Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

DEBT: Withholding cuts, new tax don’t add up

Letter by David C. Woods, University Place on Dec. 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm with 77 Comments »
December 9, 2011 12:52 pm

President Obama proposes paying for his two percent decrease in Social Security withholding (a true reduction of 30 percent) by initiating a new tax on those who earn more than $1 million per year. However, has anyone done the math?

There are at least 150 million in the work force with an average earning of $35,000 a year. The two percent drop in the tax translates into $700 for each of the 150 million workers. Result: $105 billion that is not going into Social Security. No problem, the rich will pay for it.

There are approximately 250,000 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million (235,000 in 2009). In order to cover the annual $105 billion deficit to Social Security, each “rich” person would have to pay an additional tax of $420,000.

It is not reasonable to expect each “rich” person to contribute $420,000 additionally every year to Social Security. On top of that, the top ring of the income tax rate will soon increase to 39.6 percent, and capital gains taxes are going up. The President must be aware of this; it’s simple math.

Where is he leading us? Before you know it, the sacred cow – “the rich” – will be milked out. Then what will we do?

Leave a comment Comments → 77
  1. muckibr says:

    We got a llloooonnnnggggg way to go before “the rich” will be milked out in America. Just ask Warren Buffet!

    Excuse me if I do not cry big crocodile tears for the ultra-rich. They can afford it, and what’s more they owe it to America to help out when America needs help, because they are the ones who have the resources to provide help, because they amassed those resources as a direct result of the help they got from America in the first place!

    And that’s the way it is!

  2. truthbusterguy says:

    obama (his name doesn’t warrent a capital letter or the word President before it)took math lesson from Al “fuzzy math” Gore.

    He is dividing the country with his class warfare dribble.

    Mr. Wood, don’t forget that obama says you are a millionare if you make $250 K a year which will get down to me. If it happens I will lay off three workers and let obama and the Gov. pay them UE for the rest of their lives.

  3. Pacman33 says:

    Leave it to the Demunists to find a way to impede job creation with measures contained in a “Jobs Bill”. In order to fund the least effective form of a tax cut, they would increase taxes on small businesses and other job creators. It is no wonder the Dems previous attempts at jobs bills has been nothing short of a failure and the Stimu-less Bill will go into the books as the biggest disaster in legislative history.

  4. RW98512 says:

    First, from the SSA – “The national average wage index for 2010 is 41,673.83.” The letter writer was off by about 17% on part of his equation.

    That being said, I’m sure that he doesn’t think the Bush Tax Cuts should be extended – right?

  5. RW98512 says:

    “Mr. Wood, don’t forget that obama says you are a millionare if you make $250 K a year which will get down to me. If it happens I will lay off three workers and let obama and the Gov. pay them UE for the rest of their lives.”

    2% tax increase on $250,000 annual is $5000. THREE WORKERS for $5000 a year?????????????

    Oh and unemployment INSURANCE is a state program first, the extentions are federal. It lasts a maximum of 99 weeks.

    But, of course, “truthbuster” is a businessman thus I don’t have to say this stuff.

    I hope I never work for him.

  6. muckibr says:

    RW… I wouldn’t worry too much about the credentials of truthb…, if he/she is not aware that Unemployment Insurance is ultimately paid by the Employer in the first place. So, he can layoff 3 workers to save the $5k a year, and pay it out as UE payments instead of salary. And, like you already pointed out, it is not infinite, but will max-out long before his ex-employees live out “the rest of their lives.”

    And by the way, even if he doesn’t like the man, he should at least show some respect for the Office of the President of The United States of America. Currently held by President and Commander In Chief Barack Hussein Obama, and honorably so.

  7. sandblower says:

    And don’t forget, the $250K might be adjusted gross income which already allows for deductions for employees.
    Please correct me if I have that wrong. I cannot find anything precise on the net. It is correct for the new medicare tax found in the somewhat new healthcare legislation.
    “Q-2: Who is a “High Income” Taxpayer?

    A: Those whose tax filing status is “single” will be subject to the new unearned income taxes if they have Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of more than $200,000. Married couples filing a joint return with AGI of more than $250,000 will also be subject to the new tax. (The AGI threshold for married filing separate returns is $125,000.)”
    It is a 3.8% tax on unearned income and it takes affect 1 Jan 2013.

  8. truthbusterguy says:

    Do you notice that the liberal pinko commies that post here were quick to bring the $1 million tax level down to $250,000. They use the same obama fuzzy math to call a person that make $250,000 a millionare.

    I know how UE laws work. I don’t pay into it. I pay cash under the table and avoid taxes and proud of it. Why do I want to give a penny to Gregeiore to waste. But I will rejoin the system if McKenna is elected plus hire 8 more people.

    Do you idiots know that WA state is the #2 state where small businesses fail?

    I can say what I want about obama. I am a 10 point wounded vet. Screw you entitled draft dodgers that can’t do anything but take, take take and want only more.

  9. RW98512 says:

    I see. Truthbuster is a criminal.

  10. bobcat1a says:

    Dear Mr Truthbusted: it was YOU who brought up $250,000 making you a millionaire…but forgive me for actually introducing a FACT…I know they hurt your head.

  11. RW98512 says:

    “In 1973, the draft ended and the U.S. converted to an All-Volunteer military.”

    I’m wondering who “Truthbuster” is talking about. It’s been over 35 years since there was a draft to “dodge”.

    The best cases of draft dodging that I can recall were Dick Cheney and George Bush. Cheney “had better things to do” and Bush got “fortunate son” privilege to get into the National Guard, killing Kamikazes in a bar in Alabama.

    Of course there was Limbaugh’s cyst…which was probably where he learned to be a pain in the – oh nevermind.

  12. RW98512 says:

    Oh and for those who don’t know (I didn’t until I looked it up) a 10 point veteran is one that gets an allowance on government jobs requiring testing. It’s called “preferential treatment”. Nice that we have a government to provide those perks for vets, huh?

  13. RW98512 says:

    oops –

    Two Western states have the highest rates of small-business failures.

    California and Nevada came in far above other states in the number of small-business failures, with rates 69% and 65% higher than the national average, respectively, outpacing the third-place state, New Hampshire, which had a failure rate 38% above the average, according to a Dun & Bradstreet report.

  14. muckibr says:

    truth… wrote “I pay cash under the table and avoid taxes and proud of it.”

    Like I wrote on another topic, I have a name for anyone who cheats in order to avoid paying taxes. That word is TRAITOR! (Topic: CORPORATIONS: Political reality misinterpreted. Dec 9 at 2:55 PM)

    BTW, calling people on this blog who disagree with you “liberal pinko commies” and saying “Screw you entitled draft dodgers” violates the rules of this blog, and you have been reported. Furthermore, it’s completely immature and childish. However, it does not offend me in the least, because I am not a liberal or a pinko commie, but simply a deep-thinking Independent who served Honorably during The Vietnam Era.

    By the way, you say your are a Vet. Were you RA, NG or US? Just curious.

  15. BigSwingingRichard says:

    The main reason the numbers do not add up is because the Democrat’s proposed tax increase on income over one million dollars as written will last for ten years and will fund only one year of a 2% payroll tax cut. Make any sense?

    Of course not. But the tax increase was never planned to pass, it was only proposed to create more class warfare and to assist our President to continue the charade of blaming his failed administration on America’s millionaires and billionaires.

    Unfortunately, too many people are stupid enough that this strategy might just work.

  16. sandblower says:

    truthguy lost it. Too bad for losers.

  17. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Muck- your first comment showed your true colors, you are NOT independent. You are progressive. Why dodge your title, embarrassed by it?

    And that may be the way it is, but not the way it should be. We have moved so far from the foundation laid by the founders it is sickening.

    BHO wants payroll tax cuts that will not spur any job creation. It is another ‘stimulus’ that will not create a single job.

    The far left and the elderly always use the line ‘we paid for it’ when talking about SS or other entitlements. Guess what, you are not and now you are paying even less.

    Every person receiving a federal entitlement check should be required to thank a millionaire, in writing, one a quarter. Is their no pride remaining on the left?

  18. Dave98373 says:

    “show some respect for the Office of the President of The United States of America. Currently held by President and Commander In Chief Barack Hussein Obama, and honorably so.”

    That’s a laugh! Where was your outrage when democratic members of congress were cozying up to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during a war and calling for war crimes against W? obama is a poor and incompetent leader who continues to destroy our economy, our way of life, and is hell bent on further dividing this already divided nation…and by the way, he is also a bad American—that is called Free Speech my friend.

  19. Just one question Dave…, Who was in The White House when our economy was initially destroyed as you put it? You don’t have to answer that because we all know it was George W. Bush.

    President Obama inherited the destroyed economy from President Bush, and that my friend is a fact!

  20. “President Obama inherited the destroyed economy from President Bush, and that my friend is a fact!”

    And the next president will inherit an economy that Obama and company are ineffectual in providing any solution for…

    That, my friend, is a soon to be recognized realization

  21. Where was your outrage when democratic members of congress were cozying up to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during a war

    Specifically who, how and when were individuals “cozying up to Saddam Hussein”? If elected officials actually were providing aid and comfort to a declared enemy then they committed a serious crime of treason that you should be able to identify specifically.

    But then….it was all just blowhard rhetoric wasn’t it?

    Gotta love how the Bush Administration honored our dead warriors – burn’em and dump’em in the trash!

  22. Do you idiots know that WA state is the #2 state where small businesses fail?

    And do you – idiot – realize that the B&O and Sales taxes (instead of income taxes) are a huge reason for that failure rate?

  23. LarryFine says:

    “Who was in The White House when our economy was initially destroyed…”
    Well, we know who was running the house and senate for 2 years. And we all know what branch writes the budget.

  24. “Where was your outrage when democratic members of congress were cozying up to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during a war and calling for war crimes against W?”

    This reads like a Karl Rove political ad.

  25. “Well, we know who was running the house and senate for 2 years. And we all know what branch writes the budget.”

    Actually, on the day when Wall Street fell, it was one year and nine months. The Dems held the house and although the Democrats held fewer than 50 Senate seats, they had an operational majority because the two independent senators caucused with the Democrats for organizational purposes. (Lieberman was “cozied up” with the GOP), thus the invention of the new improved filibuster. In reality it was a 50/50 split.

    Now, that point aside, what does the government budget have to do with Wall Street crashing?

  26. wowzers RW, can you remind us all the number of hours and minutes also so that we are more exact in the future.

  27. beerBoy & RW…

    dave… asked: “Where was your outrage when democratic members of congress were cozying up to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during a war”

    and then beerBoy asked: “Specifically who, how and when were individuals “cozying up to Saddam Hussein”?”

    Well, I’ll tell you this. I do not know which “Democratic members of Congress” dave… is alluding to, because dave… has not yet come back and shared.

    But, I will tell you that as CIA Chief, Vice President of the U.S., and President of the U.S., George H. W. Bush had more to do with the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein than anyone else in America. Especially the “rise” of Hussein! George H.W. really helped to bring Saddam to power in Iraq in the first place!

    (For those of you light on American history, I’m talking about Dubya’s daddy, not Dubya. Dubya’s daddy already stepped in it in Iraq, so Dubya had to concoct some phony justification to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iraq, and ended up basing that attack on fictitious WMDs. He (Dubya) was also busy cozying-up and holding hands, literally, with the Saudis from whose ranks Osama bin Laden emerged.)

    But, don’t forget that dave… also wrote: “obama is a poor and incompetent leader ”

    Well, as “leader” or more precisely Commander in Chief, President Obama got Osama bin Laden and is pulling our troops out of Iraq. Those are two things Dubya couldn’t and didn’t do. On a scale of leadership, I give President Obama an 8 and President Dubya a 2. How’s that dave…?

  28. truthbusterguy says:

    I have been called everything in the book. I just consider the source and move on. Thin skinned libs should do the same.

    I am just trying to survive in a state that staacks the deck against small business with over taxing and excessive regulations. If they want to help they will cnsider the following:
    •Revisit the voluntary settlement agreement as passed by the state Senate in 2011 – $1.2 billion
    •Reform the displaced worker retraining program
    •Simplify sales taxes by using an ‘origin based’ tax (as opposed to a ‘destination based’ tax) and creating a flat rate for out-of-state businesses
    •Review regulations to ensure that Washington rules don’t exceed federal regulations
    •Do no harm in transportation policy – do not reduce lane capacity
    •Do not follow Seattle in enacting statewide paid sick leave

  29. truth…guy

    Still curious… By the way, you say your are a Vet. Were you RA, NG or US?

  30. also, truth…guy, when did you serve?

  31. This 2 percent reduction on Social Security, when Social Security is getting insolvent was ridiculous! Could not believe it when my social security maxed out at a 4400.00 contribution? What the heck? Where is the logic in this? It is a “funded” entitlement program, and now Obama’s solution is to reduce the monies going into the program? Those who will use the program pay in far less than they get out, and Obama sees some benefit in reducing the amount being paid into the fund? This is just Obama pandering to his base…..the non-productive, non-tax paying voter bloc of people he has; and the ultra-wealthy elite who are searching for some panacea……morons all around!

  32. qq – nothing like the truth to screw up a good lie, huh?

  33. “Could not believe it when my social security maxed out at a 4400.00 contribution?”

    Has nothing to do with Obama. The limit on social security has been around for a long time. If anything Obama would like to lift it, but then you folks would really squeal.

    For those that don’t pay attention, the 2% that the middle class gets to keep is taken from the general fund and paid to the social security fund. They don’t tell you that on FOX.

  34. took14theteam says:

    To answer the question, Seattle’s own Baghdad Jim McDermott went to Iraq to cozy up with Saddam.

    Sean Penn also went. He should have been used as a human shield…..

  35. RW – ‘paid’ ahh, nope, that is the promise to return the money to the SS fund. I found that out on FoxNews

  36. dave… asked: “Where was your outrage when democratic members of congress were cozying up to Saddam Hussein in Iraq during a war”

    and then beerBoy asked: “Specifically who, how and when were individuals “cozying up to Saddam Hussein”?”

    The McDermott trip occurred in 2002, the Bush State Department approved the trip. The invasion occurred in 2003.

    Sean Penn is an actor, not a member of Congress….but his trip to Iraq was in 2002, before the invasion.

    So…sorry…no soup for you.

  37. Back to the topic:

    The payroll tax rate cut is/was/and always has been a short-sighted policy ignoring the reality that this is the complete wrong time to cut funding to SS.

    But….this in now way suggests that the GOP are correct in their resistance to letting the “temporary” Bush Cuts not be renewed.

  38. Good letter. What I don’t hear enough of, regarding the payroll tax, is that this is a retirement fund and medical insurance. The progs are now advocating that “the rich” pay child support so that gen-x/y won’t have to contribute to their own retirement. Pathetic.

  39. “The progs are now advocating that “the rich” pay child support”

    The only child support I’ve seen “progs” talk about is the unpaid support by the TEA Party Congressman Joe Walsh He owes his wife significantly over $100 K in unpaid child support.

    As to McDermott – “In the fall of 2002, McDermott and fellow Representatives David Bonior of Michigan, Nick Rahall of West Virginia and Mike Thompson of California visited Iraq; in Baghdad they met with members of parliament and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, and in Basra they met with residents who talked about the effect on them of the Iraq sanctions. American conservatives sharply criticised McDermott for this trip, and for his predictions that President George W. Bush would “mislead the American public” to justify military action and that no WMD would be found in Iraq.”

    Now. What do we KNOW about WMDs in Iraq? NONE were found. Haven’t we pretty much learned that Bush’s Iraq playground was nothing short of a money making scheme for his cronies (and a place to die for 1,000s of Americans)?

    Can you imagine why the Conservatives want to smear McDermott’s visit?

    Joe Wilson said “no WMDs” – they outted his CIA wife.

    The Conservatives are real patriots, until it politically serves them to not be patriots.

  40. qq98411 says:
    Dec. 10, 2011 at 12:35 pm RW – ‘paid’ ahh, nope, that is the promise to return the money to the SS fund. I found that out on FoxNews

    I get you. If the intention is to pay out of the general fund, you must present the possibility that it won’t happen. Conservatives operate on emotion and that is an emotional issue.

    On the other hand, Conservatives are rather good about denying that the Bush Administration hid much of the cost of the Iraq War under the carpet.

    I’m so glad that you treat each issue equally and that you are looking out of the working class of America.

  41. As of right now, as far as I know it is an IOU to the Social Security portion of the fund. Considering the fact that we are 15+ TRILLION dollars in debt, we operate on a record setting deficit three years running, regardless of party, Washington DC is dysfunctional… is it really not a possibility that it won’t get ‘paid’… really dude?

    Second, how do you hide from anybody, the billions of dollars you guys say the war cost? Do you really believe the rhetoric that is place before and you are asked to repeat? Does the possibility or the actuality of ‘hiding’ billions of dollars make any sense to you… again really? How is that possible without some Democrat in Congress getting at least a whiff of something?

    The sad part of your last sentence is that you believe you are looking out for the working class of America when all you are doing is trading one perceived master for another.

  42. rw: “The only child support I’ve seen “progs” talk about is the unpaid support by the TEA Party Congressman Joe Walsh He owes his wife significantly over $100 K in unpaid child support.

    Hey, have you ever seen any of Obama’s college records, or have you read any of the stuff he authored while in school? Thought I’d ask, since it’s about as relevant to the topic as the drivel I quoted above.

  43. lanq says:
    Dec. 10, 2011 at 2:42 pm Good letter. What I don’t hear enough of, regarding the payroll tax, is that this is a retirement fund and medical insurance. The progs are now advocating that “the rich” pay child support so that gen-x/y won’t have to contribute to their own retirement. Pathetic.

    lanq – If I were you, I’d contact the moderator immediately as someone is using your name to post comments that you claim you are not making

    Guess who brought up “CHILD SUPPORT”?

  44. rw, yes, yes, we get it, Alinsky and all that. And don’t play dumb, as though I meant child support in the literal sense. Or did you really think that? Hard to tell. Proggies usually fall nicely into one of three groups. Those who believe that they can gain financially by rabble rousing (politicians and business leaders), those who’re too dumb or naive to realize that they’re being suckered by class warfare (college students and those people who vote D because mom and dad did it), and people who think they’ll gain financially by having the people in group A take money from “the rich” and give it to them. (inner city riff raff and the lazy) Groups B and C are not too intelligent, generally speaking, so yes, I can see how you may have take that literally.

  45. Re veterans’ preference

    Honorable Discharged Veterans get a 5 point preference.

    Disabled or wounded Veterans get a 10 point preference.

    The preferences can only be claimed if the veteran etc is qualified for the job.

    Wives and children may also be able to claim a veteran’s preference.

  46. lanq’s previous comment is about the best example or elitist snobbery I have ever read. lanq obviously feels far superior to all others. That’s kind of the problem trying to have a debate of the issues with someone who is so closed-minded as this.

  47. muck, please… Proggies are by far the most condescending group of people, whether they’re mocking the tea party people, or mocking religion, or mocking those who question man-made global warming, or mocking the intelligence of people who don’t goose-step with them, or .. take your pick, they mock pretty much anything that conflicts with their political philosophy, because that’s all they have. It’s all part of RfR, you and I both know that, so don’t act all shocked. I was responding to RW’s condescension, by accurately describing the progressive movement, which is all about money.

  48. lanq, and still your latest ranting comment is nothing but stereotypical bigotry, giving YOU away as the elitist snob here on this blog. You were “accurately describing” nothing. You were simply having a little snit with your name calling and canned generalities about people you don’t even know. That is being a bigot.

  49. hansgruber says:

    Lets tax the Billionaires. Lets how much they pay in taxes:

    Lets look at:
    Larry Ellison – Co-founder and CEO Oracle Corporation
    Annual: USD 1.00

    Larry pays 39 cents in Federal income taxes.

    Dumb

  50. Seems I touched a nerve. I was calmly pointing out the flaws of progressivism, while you resorted to name calling.

    RfR # 2. Never go outside the expertise of your people

    My analysis of progressivism clearly went outside your area of expertise, and you failed to heed that rule. It was an epic failure on your part, and I can only assume at this point that you’re part of group # B that I described above.

  51. Vox – Based on Muckibr other posts I thought he was too far right of center to be a progressive. Thank you for setting me straight.

    RW – We Nam vets called Canada the poor boy’s draft dodge, and the NG and Reserves were the rich boy’s draft dodge.

    Muckibar – re Iraq-US relations. US support to Saddam occurred during the Iran-Iraq War(aka First Persian Gulf War 1980-1988) was based on ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and was intended to prevent the spread of Iranian influence in the Gulf Area. It was not until Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 that Saddam became our enemy.

  52. “rw, yes, yes, we get it, Alinsky and all that. And don’t play dumb, as though I meant child support in the literal sense.”

    “Alinsky” LMAO.

    You know, I didn’t know who Alinsky was until a Conservative brought him up and I did some research. I guess I’m not a good socialist.

    lanq got caught using Conservative rhetoric and it blew up in his CON face.

    Only a rich CON wouldn’t pay his child support and Walsh is proof.

    xring – friends of mine that went to Nam combat areas would have loved to be in Alabama working on a political campaign.

  53. wow, they really don’t have anything…

  54. We’re number 4…..with a little more effort the US could surpass Turkey, Mexico and Chile and be the worst rated country in the world for wealth distribution.

    United States
    > Gini coefficient: 0.378
    > Change in income inequality: +12.1%
    > Employment rate: 66.7% (13th highest)
    > Change in income of the rich: +1.9% per year
    > Change in income of the poor: +0.5% per year

    Read more: Countries With The Widest Gap Between Rich And Poor – 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/2011/12/06/countries-with-biggest-spread-between-rich-and-poor/#ixzz1gLgbxHMs

  55. xring, I’m not sure what you were getting at with your comment to vox, but a right-winger I’m not. Neither am I a lib. I am, and have always been centrist, leaning this way on some issues and the other way on others.

    As regards your explanation of Iraq-US relations, you are right on, and that’s the point I was trying to make. Up until the Iraq invasion of Kuwait, George H. W. Bush was Saddam Hussein’s benefactor. Then the tables turned, yet George H. W. stopped short of finishing the job when he had the opportunity. General Schwarzkopf could have taken Desert Storm into Baghdad and finished it, but he was prevented. (That is what led to Operation Iraqi Freedom and over 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women dead.)

    The old U.S. policy of propping up the least objectionable dictator in the region, in order to contain the more objectionable, was always a lame foreign policy. It didn’t work in S.E. Asia, Central America, or Persia/Arabia, but still they did it, and in the process created despots like Hussein. And in that case, George H.W. Bush can take much of the credit. That’s all I was saying.

  56. usedbookman says:

    The real question, is why is Obama trying to destroy Social Security? For years, it’s been reported how the so called trust fund is lurching toward insolvency. Cutting the payroll tax only speeds up the process.

    If Obama really cared bout job creation, he’d approve the Keystone Pipeline with 20,000 good paying shovel ready jobs.

  57. rw, when you type stuff just ’cause you’re mad at not being able to articulate anything of substance, it’s just not very becoming.

  58. lanq, so far nothing you’ve typed so far is very becoming. Quite while you’re behind will ya?

  59. Spiderweb says:

    “I was calmly pointing out the flaws of progressivism”

    ROFLMAO! Yes, you certainly were. Only one small problem, you forgot to bring any facts along with your “argument”

    Keep it coming, this is hilarious!

  60. LarryFine says:

    “You know, I didn’t know who Alinsky was until a Conservative brought him up…”

    That’s funny, I didn’t know what the term meant that has been used to denigrate the TEA party… until bB told us.

  61. One of these days I will have to teach you how to use google so I can stop being your research monkey….

  62. hansgruber says:

    •Combined fortune of US billionaires: $1.5 trillion (43 Billionaires in the US)
    http://royal.pingdom.com/2011/03/11/world-billionaire-stats-charts/

    $1.65 Trillion is what the US Government BORROWED last year. So even if you took ever US billionaires entire wealth it wouldn’t even pay for what Obama borrow in 2009!

    Warran Buffet’s annual income in 2010? Buffett pays himself a salary of just $100,000 a year,

    most of his income comes from investments—long term capital gains and dividends–taxed at a special top rate of 15%.
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2011/10/12/warren-buffets-effective-federal-income-tax-rate-is-just-11/

  63. hans – you forgot to cite the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

    Here’s another number you forgot to cite: Tax-free money loaned to banks by the Fed: $7.7 TRILLION

    Of course….that, like the numbers you cited, really has little to do with the letter’s central thrust.

    Essentially your argument is – since taxing the uber-rich at a higher rate won’t pay for the entire deficit, we shouldn’t raise the tax rate on the uber-rich.

  64. is that the way you see it bb? wow… ok…

    I had this long thing in my head but you hit it bb… yes, because taxing the ‘uber-rich’ wont pay for diddly, why throw good money after bad and tax them.

    We have a spending problem, this administration has a spending problem, the previous administration had a spending problem… blah, blah, blah…

    Whether that is what hans’ premise was, who cares, sounds good to me…

  65. T-B-G – please read the letters and post before moving you fingers from your mouth to the keyboard.

    The letter says ‘there are approximately 250,000 taxpayers with incomes over $1 million.

    IT DOES NOT SAY ‘people who earn $250,000 are millionaires.
    Pacman33 – leave in to Rpots to camouflage tax cuts to the rich as jobs bills. And very few small businesses make a million a year.

    Lanq –
    “Obama’s college records” – did you demand tosee Bush’s military records?

    Your analysis of progressivism is way far outside your area of expertise. To bring it down to your level, Progressives are not Republicans or T-party types, and we believe in America and ALL her citizens not just in the rich and big business interests.

    RW – most of us who when to Nam would have preferred to be any place else.

    Muckibr – chalk it up to hyperbole. Like you, I am an independent. I used to be slightly right of Center. Now I am well left of center. My core beliefs have not changed, but right wing beliefs have gone way far the hill and through the woods to cloudcukoland.

    Old H.W. could have sent Storming Norman to Baghdad and we would have probably suffered fewer casualties. However there are three reasons the order was not given:

    Our stated military and political goal was the liberation of Kuwait, but not to invade Iraq.

    To have invaded Iraq would cost us international political and economic support and good will.

    Our Saudi allies pointed out that Saddam acted as a buffer to block Iran.

    H.W.’s military advisors (including Powell and Schwarzkopf) told him not to because they could not come up with a viable exit strategy or plan.

    Hans – did you pay your home and car loans off in one lump sum or did you make monthly payments?

    QQ – a cut spending only approach is a highway to failure and the fall of our Country.

  66. took14theteam says:

    From xring-

    T-B-G – please read the letters and post before moving you fingers from your mouth to the keyboard.

    LMFAO

  67. took14theteam says:

    That coming from xring is classic is what I meant to say.

  68. LarryFine says:

    Laughing Out Loud @ xring…kooky

  69. qq – so, if taxing the rich won’t completely solve the problem we shouldn’t tax the rich – right?

    But…..from another thread you support the Keystone pipeline based upon jobs created even though the jobs created be, at most 6,000 and the vast majority of those will be given to Canadians.

    So….slightly raising taxes for the rich doesn’t completely solve the problem so we shouldn’t do it. But giving land to a foreign corporation through eminent domain is something we should do because of the few temporary jobs it will create?

    Help me out…..I’m not seeing how your logic is consistent here.

  70. hansgruber says:

    Beer-What I am saying is the uber-rich don’t earn their money on annual income which is a high tax. They earn it through capital gains (Long term investments, interest & dividends) which is taxed at a max of 15% vs 39.5%. Most of the Uber-rich like Buffet earn less than $100,000 and about half the of Billionaires earn $1 or less in annual income.

    People like Buffet for example earned $62 Million in capital gains and donated more after deduction showed a taxable income of $39 Million and paid $6 Million in income taxes. That is the tax systems we have.

    If the rich or uber-rich want to pay more, they can write a check to the IRS and they’ll cash it.

    Funny, they say tax me more, I can pay more, I should pay more, including our President but do they?

    No

    Pathetic

    Xring- I saved and paid cash for my cars. I saved and paid a large down payment and pay more than the minimum payment (4 times the minimum currently) on my home. I do not re-fi it every year; I do not touch the equity in it. I plan ahead, I have a rainy day fund, I am not rich (according to our President)

  71. bb – as far my logic is concerned…

    Keystone – apples to oranges though I provided a post that might give you clues to my logic and why it is two different tracks but yet consistent.

    Taxing the rich won’t solve any fiscal problem because the problem is too much spending. Don’t care how much you tax me, you, our neighbors, the businesses we work for, etc… if the government chooses to spend more than it takes in… that is the problem that needs to be solved first.

    The oil shale comes from Canada and most of the processing begins in Canada, so yes most of the ongoing jobs will go to Canada. The pipeline is in America. Building it is a project, hence workers… The oil shale goes to Texas for processing, a good number of jobs will be maintain with some added because of the project.

    You see the dog poop, I see a job.

    ‘giving land’ – you know that is not true so why even say it. You know dang well that property owners are paid for land and /or are paid a lease for land used. You’re third paragraph is mute…

  72. xring: “Lanq – “Obama’s college records” – did you demand tosee Bush’s military records?”

    Nope, and I didn’t demand to see Obama’s military records, either.

    I’m not too interested in Obama’s scholastics as I am about the content of papers that he authored while there. My guess would be that there’s a very good reason that Obama doesn’t want normal Americans to see them.

  73. Hans – you credit record does you honor. It also show why we need to increase federal revevue so we can pay off our debt as soon as possible, while reduceing new debt.

  74. hansgruber says:

    Xring- “increase federal revenue”?
    You mean increase taxes. revenue=taxes.
    So lets just say it for what it really is:
    Let raises taxes!

    “pay off our debt as soon as possible, while reducing new debt”

    In order to pay off the debt;

    First you need to STOP incurring debt.
    Simply put: Stop borrowing money and spend only what you take in.

    Secondly, in order to pay down the debt:

    You need to spend less than you take in.
    (BTW the last time it has happen over the course of a fiscal year was 1956)and don’t even try to bring in the Clinton urban legend that he reduced the national debt because he didn’t.
    The only time the national debt was zero was:
    On Jan. 8, 1835, all the big political names in Washington gathered to celebrate what President Andrew Jackson had just accomplished. A senator rose to make the big announcement: “Gentlemen … the national debt … is PAID.”

    That was the one time in U.S. history when the country was debt free. It lasted exactly one year.

    Good luck under this Admin

  75. They earn it through capital gains (Long term investments, interest & dividends) which is taxed at a max of 15% vs 39.5%.

    Which is exactly why Buffett’s suggestions include an increase on Capital Gains rates for those whose income is million(s) per annum.

  76. Why raise anything? Why not lower the personal tax rate? The taxpayer is not an open spigot.

  77. RW, did you figure it out yet? The 2 percent reduction that OBAMA pushed through caused the 2,000 plus dollar reduction in the max contribution to Social Security. Social Security contributions are maxed at right about 106k currently(yes its been ratcheted up quite a bit over the past 5 years), so paying 4.2% of 106k versus paying 6.2% of 106k results in a 2200.00 approx reduction in the Social Security contribution. This is our President’s fiscal plan. Reduce the contribution to Social Security when Social Security is becoming insolvent. It’s idiotic, as are most of his policies. He is so far over his head; lets get him back to organizing bake sales in Chicago-something he is more qualified to do.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0