The Fiscal Cliff - Part 2

Obviously no one wanted to answer the questions asked in the OP of Part 1 so will try a new tack. This is for those who are obviously smitten with class envy :(.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IRS

Statistics from 2010 show that the top 1% of taxpayers (AGI of $369,691 or more) pay 37.4% of all federal income tax, the highest 5% (AGI of at least 161,579 & inclusive of the original 1%) paid 59.1%, while the top 10% (AGI of at least 116,623) which is inclusive of the previous 2 stats paid 70.6% of all federal income taxes.

Meanwhile the bottom 50% of all filers paid 2.36% of the total federal income tax.

---

Which means that the middle 40% paid 27.04% of all the federal income taxes, which I would venture to guess would include most who post here.

If my AGI was only $369,691 & I was being demonized by the POTUS as rich I would be quite upset.

There is not enough money among the wealthy to cure congresses spending habit & pay off the debt. Those among the very wealthy that say they should pay more can without asking others to, their support means they expect to get a break unavailable to the other wealthy :(. What sucks is that many of you are falling for that line.

So I'll try to present it in a manner you understand. The attack on the wealthy is an attempt to gain the viriginity of the taxpayer, nothing less. After the deflowering everything will be much easier. & you can see from the stats that you will be on the list.

Should the R's cave I will be very disappointed, fortunately Boehner has as his two sidekicks in the negotiations, Ryan & Kantor. Hopefully they will be successful in cutting tax breaks of which the ability of the hedge funders to take ordinary income & have it taxed at CG rates would be one + the second home deduction of interest should be eliminated. There are others, including in the farm bill. Because of capital demands there will be 70,000 less farmers at the end of this decade, should we continue to subsidize those very wealthy farmers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Obviously no one wanted to answer the questions asked in the OP of Part 1 so will try a new tack. This is for those who are obviously smitten with class envy :(.




Which means that the middle 40% paid 27.04% of all the federal income taxes, which I would venture to guess would include most who post here.

If my AGI was only $369,691 & I was being demonized by the POTUS as rich I would be quite upset.

There is not enough money among the wealthy to cure congresses spending habit & pay off the debt. Those among the very wealthy that say they should pay more can without asking others to, their support means they expect to get a break unavailable to the other wealthy :(. What sucks is that many of you are falling for that line.

So I'll try to present it in a manner you understand. The attack on the wealthy is an attempt to gain the viriginity of the taxpayer, nothing less. After the deflowering everything will be much easier. & you can see from the stats that you will be on the list.

Should the R's cave I will be very disappointed, fortunately Boehner has as his two sidekicks in the negotiations, Ryan & Kantor. Hopefully they will be successful in cutting tax breaks of which the ability of the hedge funders to take ordinary income & have it taxed at CG rates would be one + the second home deduction of interest should be eliminated. There are others, including in the farm bill. Because of capital demands there will be 70,000 less farmers at the end of this decade, should we continue to subsidize those very wealthy farmers?

---

We subsidize the oil companies, so why shouldn't we subsidize the farmers. I would rather see it go to farmers than oil companies. Are you saying to tax the capital gains income as regular income? If so, I would support that as well as the 2nd home deduction of interest. The horse deduction has to go too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murral stark

The horse deduction has to go too.

---

Actually the Horse's Azz deduction needs to go :o.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Actually the Horse's Azz deduction needs to go :o.

---

Who gets that deduction?:D I was talking about Romney's horse deduction of obscene proportions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murral stark

Who gets that deduction?:D I was talking about Romney's horse deduction of obscene proportions.

---

Were it available you'd be 1st in line :razz:. Someone posted here that Mrs Romney was able to take a $59 deduction total. But you are so busy with your unknowledgeable class envy you probably missed that part :(.

Should the Repubs cave to Obama's demands? No! Will they? Yes.

If the subsidies to oil companies go, look for Exxon Mobile to be the first to move their corporate HQ ot Dubai where taxes are extremely low. The rest of the oil companies with their world wide HQ in the USA will soon follow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

Were it available you'd be 1st in line :razz:. Someone posted here that Mrs Romney was able to take a $59 deduction total. But you are so busy with your unknowledgeable class envy you probably missed that part :(.

---

Hey Marvin,
I only take the standard deduction each year. Don't make enough money to have to worry about all of those deductions that you "Rich OLD FARTS" can take. It's condescending azzholes like you that made me "hate" rich people and makes me want to "stick it to 'em" every chance I get. I know some people that have alot of "wealth", but they don't talk down to people or look down their noses at them. It's the people like you that walk around with your nose in the air so high that if it rained, you'd drown, that causes the hatred. Your great President Ronald Reagan talked about trickle down. When can we expect to see that? We got the down, just not the trickle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Franco

Should the Repubs cave to Obama's demands? No! Will they? Yes.

If the subsidies to oil companies go, look for Exxon Mobile to be the first to move their corporate HQ ot Dubai where taxes are extremely low. The rest of the oil companies with their world wide HQ in the USA will soon follow.

---

It remains to be seen -

As for the Oil Companies - they have made less profit than the various US governments have received in tax & fee income since their inception yet there are folks calling for higher taxes on what little they do make & reinvest. Would you blame them for moving? Probably the only thing that keeps them here is the stability of our form of government, as bad as it is ;-).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marvin S

It remains to be seen -

As for the Oil Companies - they have made less profit than the various US governments have received in tax & fee income since their inception yet there are folks calling for higher taxes on what little they do make & reinvest. Would you blame them for moving? Probably the only thing that keeps them here is the stability of our form of government, as bad as it is ;-).

---

Well Marv, we agree on something! The cost to the oil companies to produce a barrel of oil within the USA is the highest in the world. If push comes to shove, believe me they don't need the USA. Though, we will be buying their oil. And may your God help you if the government thinks they can produce oil as safely and productive as the major oil companies do. Dubai is offereing all kinds of incentives to get companies like Exxon Mobile to move there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by murral stark

It's condescending azzholes like you that made me "hate" rich people and makes me want to "stick it to 'em" every chance I get.

---

Murral, I do not look down my nose at you as I do not look down my nose at anyone :o. What I do do is feel sorry for you with a damn near empty tool box attempting to compete in any venue :confused:.

You know little of me yet as others have pointed out, you make a feeble attempt to characterize me & them. We grew up in the same environment, I would venture to say that my circumstances were much more trying than yours, yet somehow I managed to rise above that whereas you apparently did not. I would say you might want to think about that but I believe you incapable of rational thought.

BTW, I would explain Risk-Reward ratio to you but again, I did not say capital gains should be taxed as ordinary income - I said - Hedge Fund folks should not be able to treat short term gains as long term capital gains - it has to do with risk-reward, a subject you apparently are not converse in :).