Words Have Meaning ...

They can not be changed to suit the moment or the talker. This use of language is beyond even Clintonian-speak, maybe even Orwellian. This is going to cause high earners to think about life, choices, and the future - with bad results for this Administration. Higher tax rates do not necessarily produce higher revenue ... this has been proven in the past. These “deliberately higher prices” will be paid by the consumer, cause we all know businesses DON’T pay taxes ... they pass along tax burdens in their pricing structures. A possible ramification can be business owners going to relocate out of country, thus further deplete our manufacturing, service and financial industries. Remember ... capital is mobile!

Marx, Engels, and Lenin are now the holy Trinity of the popular/progressive mindset. But now we are done as a country of excellence of ideas and achievement ... doomed to never getting out of that class because that class is locked into their mindset of mediocrity, with no more spark of achievement, nor incubation of excellence our chance of paying off the debts. Our nation's love of freedom, it's cherishing of the individual, or appreciation for excellence are gone. A good possibility that in 75 years the U.S. will be forgotten except as receding foot note in history.

Words have meaning ... and we see that that meaning was true all along. Even when we chose not to see it. This is where we are at: "If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." ~ Philip K. **** (How to Build a Universe That Doesn't Fall Apart Two Days Later by Philip K. ****, 1978)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Taxing the rich at 100% won't pay for Obama's budget

(http://bloggingredneck.blogspot.com/2009/02/taxing-rich-at-100-wont-pay-for-obamas.html)


 

The Wall Street Journal has reported that taxing the rich at 100% won't pay for Obama's budget. Barack Obama promised not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 per year. Where is he going to get the money? The numbers indicate Obama will need to take 100% of the income of everyone making over $75,000.

 

The 2% Illusion
Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

President Obama has laid out the most ambitious and expensive domestic agenda since LBJ, and now all he has to do is figure out how to pay for it. On Tuesday, he left the impression that we need merely end "tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans," and he promised that households earning less than $250,000 won't see their taxes increased by "one single dime."

This is going to be some trick. Even the most basic inspection of the IRS income tax statistics shows that raising taxes on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $250,000 can't possibly raise enough revenue to fund Mr. Obama's new spending ambitions.

A tax policy that confiscated 100% of the taxable income of everyone in America earning over $500,000 in 2006 would only have given Congress an extra $1.3 trillion in revenue. That's less than half the 2006 federal budget of $2.7 trillion and looks tiny compared to the more than $4 trillion Congress will spend in fiscal 2010. Even taking every taxable "dime" of everyone earning more than $75,000 in 2006 would have barely yielded enough to cover that $4 trillion.(excerpt) read more at online.wsj.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123561551065378405.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
Josie06 Josie06
56-60, F
28 Responses Feb 28, 2009

There you go again Josie.<br />
Quoting things said by Democrats AFTER Bush ordered the CIA to cover up the unreliable "Curveball" claims of WMD.<br />
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.factcheck.org%2Firaq_what_did_congress_know_and_when.html&ei=fM8ZSreYA6DoswOK0tySDw&rct=j&q=CIA+Congress+redacted+doubts&usg=AFQjCNHXyC8VnhoGVxJe7uEijn2cs4GcjQ<br />
doubts about WMD claims removed from CIA briefings given Congress at Bush's order.<br />
OOOPS!!<br />
There you go again, LOSING!!<br />
<br />
There was no WMD.<br />
SPecifically, there was no 500 tons of VGX.<br />
There was no "sought ...uranium"<br />
And, above all, there was no NEED FOR WAR!<br />
And Democrats were lied to in order to get the quotes you are using now!!<br />
BWHAHAHAA!

[Things the MSM covered up for the Dems.] Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.<br />
<br />
Consider these shocking facts:<br />
<br />
• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium<br />
<br />
• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons<br />
<br />
• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas<br />
<br />
• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs<br />
<br />
• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin<br />
<br />
This is only a partial list of the deadly weapons Miniter reveals in his new book, Disinformation. Miniter systematically dissects the "No-WMD Myth" (how it started, and why it continues), as well as 21 other War-on-Terror myths perpetuated by the media.<br />
<br />
Also: read the declassified portion of the NGIC Report (in PDF format) at http://www.wnd.com/redir/r.asp?http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf<br />
<br />
<br />
When Clinton was President all Dems said there was WMD in Iraq. (But I realize Bitlord, you would never want to bring this up or paint any Dem as endorsing WMD's in Iraq.)<br />
<br />
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."<br />
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998<br />
<br />
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."<br />
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 <br />
<br />
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."<br />
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 <br />
<br />
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."<br />
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 <br />
<br />
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."<br />
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 <br />
<br />
True Bitlord not all were found and those found under-reported (see above). Syria and other Saddam friends have them now. The world is much safer, right?<br />
<br />
<br />
Even President Obama plays the same as former President Bush ----- President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html)<br />
<br />
You quote in your first sentence is meaningless. Obama plays the same game, but you don't want to discuss that.<br />
<br />
If it was Bill Clinton or Barak Obama who was president when Iraq was invade Bitlord, you never would say any of this. You and many others hate former president Bush so much he will always be a scapegoat and a target for all your anger. But never anyone else.<br />
<br />
Whatever a Klein bottle is you can stick it where the subn don't shine bitlord.<br />
<br />
Bitlord you constantly attack and call people manes. You shouldn't believe what Amb. Wilson (Dem political pla<x>yer all his life) told you or the Italian Intelligence service. <br />
Read the NGIC report or believe you Dem politicians, whose tune changed only when it was to their political advantage to paint the American military as losers. Remember Sen Reid and his 'the was is lost." Now that is an inspiring sack of sh*t to follow, right.

Then try to explain away his quote "If I get a chance to invade Iraq, I'm going to use that political capital to get everything I want passed passed, and have a successful Presidency".<br />
in 1999.<br />
When NO ONE thought there was real WMD in Iraq.<br />
And Bush was not President.<br />
He lied.<br />
That pretty solidly proves his motive.<br />
Since we KNOW he knew the Uranium from Africa story was false, he lied.<br />
Now, if somehow, you can twist that to mean "Josie is right", please show us you Klein bottle.

Yeah, I'm a loser ... thanks for telling me. Guess I don't need a shrink or anything. The all know all wise Bitlord, Wizard of All Prophecy.<br />
<br />
Why do we need anyone but you. You can put everyone in their place. Put downs and name calling. We can all have cheese for brains and let you do the thinking for us.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
NOT!!!!!!!!!

I just showed you where he DID lie about his reason<br />
There, YOU LOSE.<br />
Not that it makes any difference.

He didn't lie about starting the war. The threat was there, WMD's were moved before we went in.<br><br />
<br><br />
Bitlord, he was an *SS as a president in the financial area. But the current one is out spending him. Evidently that okay with you and others now.,<br><br />
<br><br />
As long as it isn't Bush all is well in the world. It's called hipocracy.<br><br />
<br><br />
But you now have someone in office you are proud of, 'anyone but Bush', as all we can do is point the finger back and blame others. Never looking at the problem facing us today. President Obama is always pointing the finger at others to blame, never can he do wrong, he always says " I inherited this!" Nothing about his disaster perpetrated on the citizens ... that even Dems are voting against in Congress. His agenda is all that matters and in his own words must be passed now.<br />
<br />
Pork and rationed medicine, to name two.

Done and done.<br />
Your dog collar must be choking you.<br />
I gave you Bush's quote about WHY he started the war, you still won't admit he lied in order to murder 1 million innocent people.<br />
Pretty much proves what a lame drone you are.

bitlord, give me a specific instance where I failed you and didn't give you a resourced site to go look at. Ah, but I digress cause with your talk, I really don't think you'll go read my cites.<br><br />
<br><br />
My B.S. as you call it, well it's your right to say so. Most of what you say I too call B.S. because you are not always forthcoming with the basis of your opinion.<br><br />
<br><br />
I never said I was a total fan of former President Bush. Read some of my comments. He was not a conservative, he used it (like most all politicians use words) to get elected. Much of his 8 years I disagree with and have stated so. Most especially his fiscal polices and his growing gov't. His Compassionate Conservatism, as I said, was a ploy to get elected.<br><br />
<br><br />
Your dog collar comment is B.S pure and simple. I still haven't seen you write one concrete idea for discussion. As I said, a regurgitation of name calling and pointing the finger elsewhere.

Yet, somehow Josie, I always seem to have the facts.<br />
Your dog collar fitting too tight for you to find references that back your claims these days?<br />
Figures.<br />
Handlers tend to to that.<br />
Oh, I gave you Bush's quote about starting the war for his own power, complete with provenance. Odd you don't mention FACTS WITH SOURCES when you lose.<br />
Not so odd that you never give citation for your b.s. other that BOORTZ!!

bitlord ... you regurgitate more tripe by your handlers that I ever could.<br />
<br />
I am conservative, yes. However I don't listen to the rightwing blowhards as you call them. My radio talk is not Rush, Hannity or Ingram. But I can see you are a follower of Garafolo and Carville & Begalla (The Sh*t for brains Twins).<br />
<br />
I am open to hear real facts substantiated by sourced documents. If you can find any to support your conclusions I'll read them. <br />
<br />
However you incessant rants and name calling and asking questions off subject ... does nothing for your cause.

Oh, and speaking of handler's, ms. "clone of the rightwing blowhards"

No, it means it WORKS, whereas, looking around America's "all for the rich" economic collapse, low taxes for the rich DOESN'T work!!!<br />
<br />
of course, it IS right, since 75% of the top 1% are INHERITORS says the IRS, that percentage having taken the inheritance exemption at least once.<br />
<br />
Those who do no work, should not profit from the labor of those who do!!

They may be, but that doesn't mean it is RIGHT.<br />
<br />
There is a better way ... however you are not agreeable to seeing it or even looking for it. Status quo is what you want. This is the way we do it and the way we have done it, therefore no change is necessary.<br />
<br />
I disagree with you opinion and theory of taxation. If you were open to change, you would be talking of ideas not the regurgitation of your handlers ideas.

Deal with it Josie.<br />
incomes over E 280,000 are taxed at 98%.<br />
OF COURSE there are loopholes, but it didn't stop the Germans from producing more export worth than any other nation on earth.<br />
Pretty much proves your claim that progressive taxation kills business is crap.

2% take home sounds real inviting bitlord. In your dreams!

Oh, btw, Josie, Progressive taxation up to 98% exists in the highest value exporter in the world, Germany.<br />
Hasn't hurt them any.

Bull Josie.<br />
We never DID value the 'work ethic'.<br />
If we did, we'd never have had a shortage of engineers with a surplus of bankers.<br />
Bankers don't create wealth, they merely move it around, hiding the sources to prevent the owners of 88% of all wealth from paying 88% of all taxes.<br />
The people who WORK? All the repigs care about is lower wages for them. Just ask Slave product salesmen at Wal-Mart.<br />
If you want America to value a work ethic, prove it! SOAK THE RICH and create UNION JOBS for workers!!

Marji ... corruption, ah yes. But i think it boils down to POWER. Plus they have it so they are arrogant.<br><br />
<br><br />
We have pretty much come to a point where we don't value personal incentive and work ethic. All we want to do is tax it and thereby diminish it. Take away any incentive to life.

Marji, you're right and you are no idiot.<br />
<br />
The taxpayers pay for all that and more. It is wrong in my view also. However, we as citizens allow it cause we do not hold our elected officials to a higher level of behavior OR accountability. We just reelect them ... after they've scr*wed us.<br />
<br />
<br />
Higher taxes is not the best answer. Fairer taxes are. <br />
<br />
Progressive taxation (like we have in the US) has caused business to ship themselves and jobs away from America. <br />
<br />
If people work hard (not everyone steals money for a living) shouldn't they be allowed to spend it as they please? Thereby adding to the sales taxes collected, employees salaries, etc.<br />
<br />
If everyone paid the same rate our government would have all it is entitled too. Plus they would have to show some restraint and accountability in their spending ways. We can't tax our way out of a recession or a depression.<br />
<br />
i remember from school: 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction.' The same is true for taxes. Rates go up, jobs go away or go elsewhere. It's these $250,000 and more income brackets that fund and fuel the job creation. You and i as homeowners and purchases don't create jobs.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
As for the sports stars they are way over paid in my estimation ... they complain they have no health insurance or pensions. Take a pay cut and invest in these benefits instead of getting it all in your pocket.<br />
<br />
Business isn't the same, the CEO's etc have their salaries set by the Board and stockholders. If they don't like it they don't have to hire them.<br />
<br />
i believe a flat tax. Everybody, person and company, pay the same %age on all income ... no exceptions. This, coupled with Congressional spending reductions (no PORK or earmarks) and shrinking the size of the Federal bureaucracy. <br />
<br />
Put the Federal bureaucracy on a diet and get them out of citizens lives. Plus, it is my belief, that many of the duties assumed by the Feds are not delegated from the Constitution, but usurped from the States.

Josie, you do realize that many more jobs and businesses went overseas during the Bush Adminestration than during Clinton's adminestration. You do realize that Clinton's adminestration had a multi-billion dollar surpluss and booming economy and during Bushes adminestration, we had the lighest deficits in history and the economy went into the toilet.My wife and I make very close to $200.000 per year, and I have no problem paying taxes and still living well. We should be paying more taxes than the waitress or the busboy. I would like to see a flat income tax of 10% with no deductions for anything except food. I would also like to see a value added tax for business. And every company that moves jobs or it's business off shore should lose all tax breaks and incentives.

Also TenEyes you missed the point of the article:<br />
<br />
"Taxing the rich at 100% won't pay for Obama's budget"<br />
<br />
Where do you go when you have 100% of their money and it's not enough?

TenEyes, are you saying that people who work harder should have more taken away? Are you saying that people who invest and make money, should have more taken away?<br />
<br />
Maybe everyone should pay an equal percentage of their income, regardless of level. Say 10% of all income, regardless of the source, will go to the government.<br />
<br />
You do realize that people making more that $250,000 do pay more tax than anyone else. <br />
<br />
What is fair taxation? You make less than say $50,000 you pay 1% of your income. Or, you make more than $250,000 you pay 50% of your income. Exactly where does it stop? Where does it become burdensome an not fair?<br />
<br />
Should you decide to take more would that be an incentive to take that money elsewhere where the tax rates are more favorable? Should you decide to take your business and thus it's jobs elsewhere? That is what happened under Bill Clinton and his high tax rates ... jobs and companies took themselves off shore to other places. We need to bring them back to the USA - not chase more away or close them altogether.<br />
<br />
You do realize that the folks you want more from are the folks that actually create jobs. Take money from them and jobs will dwindle. Small business and business create jobs - not government.<br />
<br />
Government gets an income by taking it from every citizen. They do not earn their income ... they take their income.

Peedee Dog, it seems the most people who make 250000 a year are under the illusion that they deserve it more than those who make less. I've heard them say how they work their butts off and they are well rewarded for it. I always then wonder if they think they work harder than the tomato pickers or the coal miners or the day-care workers who make a tiny fraction of that. They managed to get a good education? Well there are lots of folks who would've liked a good education, too, but they grew up poor and had to join the workforce early to help their families. No time or money for extra-curricular activities, special SAT tutors, or AP courses. Who can do AP homework assignments when they're flipping burgers on the night shift?<br />
<br />
I've noticed that people who complain about the size of their tax bills are seldom the same people who worry about the size of their their grocery bills. <br />
<br />
The 250,000-plus crowd are reaping big benefits from our society. Of course they should pay proportionally more than those who don't.

I wonder what it would be like, if I made $250,00 a year!

Arugula for everyone!

$13.00 a week?<br />
<br />
Obama's signature "Making Work Pay" tax credit for 95 percent of workers, though negotiators agreed to trim the credit to $400 a year instead of $500 — or $800 for married couples, cut from Obama's original proposal of $1,000. It would begin showing up in most workers' paychecks in June as an extra $13 a week in take-home pay, falling to about $8 a week next January." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090211/ap_on_bi_ge/meltdown101_stimulus_plan_2)<br />
<br />
<br />
Will this increase your standard of living? <br />
<br />
Is $13.00 a week a tax cut?<br />
<br />
You must remember: They are NO tax cuts in that bill. There are some tax CREDITS for singles making $70K or less get $400 bucks and joint filers making $140K or less get $800 bucks. There is not one single federal income tax rate cut in that bill.<br />
<br />
Words have meaning! A TAX CUT is not a TAX CREDIT ... they are two different and distinct things. But folks choose to believe that they are the same just because the President says they are. <br />
<br />
Wake up! Smell the roses. Open your eyes. Maybe you'd like to buy this bridge i own?

$9,999.99 could be 6 figures too, depending on your definition of “Change”. It's all in the fine print.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Obama's rude shock to six-figure earners<br />
<br />
What everyone's overlooking in the new budget: a stealth tax on people making more than $250,000.<br />
<br />
Shawn Tully, editor at large<br />
<br />
Last Updated: February 27, 2009: 5:22 PM ET<br />
<br />
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama tempered his pledge to substantially raise taxes for high earners with an important proviso: He'd simply restore rates to their levels during the Clinton Administration. The implication was that families in the upper brackets would see their total tax bite go back to the levels of the 1990s, but no higher.<br />
<br />
Now, it sure looks like Obama is reneging on that promise. The burden will indeed go far higher than in the Clinton years via a technicality -- one that will come as a rude shock even to the taxpayers already braced for a soaking.<br />
<br />
The group that's hit hardest are the taxpayers I call the HENRYs, for "High Earners Not Rich Yet." The HENRYs are families who make between $250,000 and $500,000 a year. I wrote about the HENRYs in a Nov. 17 Fortune cover story, "Who Pays for the Bailout?" They're among America's most productive, hard-working citizens: our doctors, attorneys, architects, and entrepreneurs, the owners and builders of cleaning companies, delis and security franchises. (Read the original HENRY story here.)<br />
<br />
Though President Obama brands them as rich, they're usually far from it. "Rich" means personal wealth, or net worth, not income. These HENRYs are already strapped by a combination of high income taxes, soaring property tax levies, and college savings for the kids. Their chance of accumulating the couple of million dollars needed to qualify as rich were virtually nil even before Obama took the stage.<br />
<br />
Now, their prospects are dimmer than ever, courtesy of a new, laser-like proposal specially designed to zap the HENRYs. Most of the 5 million or so HENRYs are trapped in the notorious parallel tax system, the AMT, or Alternative Minimum Tax. In fact, the AMT might be dubbed "the HENRYs' tax," since it's targeted to skip the middle class, but aimed straight at the $250,000-to $500,000 crowd. All taxpayers are required to calculate their liability two ways, under the regular tax system and under the AMT, and pay the higher amount.<br />
<br />
The AMT was originally designed to prevent high earners from pocketing outsized benefits from big deductions, and the HENRYs have plenty of those deductions, especially state and local income taxes, and property taxes. Put simply, if the taxpayer has loads of deductions, they'll have to pay a lot more under the AMT than the regular tax system. That's why everyone who pays it hates the AMT.<br />
<br />
The AMT, however, allows two principal forms of deductions, those for mortgage interest and charitable contributions. Guess what? Under his new plan, Obama is radically reducing the breaks that high-earners get from precisely those two tax breaks.<br />
<br />
Here's how the HENRYs will get hammered. Say a family earns $300,000 a year, and pays $50,000 a year in mortgage interest; the family also contributes $5,000 to Boy Scouts, Red Cross and other charities. Under the AMT's top effective tax rate of 35%, they benefit from savings of $19,250 on those deductions.<br />
<br />
But under Obama's new plan, the share of that $55,000 that HENRYs can deduct is no longer 35%. It's capped at 28%. Hence, their tax bill rises by almost $4,000. That's a jump in their marginal tax rate, the crucial share of an extra dollar of income they get to keep, from 35% to over 37%.<br />
<br />
The limitation on deductions is scheduled to take effect in 2011, the same year Obama plans to raise tax rates back to their levels in the Clinton Administration. Amazingly, many HENRYs thought they wouldn't suffer much from the higher rates, since they were already paying more in the AMT than they would even under the new tax regime. Now, they're no longer protected. Their taxes will rise sharply, courtesy of this laser-like strike aimed straight at their wallets.<br />
<br />
In light of the new tax plan, I think I'll change my acronym for the high earners to a Gallic version. Let's call them the HENRIs, "High Earners Not Rich Indefinitely." <br />
<br />
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/27/magazines/fortune/obama_budget_tax.fortune/index.htm

I heard yesterday that tax preparers are advising people to change their witholding when the 13.00 a week starts in April. They say that the tax tables are not changing for next year, so people will not pay in enough and will owe in 2010. I have not determined if that is true or not....