Denial much? Conservatives claimed everyone that didn't adore Palin was jealous of her beauty! Ha,ha! I'm sure the Hollywood stars are jealous of her beauty! Never mind that her brain is malfunctioning. That we have a group of people in Congress that vote "no" to everything that would help the country is not exceptionalism - it's downright treason. Oh, you mean the Democrats that turned Republican when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act? I didn't know Johnson was a Republican, ha,ha. And, sure, Democrats want racism, that is why Rand Paul and others would like to abolish Civil Rights - oops, Paul is not a Democrat!
Do I "loose" - I'm sure you meant lose. And, I'm sure you meant "sight"! Cause I sure haven't loosened any sites that I know of. Someone needs to bone up on their use of the English language, before we make it the official language, ha,ha. Ha,ha, I'm sure most of his viewers are not millionaires, are not getting the tax breaks that Billow the Clown gets. And the only one that you can embarrass is yourself, with your lack of knowledge of the English language.
It's also pathetic, that a multi-millionaire would try and conjure up some sympathy from viewers, some who may be struggling to make ends meet.
Oh, I'm sure FactCheck is making an ass of themselves. FactCheck: Getting back to Buffett's op-ed, his claims rest on how these taxes interact with each other. The fact we're checking here is that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," while middle class taxpayers "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." He's right that a billionaire whose income is mostly from investments is probably taxed at a lower rate than someone who has an ordinary job. Very little of this taxpayer's income is wage income, so payroll taxes don't take much of a bite. It seems likely that much of this hypothetical person's income would be taxed around the 15 percent rate. And, in fact, as Buffett says, statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay tax rates of less than 20 percent.
If Obama raises taxes as he plans to, federal taxes, that is what the upper income brackets will be facing, 50%+ overall taxes.
Complete BS its the effective that matters, after all thats what you REALLY pay. And you ignore all the rest? Seems a habit ignoring all the parts and posts you dont have an answer to . LOL
No thats BS, effective now is around 25%, together with state and all other you are looking at 40-45% . But again : 1 : obama ISNT responsable for any of those taxes 2 : thinking obama would double effectivly certain taxes is just nuts 3 : Even WITH this doubling of taxes O reilly would STILL take away millions and he would never walk away from that. I am always amazed on how far (mostly on republican side) will go to defend stupid comments like this. Everybody says stupid things, accept it and move on.
Are you going to deny that the reason we have meter maids and cops that simply wait on stop signs to bust moms coming home from soccer practice is to generate more money? That cops have quotas for tickets that they have to meet. Why do they have this? To generate more money to keep the whole thing running that's why.
Still the question hasn't been answered. It's clear that both sides in government waste money and the more they have the more they waste. Can we agree on this? How is giving them more money going to help the lower class? It's not. It's not going to help anything. If you want to help the middle class/lower class it has to come in the course of public opinion. I feel there should be a website that states all of the good corporations that don't use sweat shops and who's directors don't get a ridiculous amount of money and maybe more people will buy there products. Giving the money to the government is the worst thing you can do.
They were much higher under Reagan, yet conservatives idolize him and claim he was such a great president - was he really worse than Obama? The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%. But I was surprised to learn that the tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term was much higher -- 50%. Under Richard Nixon it was 70%, and under Dwight Eisenhower it was actually 91%.http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977623449 During the Reagan presidency the tax rate topped out at 69.13%. The top tax rate in 2010 was 35%. The lowest tax rate during the last 90 years was 24% in 1929, the year the Great Depression began. So why are people concerned that the wealthiest Americans are getting taxed too much when they are being taxed at the historic low that they are now? http://www.progressinaction.com/rep...axed-less-now-than-when-reagan-was-president/
No you are just confused about the matter, it's the MARGINAL rate he was using, the tax on the next dollar earned.
No again listen to what he says, he talks about what he has AFTER taxes. Thats the effective tax rate he is talking about, how much after deduction an such he gets to keep. He claims obama will raise the federal effective tax rate to 50% and he claims he will then stop doing his show refusing several millions monthly he takes away.
Still doesnt change the fact effective tax rate was higher : 81-89 average off 25-26% now its 22-23% Republican controlled Senate and he had southern democrats with him most of the time. And you wanted more debt from reagan he already tripled the debt, you wanted it fivefold? The gdp growth was almost the same as under carter, lower then under clinton., In fact it was lower then any other democratic president since Ww2 , obama being the only exception.
