public colleges like the one she attended -- and protection of wildlife like the kind that draws tourists her way.

"It angers me," she said. "It's morally wrong. That money is being pulled out of our economy. There's a moral obligation to keep it here, because they live in this country and have been able to take advantage of that."

Her frustration could be directed at several of the nation's top companies. Recent financial data reviewed by the Senate panel showed how tech companies Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), Cisco (CSCO, Fortune 500) and Dell (DELL, Fortune 500), as well as others like American staples Johnson & Johnson (JNJ, Fortune 500), Coca-Cola (CCE, Fortune 500) and Wal-Mart (WMT, Fortune 500) all keep anywhere from 67% to 100% of their cash as "foreign cash." http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/03/smallbusiness/tax-avoidance/index.html

So how about we do away with the MYTH that U.S. corporations PAY high taxes...they're SUPPOSEd to, according to, but what they actually PAY doesn't resemble anything like that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:23 AM

TOO.

MANY.

FACTS.

I appreciate them, but they'll make little rappy's delusions much worse. Hey, could you do me a favor? Could you keep track of that post? That way next time these fact-free talking points come up (and I guarantee they will) you could just link to this thread, then link the next post the your post with the link, and so on in a chain. That way we could keep a running total of how MANY times they regurgitate the same spew after they've been given the facts. It might be interesting to see.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2: What Biden was talking about was taking away tax breaks from the rich; letting the Bush Cuts expire for them. In which case he's not talking about "raising" their taxes, he's talking about AVOIDING the cost to the country of continuing to give them the tax cut which was supposed to expire anyway. Those aren't new taxes.

Then why not let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire? That way we could AVOID even more costs to the country.

And while you're at it, raise cap-gains tax rates back to the 28% that they were at under Reagan, and do away with the cap on payroll taxes.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 8:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2: What Biden was talking about was taking away tax breaks from the rich; letting the Bush Cuts expire for them. In which case he's not talking about "raising" their taxes, he's talking about AVOIDING the cost to the country of continuing to give them the tax cut which was supposed to expire anyway. Those aren't new taxes.

Then why not let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire? That way we could AVOID even more costs to the country.

And while you're at it, raise cap-gains tax rates back to the 28% that they were at under Reagan...

Fine with me. Or the 20% under Clinton.

Quote:
...and do away with the cap on payroll taxes.

Wouldn't hurt the really rich, who only have dividend income, but would affect the middle class folks with incomes above $110,100.00. You'd probably get more money for SSA by dropping the 'temporary' 4.2% tax rate and putting it back at 6.2%.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 9:09 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Kiki, the basic point is that while our "official" corporate tax rate is the highest in the world, once they get through with all the "gimmies", loopholes, off-shore, subsidies, etc., corporation ACTUALLY pay far LESS than many (most?) countries.

So every time Rap or his buddies scream "U.S. Corporations pay the highest tax rate in the world", it means NOTHING. The rate they're officially SUPPOSED to pay bears no resemblance to what they ACTUALLY pay.

And yes, I will save it, so I can just regurgitate it (pun intended) whenever they do their little dance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: The effective corporate tax rate for the U.S. is actually 27.1%...

Or 27.7%, from this study of 2006-2009. http://www.scribd.com/doc/52966788/Effective-Tax-Rate-Study

And the average OECD country rate, excluding the U.S. is 22.6%. The EU 18 rate is 21.9%. Of major economies, only Germany (27.9%), Italy (29.1), and Japan (38.8%, although Japan has since lowered their rate) are any higher.

Quote:
Also, quite a few companies pay nothing at all.

True. Some companies do not make a profit every year.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 12:48 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: True. Some companies do not make a profit every year.

Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 07, 2012 3:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: True. Some companies do not make a profit every year.

Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year.

AOL Time Warner? Lost $98 billion in 2002.

AIG? Lost $99 billion in 2008.

Fannie Mae? Lost $59 billion in 2008 and $74 billion in 2009.

Freddie Mac? $50 billion in 2008 and $25 billion in 2009.

CitiGroup? $27 billion in 2008.

General Motors? $38 billion in 2007 and $30 billion in 2008.

United Airlines? $21 billion in 2005.

And that's just the biggest losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_los
ses

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 5:07 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2: What Biden was talking about was taking away tax breaks from the rich; letting the Bush Cuts expire for them. In which case he's not talking about "raising" their taxes, he's talking about AVOIDING the cost to the country of continuing to give them the tax cut which was supposed to expire anyway. Those aren't new taxes.

Then why not let ALL the Bush tax cuts expire? That way we could AVOID even more costs to the country.

If we can't protect the rich, screw everyone!

It's the Teapublican way!

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 3:08 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: Allowing the people to keep more of the $ they earned is NOT what got us into this mess. And govt taking more of our money won't get us out of this mess either.

As far as the budge deficit, yes it was part of it and yes it can be part of the solution. It's called math!

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

No, it isn't, and that math doesn't add up. Not even close.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 3:19 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: True. Some companies do not make a profit every year.

Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year.

AOL Time Warner? Lost $98 billion in 2002.

AIG? Lost $99 billion in 2008.

Fannie Mae? Lost $59 billion in 2008 and $74 billion in 2009.

Freddie Mac? $50 billion in 2008 and $25 billion in 2009.

CitiGroup? $27 billion in 2008.

General Motors? $38 billion in 2007 and $30 billion in 2008.

United Airlines? $21 billion in 2005.

And that's just the biggest losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_los
ses

Okay, what is your point. I never said some companies do not lose money. My point, which you do not address, is that many US companies do profit and still may no or very low taxes.

At least try to address the point.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 3:20 PM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: No, it isn't, and that math doesn't add up. Not even close.

So in Rappy land increasing revenue will not low the deficit?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 3:31 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: No, it isn't, and that math doesn't add up. Not even close.

So in Rappy land increasing revenue will not low the deficit?

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

I see the goal posts have been moved. I was talking about taking more of our income, w/ regards to higher taxes. ( tax the rich, right ? ) NOW, you're talking about raising more revenue. One does not necessarily mean the other.

More folks working, and less folks on unemployment , would be a net gain for the treasury, no ?

I'm for raising revenue, and cutting spending. THAT is what will reduce the deficit. That works in Rappyland, aka REALITY world.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 3:48 PM

"I was talking about taking more of our income, w/ regards to higher taxes. ( tax the rich, right ? ) NOW, you're talking about raising more revenue. ONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE OTHER."

"I'm for raising revenue ..."

So, how would you raise revenue if not for taking in more taxes? Bake sales? Lotteries?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 4:01 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: "I was talking about taking more of our income, w/ regards to higher taxes. ( tax the rich, right ? ) NOW, you're talking about raising more revenue. ONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE OTHER."

"I'm for raising revenue ..."

So, how would you raise revenue if not for taking in more taxes? Bake sales? Lotteries?

Already stated one way, getting more folks back to work, so they're contributing , instead of drawing from the federal coffers.

Another way is to raise 'some' discretionary taxes, instead of straight off the top. That way, folks could choose how they want to spend their money. And it shouldn't be so high, or so selective, as to be overly punitive either. Like the tax on selective items, as was the case w/ luxury yachts. The US market took a deep hit, while driving potential buyers to purchase high end yachts elsewhere, and avoiding costly taxes. Dems tend to overlook the fact that people won't just blindly accept their high taxes, and will instead alter their activity, if they deem it worth their while. High taxes in NYC , is another fine example. It's ended up driving millionaires ( and not just Rush Limbaugh ) from NY to the friendlier tax situation of living in Florida. Just tossing out some examples.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 4:07 PM

So, more taxes equals more revenues. Higher tax rates equals more taxes.

Therefore, higher tax rates equals more revenues.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 4:27 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki: So, more taxes equals more revenues. Higher tax rates equals more taxes.

Therefore, higher tax rates equals more revenues.

I love how you see only what you want to see, and ignore the totality of what I post.

There ARE ways to raise revenue w/ out raising taxes. Or is that too much for your brain to comprehend ?

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 4:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, it isn't, and that math doesn't add up. Not even close.

If you're talking about Romney's budget, according to what he's released of his super-double-secret plan, you're right - it doesn't even come close to adding up.

Near as anyone can tell, it's calling for a trillion or more dollar tax hike on the middle class.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 08, 2012 4:41 PM

"ONE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THE OTHER."

Well, if you raise tax rates, you NECESSARILY raise revenues.

If you drop tax rates, cross your fingers and hope for trickle down, you might raise revenues.

The only sure-fire way to raise revenues is to raise tax rates.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:12 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

No, it isn't, and that math doesn't add up. Not even close.

If you're talking about Romney's budget, according to what he's released of his super-double-secret plan, you're right - it doesn't even come close to adding up.

Near as anyone can tell, it's calling for a trillion or more dollar tax hike on the middle class.

Princeton Economist: The Math Behind Romney's Tax Plan Adds Up

John McCormack October 4, 2012 11:48 AM

At last night's presidential debate, Barack Obama said that Mitt Romney's tax plan--cutting rates by 20 percent across the board and maintaining revenue neutrality by eliminating loopholes--is mathematically impossible.

"If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class," Obama said. "It's — it's math. It's arithmetic."

Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can't actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not 'on the table', and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare's tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare's spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.

As Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen writes, Romney's plan would neither require a net tax hike on the middle class nor a tax reduction for the rich under "plausible" growth assumptions.*

"[T]he TPC model assumes that regardless of the tax rate, people work the same amount, save the same amount, and invest the same amount," writes Rosen. But growth is the whole point of Romney's plan. "[A] proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on high-income individuals about the same," Rosen writes. "That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/blogs/princeton-economist-math-beh
ind-romneys-tax-plan-adds_653618.html?nopager=1

Quote:
1kiki - The only sure-fire way to raise revenues is to raise tax rates.

And yet, JFK, Reagan and Bush43 have "magically" shown this to not be the case.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:28 AM

You realize Reagan and HW Bush both raised taxes, right?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 3:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: True. Some companies do not make a profit every year.

Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year.

AOL Time Warner? Lost $98 billion in 2002.

AIG? Lost $99 billion in 2008.

Fannie Mae? Lost $59 billion in 2008 and $74 billion in 2009.

Freddie Mac? $50 billion in 2008 and $25 billion in 2009.

CitiGroup? $27 billion in 2008.

General Motors? $38 billion in 2007 and $30 billion in 2008.

United Airlines? $21 billion in 2005.

And that's just the biggest losses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_los
ses

Okay, what is your point.

My point was that some companies do not make a profit every year, just like I stated above.

Quote:
I never said some companies do not lose money. My point, which you do not address, is that many US companies do profit and still may no or very low taxes.

Not sure how I am supposed to get that out of "Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year."

Besides, GE has had losses. One of the reasons they didn't pay income tax in 2010 is that they had capital loss carryover from previous years that they used to reduce their taxable income in 2010.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 10:55 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor: I love how you see only what you want to see, and ignore the totality of what I post.

There ARE ways to raise revenue w/ out raising taxes. Or is that too much for your brain to comprehend ?

I never said there where not other ways of raising revenue. Just that raising taxes is one way, and as such will help cut the budget deficit.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:02 AM

DALEK!

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer: My point was that some companies do not make a profit every year, just like I stated above.

Okay, a pointless non sequitur...got it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Not sure how I am supposed to get that out of "Pretty sure companies like GE make a profit every year."

Sorry, I forgot I was arguing with someone with little in the way of higher brain function.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Besides, GE has had losses. One of the reasons they didn't pay income tax in 2010 is that they had capital loss carryover from previous years that they used to reduce their taxable income in 2010.

Overall, not GE has not had losses in recent years, including 2010. Here is a history of their profit margins...

http://ycharts.com/companies/GE/profit_margin

The fact is GE paid affectingly zero in taxes, because of off shore income.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/general-electric-paid-federal-taxes-201
0/story?id=13224558#.UHSPj66ODPw

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, October 09, 2012 11:17 AM