Country first isn't the issue, its what they plan to do with the $$$...I personally don't think it'll be a slight increase...that's the thing people don't understand... I'm not rich by any stretch of the imagination, but do live a comfortable life...Any increase will be felt by all, but mostly the rich, which IMHO, pay more than their fair share...U don't know that until you make a little money, plain and simple... However, I think we all pay more than our fair share of taxes...federal, in some cases state taxes, sales tax, property tax, et al...And now Obama wants more...I do believe the recent bailouts will cause a slight increase in taxes as well it should as someone has to pay for it and you know, it's us...
Way to use one single example (Buffet) to prove anything, in case you didn't see the data, the bottom 50% of the income earners pay about 3% of the total federal income tax. More regressive? The top 1% pays more of the percentage of the total tax every single year from 2002 to 2006. As for AIG, you know the 85 billion is a revolving credit line right? It doesn't have to draw all 85 if it doesn't need it. Its got plenty of good asset which can be sold, just the airplane leasing business can fetch a lot. The overall big plan is to buy these mortgage back papers from the market and hold them, there are no sh!tty assets, just over-priced ones. If government can buy them at a steep discount, then they might very well be able to make some money on them. These days I see a lot of hedge funds started to move into those papers, why? because some of them are actually oversold. Are there risks? sure, but don't tell me its a straight giveaway. Just because you read the wsj doesn't make you an expert.
(1) What is their share of income over that period? (2) What happens when you include the payroll taxes? That's a net 15% tax on all incomes up to about $100,000 and 0% on any income above that. While there may be a technical distinction, there certainly isn't when comparing how much is taken out of your income.
Hmmm... I gave as much as Biden did over this time frame... but I do it every year in those amounts (which means near 6 times as much in the same span... And our family is a <$100k/yr household). Hypocrite politicians needn't legislate to me anymore about where I put my money, and I sure don't need to give more to the government. Of course, if they get it in, it won't be my choice any longer, it will be law, and we ALL will have to... to be "patriots." Whatever happened to the patriots that established this nation, in great part, to get away from unfair taxation?
Uh - yeah you're either deliberately obscuring or you simply don't know what progressive/regressive means. Progressive/Regressive is not judged in terms of what percetnage of revenues that are generrated from the rich/poor - that's idiotic. Progressive/Regressive is determined by what percentage of income is paid by the rich/poor By your definition, we could tax Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc at 1%, and tax all minimum wage earners at 99%, and since Gates, Buffet, etc would contribute a far larger share of the revenue to the tax base - that would be a progressive income tax. But that's not a progressive income tax. The fact is that most super-rich get their income from dividends & capital gains while the middle class are stuck with ordinary income taxed at a higher rate. That's a regressive system and why the super rich pay less than those that aren't. Yawn - they've already drawn on half of it is what I've heard. I'm not going to debate the rest because it's all speculative. I don't. Anyway what's your idea to raise a trillion dollars?
Perhaps if you'd like to go back to not having an advanced military and not having roads or stock markets or any of the other things government provides, we can go back to those days.
My bad. Less. Even if I got up to the threshold of he makes, someday I'd love to, I will have already been giving more to charity per year than he has in several. Either way what ever percentage of a point Biden pays is way too small to sit back smugly and tell me, the average guy he's going to raise taxes on, that I should "jump in" and play my part and be more of a "patriot." <object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/tpb4ldtsFz4&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/tpb4ldtsFz4&rel=0&border=1&color1=0x5d1719&color2=0xcd311b&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="349"></embed></object>
I don't think this is getting enough attention so I'm asking you straight up, what did you mean by this?
Yes and who is running congress right now? Democrats and who are they bailing out in Fannie and Freddie? Democratic hacks who milked the companies for millions of dollars even when they clearly were being run into the ground...
If your family is less than 100K a year your taxes would be cut under Obama and Biden's plan, and that includes capital gains tax. But more importantly what does personal donation to charity have to do with trying to generate enough money to run the govt.
Take your racist comment and stick it where your head apparently is. If you choose to give it that connotative meaning that then go right ahead. Obama was clearly losing the primary race to Hilary and somehow he miraculously won the nomination? hmmmmmm, me things thou protest to much. Now the backlash is hilarious...
exactly, it doesn't really even deserve response, i've tried to refrain from the "dumbass" title, but seriously, obama is a toke who didn't really win the nomination? it says it all
I love it when the word police come out... Token <noun> - something that serves as an indication, a sign or a symbol I would have chosen the same word if we were talking about Hilary...just as much as Palin is a "token" for the women voters who feel slighted that Hillary got the shaft....go apply your racist label somewhere else....
