House of Fusion
Search over 2,500 ColdFusion resources here
  
Home of the ColdFusion Community

Mailing Lists
Home /  Groups /  ColdFusion Community (CF-Community)

Ahhh so this is what wealthy republicans mean by Taxes

  << Previous Post |  RSS |  Sort Oldest First |  Sort Latest First |  Subscribe to this Group Next >> 
"OK so make our rate 15%"
** Private **
01/25/12 10:19 A
> "OK so make our rate 15%"
** Private **
01/25/12 06:36 P
"Back to personal attack mode I see."
** Private **
01/26/12 12:28 P
Looking at an interview with Joe Walsh.
** Private **
01/25/12 03:12 P
Patriots all.
** Private **
01/25/12 03:30 P
Gee Mo that's almost an email sig.
** Private **
01/25/12 03:29 P
Back to personal attack mode I see.
** Private **
01/25/12 01:17 P
Nope. It's corporations.
** Private **
01/25/12 01:18 P
I can agree with your snark there.
** Private **
01/25/12 01:29 P
Top  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/24/2012 08:33 PM

No wonder they see nothing wrong with the status quo. http://gawker.com/5878851/your-guide-to-mitt-romneys-obscene-tax-situation Romney paid just about 15% on about 42m in earnings. Nice...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 09:31 AM

Of course he did.  It's what all of the elitists do. Theoretically, at least Republicans want to lower taxes for everyone. On the other side of politics, the elitist want to raise taxes while they continue to dodge the same burden. J - The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much. - Ronald Reagan In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it. - Alexis de Tocqueville

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 09:52 AM

> Theoretically, at least Republicans want to lower taxes for everyone. OK so make our rate 15%

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:11 AM

given that the average tax rate is around 25% according to the IRS, his 14.7% tax rate fits right up there with his statement that "Corporations are people too." Both make great fodder for attack ads. On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Casey Dougall - Uber Website Solutions <casey@uberwebsitesolutions.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:19 AM

Actually, the average individual tax rate is 9.3 You would need to add corporations to the mix in order for it to be 25% . > > given that the average tax rate is around 25% according to the IRS, > his 14.7% tax rate fits right up there with his statement that > "Corporations are people too." > > Both make great fodder for attack ads.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:38 PM

OK where did you get those numbers. Citations please. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:19 AM

"OK so make our rate 15%" Better yet, abolish the income tax. J - GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent. But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent. OBAMA: Right. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected? OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. -

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 06:36 PM

>  "OK so make our rate 15%" > > Better yet, abolish the income tax. ding ding ding! ...

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/26/2012 12:28 PM

"Back to personal attack mode I see." Back? That would seem to indicate that there had been a stoppage. J - This is a rich country. We have plenty of money, and if you don?t believe me, ask Haliburton. There?s plenty of money out there; don?t fall into the trap of this whole deficit argument. ?The only question is how to spend it. - Van Jones Government can't do anything for you except in proportion as it can do something to you. - William F. Buckl

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:28 AM

Interesting point, unlike Obama and Biden, Romney gave $3m to charity. Which he deducted from his taxes. That means he paid 30%. The one difference is he got to decide where half of his taxes would help people rather than leaving it to Uncle Obama. . > > given that the average tax rate is around 25% according to the IRS, > his 14.7% tax rate fits right up there with his statement that > "Corporations are people too." > > Both make great fodder for attack ads.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 10:33 AM

"The one difference is he got to decide where half of his taxes would help people rather than leaving it to Uncle Obama." But Obama and Biden get to decide where YOUR taxes will help instead of leaving it to you.  Isn't that better? J - My experience in getting money for Tuskegee has taught me to have no patience with those people who are always condemning the rich because they are rich, and because they do not give more to objects of charity. In the first place, those who are guilty of such sweeping criticisms do not know how many people would be made poor, and how much suffering would result, if wealthy people were to part all at once with any large proportion of their wealth in a way to disorganize and cripple great business enterprises - Booker T. Washington I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. ? I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. - Benjamin Franklin

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 12:30 PM

> But Obama and Biden get to decide where YOUR taxes will help instead of > leaving it to you.  Isn't that better? Yes, it is. There's a reason why every stable group of people above a couple hundred end up having some form of government. You might want to look into it and learn something instead of demonizing a universal institution from a place of ignorance and spite. Just saying. Juda

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 12:44 PM

Actually, doesn't Congress, for the most part, decide where the taxes get spent, not the President, and certainly not he Vice President (unless there are a lot of tie votes he has to break as the President of the Senate)? Just to be a little accurate? On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Judah McAuley <judah@wiredotter.com>wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:07 PM

Normally yes. Nowadays congress approves stimulus and ObamaCare multi-$trillion packages which allows Obama and his czars spend as they like. You wanted change right? . > > Actually, doesn't Congress, for the most part, decide where the taxes get > spent, not the President, and certainly not he Vice President (unless there > are a lot of tie votes he has to break as the President of the Senate)? > > Just to be a little accurate?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:29 PM

You do realize that it's been over three years since Congress has passed any of those bills, right?   Or that most of the provisions of Obamacare don't become effective until 2014.  Also  the general consensus even among conservative economists is that things would be much worse had the stimulus package not passed. But let's not let facts get in the way of using stale rhetoric to make our decisions, right? > > Normally yes. Nowadays congress approves stimulus and ObamaCare > multi-$trillion packages which allows Obama and his czars spend as > they like. > > You wanted change right?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:48 PM

You do realize we're paying for ObamaCare already, even though it doesn't take effect until 2014? You know how the money is being spent? The general consensus among every but the few that still believe in "the Inconvenient Truth" is the money was wasted. Summers even said that to Obama before they handed him the money. . ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:04 PM

No, the money has not been spent.  That's just another opposition lie. As for the money being wasted, tell that to all the people who are working, those who got the tax refund, and those who are driving on the roads and bridges being repaired.  Again, just more opposition spin and nonsense. > > You do realize we're paying for ObamaCare already, even though it > doesn't take effect until 2014? You know how the money is being spent? > > The general consensus among every but the few that still believe in > "the Inconvenient Truth" is the money was wasted. Summers even said > that to Obama before they handed him the money.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:12 PM

Looking at an interview with Joe Walsh. He says that Republicans actually want a ZERO % tax on capital gains. In other words, he would be fine with Mitt Romney paying 0 tax on that 41m if that's what it came down to. He said that the money that Romney earned has already been taxed in other ways before Romney received it, so why should it be taxed again. He said that people like Romney who earn over 1 million dollars create jobs, and create opportunities and if these people are not taxed the US would see a rebound in job creation and it would benefit the Middle Class. He said this is why the GOP rejected the 0.5% surcharge put forward by Obama to pay for his Jobs Act. He went onto say that he expects further gridlock in 2012 and the GOP is looking to the elections for the people to decide. Basically this GOP is prepared to run things into the ground for a year in the hope that the economy fails, in order to win the elections. Heedless of the immense ripple effect what is happening in the US is having on markets internationally, not just in the US. On 25 January 2012 16:04, Maureen <mamamaureen@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:26 PM

It's already failed. Time to try something else since hope and change ain't it. . > > > Basically this GOP is prepared to run things into the ground for a year in > the hope that the economy fails, in order to win the elections. Heedless of > the immense ripple effect what is happening in the US is having on markets > internationally, not just in the US.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:24 PM

> No, the money has not been spent.  That's just another opposition lie. Yeah, it's gone. In the lockbox so to say. The stimulus failed to stimulate, it was a colossal waste of money but Obama knew it wouldn't work: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/340286c8-4615-11e1-9592-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1kVH4f3pe Senior economic advisers to Barack Obama, the then US president-elect, turned away from a supersized fiscal stimulus because they doubted its practicality, according to a December 2008 internal memo. The 57-page memo from Lawrence Summers, then the incoming director of the economic bureaucracy in the White House, lays out the thinking of the Obama administration in unprecedented detail. The memo was obtained by The New Yorker magazine. Mr Summers told the president that it would be hard to spend more than $300bn on government investment and anything above that would have to come from transfers to the states and tax cuts. He also said that a giant stimulus of more than $1,000bn aimed at rapidly reducing the unemployment rate ?would likely not accomplish the goal because of the impact it would have on markets?. The memo sheds new light on a long-running controversy about whether the 2009 stimulus ? which became the $787bn American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ? failed to keep unemployment below 9 per cent because it was too small. It suggests that Mr Obama?s economic advisers recognised that the economy needed a bigger boost, but did not think they could design one and feared a backlash from bond markets. ?While the most effective stimulus is government investment, it is difficult to identify feasible spending projects on the scale that is needed to stabilise the macroeconomy,? Mr Summers wrote. ?To get the package to the requisite size, and also to address other problems, we recommend combining it with substantial state fiscal relief and tax cuts for individuals and businesses.? The memo sets out four stimulus options ranging from $550bn to $890bn in size. Even based on assumptions about the crisis that turned out to be optimistic, Mr Summers called for a package ?considerably larger? than $500bn-600bn, but said that ?an excessive recovery package could spook markets or the public and be counterproductive?. Critics have argued that the decline in 10-year US Treasury yields to around 2 per cent showed that fears of a shock to the bond markets were exaggerated. The memo also shows that Mr Obama?s advisers made a serious political misjudgment, believing that if they asked for too small a stimulus, it would be easy to go back to Congress and ask for more. ?It is easier to add down the road to insufficient fiscal stimulus than to subtract from excessive fiscal stimulus,? the memo notes. Mr Obama has found it nearly impossible to persuade Congress to authorise any further stimulus spending. . > As for the money being wasted, tell that to all the people who are > working, those who got the tax refund, and those who are driving on > the roads and bridges being repaired.  Again, just more opposition > spi

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:39 PM

Do you have anything later than 2008, cause a lot of stuff has happened since then? > > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/340286c8-4615-11e1-9592-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1kVH4f3pe > > Senior economic advisers to Barack Obama, the then US president-elect, > turned away from a supersized fiscal stimulus because they doubted its > practicality, according to a December 2008 internal memo.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:29 PM

Gee Mo that's almost an email sig. > But let's not let facts get in the way of using stale rhetoric to make our decisions, right? > -- Larry C. Lyons web: http://www.lyonsmorris.com/lyons LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/larryclyons There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." - Issac Asimov

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:16 PM

Accuracy was not the intention of his post, obviously. I'm pretty sure that JerryB knows how money is allocated in the federal government. He just likes to belittle the institution and therefore has no great concern for accuracy. Judah ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:17 PM

Back to personal attack mode I see. . > > Accuracy was not the intention of his post, obviously. I'm pretty sure > that JerryB knows how money is allocated in the federal government. He > just likes to belittle the institution and therefore has no great > concern for accuracy.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 01:18 PM

Nope.  It's corporations. Just to be a little snarky. On 1/25/2012 12:44 PM, Jerry Milo Johnson wrote: > > Actually, doesn't Congress, for the most part, decide where the taxes get > spent, not the President, and certainly not he Vice President (unless there > are a lot of tie votes he has to break as the President of the Senate)? > > Just to be a little accurate?

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 03:39 PM

In this case I don't think it was through any good on his own. first off most of that went to the Mormon Church. ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 04:04 PM

Jon Stewart on Romney : Poor people have shitty lobbyists. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jon-stewart-takes-on-mitt-romney-tax-return-video_n_1230530.html While focusing on how much anyone makes, whether through interest or otherwise shouldn't be part of any campaign in my view, what should be a part is how they look at inequity. Romney's solution is to get the poor paying more taxes, and to cut welfare. Under no circumstances must his 47 million be taxed even 0.5% more.

Top  |   Parent  |   Reply  |   Original Post  |   RSS Feed  |   Subscribe to this Group
Author:
** Private **
01/25/2012 04:08 PM

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/jon-stewart-takes-on-mitt-romney-tax-return-video_n_1230530.html > This was even better - Go watch all three. Exclusive - Elizabeth Warren Extended Interview Pt. 1 In this unedited, extended interview, Elizabeth Warren considers cuts in education and research spending detrimental and calls on America to invest in its middle class. http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Save Congress and the Senate Get more people like Elizabeth Warren in office.


<< Previous Thread Today's Threads Next Thread >>

Search cf-community

July 28, 2014

<<   <   Today   >   >>
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
     1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31     

Designer, Developer and mobile workflow conference