Not forgetting at all. Just skipping mention of a few steps for the sake of brevity. I assume all of us understand U.S. Electoral Politics 101, and are familiar with the baggage that comes with it.
Obama to Propose Buffet Tax on Monday
- Thread starter writtenstyle
- Start date
Not forgetting at all. Just skipping mention of a few steps for the sake of brevity. I assume all of us understand U.S. Electoral Politics 101, and are familiar with the baggage that comes with it.
Shawn Collins has it summed up, this is political strategy. Obama will be able to give emotional speeches about how he tried to make it so Buffet's secretary wasn't paying more taxes than him, but the republicans blocked it, etc.
If a fraction of the people who complain about state income taxes would actually move to states where there is none, that would be the best way to change things.
All 8 of the previous presidents hit lower approval ratings than Obama.
United States presidential approval rating - Historical comparison - Wikipedia
When polled against "generic republican", Obama loses by .5, but he wins when polled against the actual candidates.
RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates
If a fraction of the people who complain about state income taxes would actually move to states where there is none, that would be the best way to change things.
All 8 of the previous presidents hit lower approval ratings than Obama.
United States presidential approval rating - Historical comparison - Wikipedia
When polled against "generic republican", Obama loses by .5, but he wins when polled against the actual candidates.
RealClearPolitics - President Obama vs. Republican Candidates
true, true. I am still amazed though after the last few elections how much people still believe the electoral process is legit.
inb4 whydoyoustillvote
That sounds like a great way to get people to spend money and stimulate the economy in a recession.
Mainly that would just stop the powers that be from taking their slice of the pie... It's not as easy to hide the money trail that way.
So in other words; fugettaboutit. Unicorns are just as likely to pass congress as that tax structure.
it's relative
And you still have plenty of play money and a decent way of life yes? I dare you to say no.
And just think, in Europe it is WAY more.
Here are a couple of thought(s) that should be mentioned.
1. You can't tax the poor anymore, the middle class keeps going away and away. Yet, the rich don't want to take on more? WTF is wrong with that? Let's throw this out there, why not tax everything over 15,000,000 at ~75%? So if you make 18 million that 3 million would be taxes at 75%. I think 'you' will be able to have a decent life still.
2. Corporate taxes, care to tell me why companies can claim offshore corporate HQ's yet it's just a PO box or similar? Why GE made a billion dollars yet paid no corporate income taxes ad infinitum? If we stopped them from getting all those tax breaks, I bet we would not be having this conversation. Wasn't the original intent of the 16 amendment to tax corporations and not individuals? That is a rhetorical question.
3. Here's a thought guys, "why do I have to keep paying more to bail out the........RICH?" The greedy fucks? Novel concept, I know, but think about it. The "rich" don't need the breaks, it's us, the middle class (and yes the poor)
Disclaimer 1: My political affiliation is neither to the right or left, but rather of the moderate variety, or if you will a Proxmire democrat if I must claim an affiliation. I am very much against the required insurance, so before you scream liberal, check yourself.
Oh, and one more thought, the rich love that you poor folk are fighting for them, so they can keep fucking you without even so much as a kiss. If I was lucky enough to be one of the rich ones, I think I would still have a decent life and still have enough CPA's and tax attorney's to help limit my tax liability.
And you still have plenty of play money and a decent way of life yes? I dare you to say no.
And just think, in Europe it is WAY more.
Here are a couple of thought(s) that should be mentioned.
1. You can't tax the poor anymore, the middle class keeps going away and away. Yet, the rich don't want to take on more? WTF is wrong with that? Let's throw this out there, why not tax everything over 15,000,000 at ~75%? So if you make 18 million that 3 million would be taxes at 75%. I think 'you' will be able to have a decent life still.
2. Corporate taxes, care to tell me why companies can claim offshore corporate HQ's yet it's just a PO box or similar? Why GE made a billion dollars yet paid no corporate income taxes ad infinitum? If we stopped them from getting all those tax breaks, I bet we would not be having this conversation. Wasn't the original intent of the 16 amendment to tax corporations and not individuals? That is a rhetorical question.
3. Here's a thought guys, "why do I have to keep paying more to bail out the........RICH?" The greedy fucks? Novel concept, I know, but think about it. The "rich" don't need the breaks, it's us, the middle class (and yes the poor)
Disclaimer 1: My political affiliation is neither to the right or left, but rather of the moderate variety, or if you will a Proxmire democrat if I must claim an affiliation. I am very much against the required insurance, so before you scream liberal, check yourself.
Oh, and one more thought, the rich love that you poor folk are fighting for them, so they can keep fucking you without even so much as a kiss. If I was lucky enough to be one of the rich ones, I think I would still have a decent life and still have enough CPA's and tax attorney's to help limit my tax liability.
Neither right nor left? You're so fucking far left that you don't even know you're left anymore.
Plenty compared to who? You? Buffet? A Nigerian beggar?
Who the hell are you to say who has "Plenty?" Everyone has their own set of standards and anyone trying to normalize everyone's standards to theirs is going to find out what the meanings of the words 'pointless' & 'harmful' are, really fucking fast!
Prove it. This is a totally baseless argument.
GTFO YOU FUCKING COMMUNIST!!!
Duh. Now go and try and stop them. Those very same corporations OUTRIGHT OWN all of our lawmakers.
This is why the media refuses to talk about this problem and your lawmakers refuse to vote on it.
Ron Paul would take it head on though... He's the only elected official since Ike that ever wanted to buck the trend. (Of course we'll see what happens to him soon enough...)
Jesus Christ on a cracker. You really don't know where you are, do you?
STFU>FO.
I agree with sublimeguy, you really are sooooo far off the left end you have no clue, Comrade.
You'll never be one of the rich ones asking for communism.:boid:
As a fellow black I had respect for barack but when we get out off the hood we give the street life up, ask any of my niggas if they would still be slangin rock if theey became presidential they would straight get out of the ghetto and into some flossed pad and keep themselves real. Now I think obama is like any other hater, he ain't hood. Shit son if that whack ass came to my area he would get shanked.
I wondered if anyone would bring this up. If it's assumed we will never be free from some sort of Federal taxation it seems like a fairer solution. As long as the income tax for individuals is abolished there could be a flat consumption tax which would exclude things like food and medicine. I've hardly done any research either, so you guys pick it apart and point out what's wrong with it. And yes, I know it's a long-shot hypothetical.
@lukep, why do you say something like this makes corruption less likely vs the current progressive system with hundreds (thousands?) of exclusions and loopholes?
Corruption less likely? I don't believe I said that... I said the money trail would be less obscured.
Right now all of our income (and many other types of) taxes are thrown into a giant pool and we don't get to have any say over what our gubment spends every penny of that on.
I know it's not guaranteed or anything, but if they taxed consumption like they currently do Gasoline, then you could vote with your dollars in a way towards which programs get funded.
Not perfect, but better. -Assuming they don't try hard to obfuscate where that money goes to just as much, which they likely will. But hey, there's a chance, right?
97 comments and only a few people realize that this was a political play that will help Obama get re-elected. 72% of Americans want to raise taxes on the "rich" right now... so Obama proposes a bill to do just that, knowing that there is 100% chance that Republicans will not pass it. BAM... see 72% of Americans? See? Those Republicans don't agree with you and only care about the ultra-rich.
And with that, he get's 4 more years. Assuming of course the country gets worse over the next year.
And with that, he get's 4 more years. Assuming of course the country gets worse over the next year.
Just catching up to this Subigo?
Shawn said this first in post #55 2 days back, and I reiterated it in post #80 today, even commenting on how Bloomberg mentioned this.
It might have a chance of working, too. The sheeple/idiots here are THICK.