Nothing can save the radicals in congress --- they are going down ............ hard!

Gibby hasn't ever payed taxes, so he doesn't understand how they work except for what the Democrats tell him to think.

Has Gibby even had to work for a living yet? The way he posts, sometimes, I wonder.

I remember believing the same crap he's spewing now, because I was young and very liberal with other people's money, too.

Writerbuckeye;431033 wrote:I remember believing the same crap he's spewing now, because I was young and very liberal with other people's money, too.

Glad you were born again!!

A local radio guy here in Columbus used to or usually says, "Be liberal but do so WITHOUT my money."

This whole issue is a downward spiralling effect. I make x amount of dollars in my chosen field and find a charity or two to donate. Then my x amount becomes x minus this tax for COTA, this tax for welfare, this tax for school lunches, this tax for unemployment, this tax for any and everything else! Then, when it's all said and done, the government or media get on me because charity donations are down? Well hey, dip-shit! Stop taking my money and I will GLADLY give to a charity of my leaning. The problem is, you have your hand so far down my pocket and giving to everybody else that I can't even afford to supply for my own family. And you expect me to feel guilty!?

Four guys get together and drink beer and play poker every Saturday Night. The bar owner knows them all and is a nice guy and gives them an unlimited tab and a table for poker for $100.00 each weekend. One of the four is a rich man, the other three are middle class. The rich guy kicks in $70 each time, and the other three middle class guys split the $30 three ways. The bar owner discovers that their weekly poker games are becoming a real crowd pleaser and drawing in more patrons and thus more business for him. He soon realizes he must keep the four of them there, so he tells them he will knock 25% off of their tab every weekend. This sounds great to all four men, and everybody is happy. The rich guy even says he will still kick in 70% of the tab. Everything is great until the next weekend when they pay their tab. The rich guy pays his 70%, and the other three split the 30% as always. The three middle class guys start talking among temselves and soon realize that the rich guy got almost $18 knocked off of his tab every week, while they only got $2.50 a piece. They quickly become pissed off and confront the rich guy and demand that he gives them some of his extra cash. He tries to reason with them and explain that the reason he got more off his tab, is because he was paying more in the first place. They can't understand this concept and continue to belittle him. He eventually gets pissed off and the next week he does not show up, so everything comes to a screeching halt. The bar owner loses nearly all his business on Saturday Night. The rich guy finds three other guys to play poker with in a diifferent bar on the other side of town.

I think this is a good analogy of the present leadership we have in Washington, and will hopefully change on November 2nd.

IggyPride00;430957 wrote:Dingy Harry and Queen Nancy are just waiting in the weeds over this, and will spring the tax cut extension bill at the most politically opportune time.

Of course they will.

However, the Unholy Trinity (BHO-Reid-Pelosi) have done the American people a huge favor by exposing their true tax & big spend ways in dramatic fashion.

I sincerely doubt enough of us will see a politically expedient Bush tax cut extension as a sign that they have changed their ways.

Mr. 300;430804 wrote:Gibby just repeats the democrat talking points without really understanding who pays taxes in theis country, and what percentage those paying people actually carry of the overall tax burden.

I understand quite well who pays taxes...as I am one of them

tk421;431031 wrote:Gibby hasn't ever payed taxes, so he doesn't understand how they work except for what the Democrats tell him to think.

I pay taxes right now pal.....and I see nothing wrong with the tax system as is for my money bracket

gibby08;431406 wrote:I pay taxes right now pal.....and I see nothing wrong with the tax system as is for my money bracket

Does that mean that you are in a bracket that gets more back than what is paid?

If that means I don't claim everyone and everything under the sun so I get all my money when I get my check...then yes

Al Bundy;431423 wrote:Does that mean that you are in a bracket that gets more back than what is paid?

Beat me to it. Liberals are all for taxes and redistribution...just as long as it is paid for by someone else.

believer;430547 wrote:It would also create a lot of problems. Higher wages equal higher prices meaning inflation. It also initiates a trade wars which have, in the past, been the catalyst for bloody wars.

Right or wrong American companies have shifted jobs offshore at least in part due to arguably inflated labor rates.

If we implement "fair" trade laws and incentives, then organized American labor needs to be on-board with it or you might as well shit can the idea right now.

higher wages equal higher prices? then why do toyotas and acuras and nissans cost more than most american made cars in the same class?

believer;431428 wrote:Beat me to it. Liberals are all for taxes and redistribution...just as long as it is paid for by someone else.

About 98% of all capitalist countries use a graduated tax structure and as such are whiny liberals too, I guess. Most countries pay a lot more taxes in the higher marginal bracket. In addition, some countries don't allow the "rich man" loophole of getting paid with stock options...thus reducing their ta liability down to 15%.

Conservatives are quick to rail on those that don't pay any taxes at all....but it's a cold day in hell when they bitch about those few in corporate America that pay half the percentage that they do.

To those that are complaining today, the federal tax rates percentage wise have been very citizen friendly over the past decade....especially when compared to other countries.

"some countries don't allow the "rich man" loophole of getting paid with stock options...thus reducing their ta liability down to 15%."

How the hell is this a loophole? Shouldn't the interests of workers be tied to that of stockholders? Sweet Santa Claus shit, I had the worst time with the IRS dealing with ISO's that my wife received in '06 that were practically worthless, but still got us boned under the AMT. It took 18 months to get it cleared, all for about a gain of a few thousand dollars. I would have begged for her to have been paid IN CASH and would gladly have paid the higher tax amount.

I'm all for getting paid in cash, at least I know what we're getting.

Manhattan Buckeye;431753 wrote:"some countries don't allow the "rich man" loophole of getting paid with stock options...thus reducing their ta liability down to 15%."

How the hell is this a loophole? Shouldn't the interests of workers be tied to that of stockholders? Sweet Santa Claus shit, I had the worst time with the IRS dealing with ISO's that my wife received in '06 that were practically worthless, but still got us boned under the AMT. It took 18 months to get it cleared, all for about a gain of a few thousand dollars. I would have begged for her to have been paid IN CASH and would gladly have paid the higher tax amount.

I'm all for getting paid in cash, at least I know what we're getting.

And yet many countries outlaw the practice altogether. Cry me a river.

And....let me add a complimentary incentive to pay executives in stock options or other golden parachute vehicles. The more a CEO sucks out of his company, the less corporate taxes need to paid. Hey Mr. top executive...take 35 million in year end bonus dollars....we'll deduct it off of our bottom line. It's a fuckin lose/lose proposition for America and the ever mounting national debt.

No country in the world has such a corporate welfare ponzi scheme set up as well as the US has set up. Some of us understand this...others don't.

And it's a goddam shame that the country continues it's morph into a plutocracy.

Footwedge;431830 wrote:And yet many countries outlaw the practice altogether. Cry me a river.

How is that in any way responsive to my post?

Do you even understand how a stock option works?

I'll give you time to wikipedia it and cut and paste what you've read. Stock options and "golden parachutes" aren't even in the same category. Post #45 was simply jibberish.

Manhattan Buckeye;433384 wrote:How is that in any way responsive to my post?

Do you even understand how a stock option works?

I'll give you time to wikipedia it and cut and paste what you've read. Stock options and "golden parachutes" aren't even in the same category. Post #45 was simply jibberish.

Answer the question. Why do other countries outlaw the tax loopholes of capital gains compensation? Where is the corporate investment in America? Where is it? While you shuffle paper documents around, making your paper profits, the American manufacturing base continues to dwindle. Now tell us again for the 1481st time how bad Obama is?

Can some one explain to me why the fuck we should care what other countries do?
America built on being America ..... Global my ass ...if you want to be the leader then don't be a follower of failed systems....
Our Public Servant and other Politicians want to group America into that fruad idealogy of Global Crap..... Liberal think it always better on the side of failure.

Footwedge;435191 wrote:... Why do other countries outlaw the tax loopholes of capital gains compensation? ...

????

I need your help understanding this a little bit.

The cashless options I received I paid tax on the gains when I liquidated them. Any gain above the issued prices was claimed.

Originally Posted by Footwedge
... Why do other countries outlaw the tax loopholes of capital gains compensation? ...


I guess because they are socialist/marxist countries that enjoy U6 unemployment of 20% or greater.

Con_Alma;435265 wrote:????

I need your help understanding this a little bit.

The cashless options I received I paid tax on the gains when I liquidated them. Any gain above the issued prices was claimed.

I've given up trying, he/she doesn't undertstand how stock options work, that's not necessarily a fatal flaw....there are large practices devoted to compensation packages and probably few people even begin to understand how comp is reported in a proxy (Gregg Easterbrook, the guy that writes Tuesday Morning Quarterback for espn.com and apparently is very intelligent regularly misreports proxy disclosures in his columns - I've e-mailed him every time he's made a mistake).

Most options are underwater when granted, if they are to have ISO treatment they need to have a strike price of 10% below market value. There is an accounting value to any option, but if it remains underwater it is practically worthless. Actually it is worthless. You can't transfer them, and for many recipients the underlying stock is restricted. On top of all of this option plans typically require shareholder approval, unlike salaried payments.

In short, if I'm an employee and I have the choice between a $100,000 cash payment or $100,000 value of options, I take the former even with the disfavorable tax treatment

MB please don't use facts about how stock options really work here. The liberals really would rather just rant and rave using hyperbole and rhetoric about "golden parachutes" and "lucrative stock options", etc.

As soon as you describe how its really done, their rhetoric becomes useless.

Not sure if I'm for or against tax cuts for the very rich. However I don't believe someone making $250K is rich and that seems to be the baseline for these discussions. It might be a lot for a single man/woman with no family to support living somewhere where the cost of living is low, but even then I wouldn't describe that person as wealthy (well-off maybe). However, there are a lot of people earning around that much that live in expensive areas of the country. I would say they qualify as upper middle class.

My point is if you are going to tax the rich (which again not sure if I agree with), they better be rich. To me that means a yearly income of one million dollars or more.