Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Letter: Economy would improve if the rich paid their share

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:00 am

The interesting thing about Darrell Baumbach’s reply (“President Reagan helped the economy grow,” Dec. 12) to my recent letter (“We need to get back to building a stronger economy,” Dec. 10) was that he never answered my main point, which was about the ultra-rich in this country like Mr. Romney, who pays less in percentage in taxes than a minimum-wage worker.

Like most right-wing ideologues, when confronted with facts that cannot be disputed, they ignore them and go straight to their talking points. I doubt he even heard the argument. In this way, ideologues of all stripes resemble addicts. They cannot hear anything against their substance of choice.

A country’s economy produces so much income. To keep an economy going, a certain percentage of that income must go to keeping the engine in shape so it is able to keep producing income. The uber-rich, through an army of lobbyists and bought politicians, have skewered the way we pay taxes; they pay less in percentage than people who work at Walmart, and certainly the middle class which is getting hit the hardest.

Their standard canard is that if the rich pay less in taxes, they will invest more and we will be awash in jobs. We have been down this road for 33 years since Reagan. How has this worked out?

I think the cruelest and meanest talking point is that many minimum-wage workers pay no income tax and need to get some “skin” in the game. The fact that more of their money goes to the government as a percentage of other taxes than the uber-rich is lost on them.

The pope and the president have both spoken out eloquently on the problem of income inequality. The Republican Party through its lobbyists and bought politicians — with a little help from certain Democrats — has created a situation where the wealth of this nation is being funneled to the uber-rich by letting them get away with not paying their fair share of taxes needed to keep the engine of our economy going. This is politically controlled wealth distribution at its finest.

Why do we put up with it?

John Lucas

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

112 comments:

  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:57 am on Thu, Dec 26, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999


    Wrong again Mr. Lucas. [sleeping]

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/entitlement-america-head-household-making-minimum-wage-has-more-disposable-income-family-mak

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 7:24 am on Wed, Dec 25, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Apparently "verbatim" means something else in John's dictionary than it does in mine.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 6:24 pm on Tue, Dec 24, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Ahhh, Johnny Boy, dream on, dream on. Your land of Oz with the Wizard occupying the Oval Office will come crashing down because it's very existence is non-sustainable.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:25 pm on Tue, Dec 24, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Has it occurred to you that those on minimum wage have no disposable income and therefore just about all there income is taxed. Think about it.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:55 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You are absolutely correct when you say the American Public is getting wise. If it was not for Gerrymandering Conservatives would be shut out of power on capital hill. The Republican brand is so tainted they cannot even beat a black guy with an Arabic name. It will no be long until people with your politics will have no power and just be a bad dream.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 7:50 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    You mean like the uber wealthy who take so much out of the economy but by percentage pays back less than a minimum wage worker?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:11 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The fact that you can't specify ANY tax that is different for a minimum-wage worker vs, an "ultra-rich" citizen does not make your case Mr. Lucas.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:30 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    So, John, you are all for welfare recipients having children as fast as they can to improve their entitlements? Yeah, bleeding heart liberals would support this scenario.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:45 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Brian, of course he does. That's the liberal way. Misquote, spin and flat out lie about everything they can to demean someone who doesn't share their ideology and to shore up their weak position. The White House occupier is a master at those tactics. Fortunately, Americans are finally getting wise. Even Obama idolizers Chris Matthews (Obama gives me a tingle up my leg) and Barbara Walters (actually referred to him as "the Messiah") are starting to spew anti-Obama rhetoric lately. A CHRISTmas miracle?

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 3:56 pm on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Apparently she still READS the paper, just doesn't PAY for the paper. Liberals are like that, want something for nothing.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:44 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    they put it back

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:43 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    thank you for making my case [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:42 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    What is with you guys? It is your politics that makes a tax policy good or bad. The problem is the tax policy. Saying Liberals do it too is not a defense. Earth to Brian!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:40 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Yes, quoting someone verbatim is just a terrible thing to do [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:39 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    In this comment you reflect the contempt Conservatives feel for working people.
    This statement:
    People from all walks of life are uppity and want everything handed to them on a silver platter.
    Is particularly egregious.

    What people want is opportunity. People want to take pride in being independent. When say stupid mindless things like this you are just showing your ignorance about human nature. Yes on the edges there are people as you say but you cast much to wide a net with your accusations. The problem is that the opportunities of yesterday have been eroded with the mindlessly stupid Conservative economic polices brought to us by the worst president we ever had, Ronald Reagan. You and your Conservative brethren are forever attacking the character of working people because you have no defense on these horridly mindlessly stupid economic doctrines such as Supply Side economics aka Trickle Down economics. If you cannot argue the facts get personal. The Conservative way.

    BTW. You and todays Republican party are not Conservatives but Reactionaries. Conservatism is an honorable way of looking at things. Those Republicans with honor left the party long ago.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:50 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    John Lucas stated:

    Most Conservatives try to hide their contempt for working people and try to claim what I am saying is not true.

    -This statement is about as silly as it gets. For one thing, one does not have to be rich or poor to have contempt for working people. People from all walks of life are uppity and want everything handed to them on a silver platter. The truth is, more social services and more government handouts have created a class of people with their nose in the air. The Liberals and their beliefs that a larger government that provides more for the poor has inadvertantly created a huge entitlement culture.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:37 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    John Lucas stated:

    Mr Baxter, as usual, tries to make a case that anyone who is poor is a lazy bum who deserves what he gets.

    -And, as usual, John Lucas interprets many things literally in order to build a case against someone.

     
  • Brian Dockter posted at 7:33 am on Mon, Dec 23, 2013.

    Brian Dockter Posts: 2839

    Ms. Bobbin,

    Regarding your post at 1:50 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013:

    In all fairness. There are probably just as many instances of Liberals finding ways to keep their money in tjhe family and not giving it to the Feds. I realize this is incomprehensible to you. But at least try to step out of character from time to time.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 3:18 pm on Sun, Dec 22, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    That is very nice of you, thank you.

     
  • Lisa Hill posted at 10:19 pm on Sat, Dec 21, 2013.

    Lisa Hill Posts: 4

    Thank you John Lucas. I stopped taking this paper three years ago because I saw nothing in it that I could relate to or agreed with politically. Since that time, I have felt much less irritated, but none the less cut off from what is happening locally. Keep writing. I found a reason to start reading it again.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:28 pm on Sat, Dec 21, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Yes, there are many more forms of taxation other than income tax. For example,

    #1 Building Permit Taxes

    #2 Capital Gains Taxes

    #3 Cigarette Taxes

    #4 Court Fines (indirect taxes)

    #5 Dog License Taxes

    #6 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)

    #7 Federal Unemployment Taxes

    #8 Fishing License Taxes

    #9 Food License Taxes

    #10 Gasoline Taxes

    #11 Gift Taxes

    #12 Hunting License Taxes

    #13 Inheritance Taxes

    #14 Inventory Taxes

    #15 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)

    #16 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)

    #17 Liquor Taxes

    #18 Luxury Taxes

    #19 Marriage License Taxes

    #20 Medicare Taxes

    #21 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare

    #22 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don’t buy “qualifying” health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)

    #23 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income that goes into effect next year)

    #24 Property Taxes

    #25 Recreational Vehicle Taxes

    #26 Toll Booth Taxes

    #27 Sales Taxes

    #28 Self-Employment Taxes

    #29 School Taxes

    #30 Septic Permit Taxes

    #31 Service Charge Taxes

    #32 Social Security Taxes

    #33 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)

    #34 Tanning Tax (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)

    #35 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes

    #36 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes

    #37 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxes

    #38 Telephone State And Local Taxes

    #39 Tire Taxes

    #40 Tolls (another form of taxation)

    #41 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)

    #42 Utility Taxes

    #43 Vehicle Registration Taxes

    #44 Workers Compensation Taxes

    Again, Please specify ANY tax that is different for a minimum-wage worker vs, an "ultra-rich" citizen.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:25 pm on Sat, Dec 21, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    In your own letter you said the following,

    "my main point, which was about the ultra-rich in this country like Mr. Romney, who pays less in percentage in taxes than a minimum-wage worker."

    If you weren't referring to income taxes what taxes are you referring to Mr. Lucas?

    Please specify ANY tax that is different for a minimum-wage worker vs, an "ultra-rich" citizen.

    Can you? [sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:58 am on Sat, Dec 21, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    So you think commenting on how much Mitt Romney is paying in taxes is dragging his name through the mud? Interesting

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:38 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The CBO is talking about income taxes and it is intuitively obvious to the most causal observer that I was talking about all taxes. You really need to try to pay attention. If you insist on commenting on these forums could you not make the slightest effort to try and be relevant? It would less exasperating to those who do.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:57 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    When are you going to address the tax policy instead of trying to change to subject with your constant liberal bashing? You are starting to bore everyone.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:55 pm on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Your pdf has only talking about income taxes. I am talking about all taxes. You could really improve this forum by not commenting. If you cannot get something as simple as that you really need to go somewhere where your intelligence would be appreciated. I hear yahoo kids has some sites where you might actually contribute something to the conversation.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:00 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    According to the CBO your "thesis" is NOT true but when confronted with facts that you cannot dispute, you continue to ignore them.
    [sleeping]
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:57 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    "faux scenarios"...[lol]

    Juan Carlos Vera was FIRED after O'Keefe's video was released.[sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:32 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Exactly my point.[thumbup]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:20 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Liebich wrote: "Vera SMEARED himself which resulted in the Senate disbanding Acorn. What was edited out that explains why ACORN reps in multiple offices were compelled to defraud the government for the cameras?"

    HaHa. O'Keefe is lucky that Jerry Brown gave him immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions. BTW - the Senate did not "disband" ACORN. They defunded it which led to its demise.

    O'Keefe is a two-bit idiot who calls himself and "investigative reporter." He is nothing more than a cheap hack who sets people up for faux scenarios. He latest genius EDITED tapes show him "exposing" ACA Navigators. No real story there.

    I wonder what would happen if O'Keefe came to your basement and interviewed you about contrails? Couldn't possibly be more funny than the ABC interview.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:57 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Perfect. Joe, may you never quit being the spokesman for the conservative cause. You sure you are not paid by some Liberal organization?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:53 am on Fri, Dec 20, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It is interesting to read the comments of the Conservatives to the thesis I laid out in my LTE. I said when you take all the taxes, whatever type, the uber rich such as Mitt Romney or Warren Buffet pay less in percentage than a minimum wage worker and clearly less than a middle class person. None of them have made any credible argument against this for the simple reason it is the truth.

    Mr Baxter, as usual, tries to make a case that anyone who is poor is a lazy bum who deserves what he gets. He keeps saying that Liberals do it too so I guess that somehow makes it right. Mr Liebich and Mr. Baxter deep harping on me to say what is their fair share as if that is argument against my thesis. I am not advocating a solution but pointing out the problem. It seems as though Mr Baxter and Mr Liebich recognize the truth of what I am saying but do not think it is a problem. They think it is okay that the uber rich pay less in percentage in taxes.

    The economy is an engine that people who participate in it make money because of its existence. If it did not exist they would not be able to make any money. The economy requires money to maintain its ability for all of us to make a living from it. The fact that those who make the most money from it pay less in percentage on maintenance fees (taxes and fees) is unfair and frankly immoral. This situation has led to what most economists believe is the main problem of our time which is income inequality. Mr. Baxter would have you believe it is because all of the sudden since Reagan the American people have become lazy bums and moochers. The reality is that the uber wealthy through buying lobbyists, the Republican party and some Democrats have through the tax code have shifted the real tax burden to the middle class. This has hallowed out the middle class and if this situation continues it will disappear. Mr. Baxter is right when he talks about there being moochers. It is the uber wealthy.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:54 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Why the man is unable or unwilling to define "fair share" numerically does speak volumes.

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 6:55 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 44

    Good for him!!!! It`s not the government`s money!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:03 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Does your second paragraph make sense to you Mr. Walters? It certainly doesn't to me. What in the world were you attempting to say? Please clarify.

    If you are referring to ACORN employees their membership at it's peak was only slightly over 500,000.

    If you are referring to BLS employment numbers there were far more than 16 million people employed when Reagan was in office and there are far more than 4 million employed today under Obama.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:54 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Bottom line, I could a give rat about how much money anyone makes or what they do with it. None of my business. There is only ONE person on this planet whose financial prosperity has any meaning to me and that is ME. If you have figured out how to get wealthy, bully for you. If you lack ambition, drive and the smarts to improve your financial status, tough. Not my problem. If you bleeding heart liberals want to contribute to the have nots, knock youself out. There is a reason they are bottom feeders and it most likely has to do with a myriad of bad choices they have made along the way. They "shoot themselves in the foot" and whine for everyone to help them. Of course there are exceptions, but I am betting the majority of losers put themselves in their own predictament.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:27 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2028

    But you do make a point, what I was looking for was a SOLUTION to the point. One that I was thinking about as I was out Christmas shopping was a potentially incremental SALES tax. Working on the assumption that the uber- rich buy more expensive stuff, then something like this: Purchases over $1000 would have a slightly higher sales tax. Maybe 1% higher. Purchases over 10K would have 2% more sales tax. Purchases over 50K 5% more. And purchases over 100K would have 10% more taxes paid on it. This would include Individuals AND businesses.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 5:23 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2028

    I think what is missing is how MUCH a guy making 20million actually spends. This is where I think there is a difference in our opinions. The guy making 20million probably lives on 5 million, and SPLURGES on another 10million. Americans are horrible savers. We LIVE in debt. The rich have MORE disposable income and thus spends it at places that middle income and low income people work. THIS is one of the ways they create jobs. To take MORE of this away just to hand out to those NOT working does not make sense to me.

    It makes more sense to me to for a American cultural campaign to shift our focus to living as debt free as possible. This creates MORE disposable income. That disposable income goes to local businesses and creates jobs. Otherwise all that is happening is money is taken from the rich, given to the poor, who turn around and repay their debt to the rich. NOTHING to change the economy.

    I said it when Bush started the bailout and then again when Obama followed the formula. The Stimulus package should NOT have gone to businesses, but rather to the Lowest income, CURRENT on taxes citizens. The money should have been used to pay off their mortgages or car payments. This would have had exponentially returned more cash to the economy that we would still be enjoying. More disposable income since the car and/or mortgage payments would not be consuming the income.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:18 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    If you don't think Warren Buffett's heirs aren't financially set for life, you live in la la land. Nice story, Bobbin, but what does it have to do with anything? I can guarantee you I can find information about lots of liberals that rival the Adelson scenario. The difference is that the conservatives aren't on a witch hunt over them like the liberal are.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 5:12 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    You do realize Nick Hanauer explained it so well TED officials decided not to put the speech on their own website.
    ROFLMAO...[lol]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:03 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    So if political beliefs have nothing to do with anything, why are you constantaly throwing up Romney's name? Obviously because he is a conservative. Don't tell me you couldn't come up with a liberal money bags that pays the same or less than Romney. If Romney had been a liberal you would certainly come up with yet another conservative name to drag through the mud.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 4:50 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Barnum was right and they all voted for Barry.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 3:26 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Buffett-owned banks received $95 billion of the $700 billion bank bailout and 30% of all of Warren Buffett-owned companies received TARP bailout money.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:50 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Baxxter wrote: "I ask again, is it OK to be a rich liberal but not a rich conservative?"

    Probably. Here's what Mitt Romney Billionaire supporter Sheldon Adelson did:

    "Federal law requires billionaires such as Adelson who want to leave fortunes to their children to pay estate or gift taxes of 40 percent on those assets. Adelson has blunted that bite by exploiting a loophole that Congress unintentionally created and that the Internal Revenue Service unsuccessfully challenged."

    "By shuffling his company stock in and out of more than 30 trusts, he’s given at least $7.9 billion to his heirs while legally avoiding about $2.8 billion in U.S. gift taxes since 2010, according to calculations based on data in Adelson’s U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings."

    2.8 Billion...I'm sure good old Sheldon must have been exhausted by all that shuffling...or did he just pay the 2.8 billion to his tax advisers and attorneys in order to NOT give it to the feds.

    Compare Warren Buffett who won't be leaving any of his billions to his heirs - he is going to give it all away.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:25 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Kevin this billionaire explains it better than I ever will:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:21 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Perfect. Keep talking Joe. I love it when the real you shows up. We cannot thank you enough for your supporting the Liberal cause. I doubt you even get how good you are at it. Anyway, thanks again.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:16 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Earth to Joe Baxter, are you there? A person's political beliefs have nothing to do with anything. What we are talking about is tax policy.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:14 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    It is really very simple. A minimum wage worker pays 15% off the top to social security and medicare. He pays property taxes if he pays rent. He spends most of his money. If he buys gas he pays a tax. He pays much sales tax. There are fees that go to the government such as car registration. It is surprising how much as a percentage he pays. The ones that really get nailed are people who make from $80,000 to a $106,000. at the top they are paying close to 50% in FICA, Federal and state taxes and that is not even including the other taxes I talked about with the minimum wage guy. Lets look at the one return Mitt Romney showed us. He said 13.9% but experts said he overpaid and would pay 9% amended. How much of the twenty million he made do you think he used to live on? Lets say 5 million. It is doubtful that his tax load for the twenty million hit 20%. This is not unusual. If everyone had to make his tax returns public there would be a revolution and this nonsense would end. There is no way it is right for a man making 20 million dollars in a year to have to pay less of his income in percentage as a minimum wage worker or a middle class person. Only someone like Joe Baxter or Jerome or Brian would think that it is fair. They, of course. believe in Freedom and have values. As PT Barnum said, " There is a sucker born every minute". [smile]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:05 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Maybe he middle class like to be made a fool of by liberal billionaire Warren Buffet who crows about wanting to pay higher taxes then hires an army of tax lawyers to minimize his tax liability and fight the IRS who says he owes more than he wants to pay.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:31 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Kevin, he has NO idea what he means by "fair share. Just two words he parrots from the Obama administration that they use to lay blame on anyone except themselves for their dismal faiures in leadership.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 12:28 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Well, well, at last John Lucas makes a statement I can agree with. The people on the Democrat side of the aisle are indeed insane and live in a fantasy world constructed by Barry "Wizard of Oz" Obama.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:25 pm on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    and a nice try suggesting Bush's TARP was Obama's stimulus...[lol]

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:23 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    accidently posted before done,,,,,,NO LIBERAL rich people were included in Obama's tirades about the wealthy not paying enough. I ask again, isit OK to be a rich liberal but not a rich conservative? There is considerably more wealth on Capitol Hill amongst the Deocrats than the Republicans.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:21 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    The "fair share' catch phrase was an Obama battle cry to turn the "have nots" agains the evil rich people. Interestinly enough, NO LIBERAL

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 11:19 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    Liebich: While there is a fine line between fine and settlement, the results made both parties feeling like they had won. Paying someone for nothing, sounds like ACORN in the first place, sign here, or in some cases make your mark, like an "X" and collect $100.00.

    Also, when President Reagan was in office, over 16,000,000 were employed, today with Barry at the helm, over 4,000,000. Being who you are you will put the blame on President Bush. Since Barry cannot come up with a better idea, he has endorced President Bush`s.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 11:16 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Why do morons continue popping out children they can't afford? Total disregard for their child's welfare. Since when did it become someone elses obligation to support children the irresponsible people continue to have? NOBODY provided anything for my family except ME. Who raised your kids Bobbin? Welfare? SNAP? EBT cards? Free medcal? Free school food? I would rather imagine you and your husband made sure your children were fed, clothed, medicated and had a warm home at your expense. Freeloaders now make up over 50% of our population and that statistic is growing daily. Who and how is going to be stopped?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:14 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    In 1980 the top tax rate on investment income was 70%. It was not Reagan, but Michigan Democrat William M. Brodhead who put the amendment on the Reagan tax rate reduction bill to reduce immediately the top tax rate on investment income.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:06 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    According to the CBO the "uber rich" do pay their "fair share" but when confronted with facts that you cannot dispute, you ignore them and go straight to your talking points.
    [rolleyes]

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 9:57 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2028

    Mr Lucas. Maybe you could clarify something you have said repeatedly. "Pay their fair share" in regards to the uber-rich. You state that low income people pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes so the rich should to.

    Since income tax is graduated and has been demonstrated that the uber-rich pay most of the taxes in that regard you point out the sales taxes and such as where the low income people pay more % wise than the uber-rich.

    Are you advocating then, that before purchases earnings should be shown so that a graduated scale of sales tax be installed across the nation?

    HOW would you get the uber-rich to pay their "fair-share" of taxes? I would think, since they have MORE disposable income, they purchase MORE stuff, pay more in taxes and thus ARE paying their fair share since they are purchasing more things.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 9:45 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Bobbin, nice try blaming Bush for Obama's stimulus flop. You are very well aware the Obama fiasco had very little resemblance to the stimulus Bush was suggesting. Liberals, all they can do is play the blame game and race card in attempts to justify Obama's dismal leadership qualities. Gets pretty tiresome.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:24 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    No, I just do like them paying less to the government than minimum wage workers and certainly those in the middle class. If you are in the middle class your taxes are higher than they need to be because they do not pay their fair share yet you defend this practice. Do you enjoy being made a fool of?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:20 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [smile]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [thumbup]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    One cannot reach across the aisle when those across the aisle are insane. the tea party people are insane. They do not live in reality.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:16 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    No, I would just like the uber rich to pay their fair share. We all have to pay taxes to keep the infrastructure up and make it possible for the engine of the economy continues and people can still make money. People like you defend the uber wealthy for paying less in percentage than people making minimum wage and a lot less than those in the middle class. If you are in the middle class do you enjoy being made a fool by the likes of Mitt Romney?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:36 am on Thu, Dec 19, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    A settlement is hardly the same thing as a fine.[sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:08 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The same CBO you used earlier has a different view. They said the stimulus created 1.5 million new jobs. I agree we did not do enough and could do better.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:04 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Income taxes are not all taxes. The CBO is talking about income taxes. Yes in 1986 the middle class was much stronger than it is now. 33 years of Reaganomics has hallowed out the middle class. Your economic ideas will eventually destroy the middle class.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:59 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I am glad to hear that you are in favor of feeding children. My mistake. I would not have guessed it.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 6:51 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 548

    I am not rich thereforer I cannot purchase several new muti- millions dollar boats a year, a personal jet with it`s own crew, several houses in different parts of the world with a staff to maintain them, millions of dollars worth of art, million dollar cars, membership in exclusive clubs, stay at a hotel costing $30,000 a night, gamble at clubs that have a special table set up for me and the perks that go along with it, dine with VIP`s, however rich people can an do, they spread money around like it was water and pay an enormous amount of tax doing it. Good thing there are thousands of people like that, otherwise who could afford to purchase the above and the tax that goes with it and keep people working. Rich people spend money, lower class do not since they have little. Hard to argue with that, though I would think someone would.

    And Bobin, you are correct about ACORN and O`Keefe, however that $100,000 in fines to settle the "smear" was nothing more than lunch money to them.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:49 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Not true. [sleeping]

    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 4:36 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    I already answered your question in response to your previous ridiculous statement,"Another stupid conspiracy theory, Mr. Liebich." "If it is so secret, why does Info Wars know about it?" "Oh, that's right - because they made it up in their hallucinogenic filled fantasy world."

    I said, "We know from leaked documents, such as the February 2011 draft US TPP IP Rights Chapter [PDF]"
    and...
    "On November 13, 2013, a complete draft of the treaty's Intellectual Property Rights chapter was published by WikiLeaks."
    [sleeping]

    P.S. James was not fined. It was a settlement for filming Juan Carlos Vera without his consent. A violation of section 632 of the California penal code.

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/148088292/Vera%20O'Keefe%20ACORN%20$100,000%20Settlement%20Agreement

    Vera SMEARED himself which resulted in the Senate disbanding Acorn. What was edited out that explains why ACORN reps in multiple offices were compelled to defraud the government for the cameras?
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:14 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Ahhhhhh....the silence is so soothing.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:12 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Hogwash?

    It has been documented in this forum that Mr. Kinderman at least believes there are no children in Lodi who go hungry - let alone any in the rest of the country.

    Check it out - that was his protest against schools providing free breakfasts and lunches. What a Christian human being, eh?

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 4:10 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    FYI - Mr. Musto - the "stimulus" was initiated by George Walker Bush AND, if the Congress had not obstructed everything that Obama had put forth, we would have had a JOBS BILL - but Republicans blocked it.

    You cannot rewrite history no matter how much you try to spin it.

     
  • Will Rainwater posted at 3:12 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Will Rainwater Posts: 44

    I`ve never understood why it is"greed " for those who have worked hard and been successful in life to want to keep that which they have earned, but it is not greedy for people like Mr. Lucas to want to take money from those who have it.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 3:06 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Really need to question why some people use Reagan as fodder when trying to build up the sagging reputation of President Obama.

    There is really no comparison, Reagan administration lasted over 92 months without a recession, when he took office, unemployment rate was over 10.5%, 13.4% inflation and interest rates were as high as 21.5%.

    When he left office he had created over 18 million jobs, (he didn't need to add those phony saved jobs). Per-capita disposal income increased 18%, unemployment rate was 5.3%, economic growth in 1984 alone was 6.8% and 3.9 million jobs created.

    President Bill Clinton produced over 22 million jobs, wonder why he was able to follow Reagan's economic success so closely, even using the same principals Reagan had in place.

    When President Obama decries that the Republicans are hampering his economic policies just look to Reagan and Clinton, together they created over 38 million jobs while having to deal with opposing political forces. Reagan need to deal with Tip O'Neill, Clinton with Newt.
    Reaching across the aisle made Clinton and Reagan two of the most successful Presidents in the last 40 years.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:47 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Thank-you for substantiating that when you are confronted with facts that you cannot dispute, you ignore them.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 2:29 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    Whatever happened to those doe eyed Obama apologists who invested all their time and energy to help promote the President's $800 billion dollar "Keynesian economic" stimulus?

    Everyone had such hopes and dreams that plowing over $800 billion dollars into the economy it would create, as Obama promised but never delivered, over "650,000 shovel ready jobs."

    Well we now have a stagnant economy that creates new jobs alright, only problem is 77% of all new jobs are part-time, meaning 3 out of 5 are low paying, minimum hours, and no benefits, in other words, the Obama "burger flipping" variety.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 2:24 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Wealthy people also pay a smaller percentage of their earnings for groceries and everything else they purchase. I suppose Mr Lucas would advocate that the prices on all purchases be adjusted to the purchaser's income? Darn evil wealthy people should fork over $50 for a loaf of bread while the "less fortunate" pay only 10 cents. Here is a novel idea, can't afford to feed your kids, DON'T HAVE THEM then expect someone else to pay for them.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:58 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Kevin that is a completely different topic and there is probably much we can agree on. I believe right now the greatest problem we have is income inequality. The main cause of this is manipulation of the tax code by the uber wealthy with lobbyists and bought politicians to pay a much smaller share of the taxes. This shifts the burden to the middle class and the working poor and is destroying the middle class. Until we fix that anything else is a waste of time.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    OK, Mr. Liebich. Let's say your contention that the TPP "exempts corporations from paying ANY taxes," is correct.

    Where did you get that information? For someone who relies extensively on the work of others and provides links to everything from "who cares" propaganda to the famous edited James O'Keefe videos, let's have your link to this information.

    FYI - RE: James O'Keefe - you do know that he was ordered to PAY a $100,000 fine for SMEARING the folks at ACORN with his highly edited tape, right? Thought not.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 1:50 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Mr.Lucas poste: "People like Mr Baxter and Mr Kinderman think the answer is letting 3 year old go hungry by cutting SNAP."
    Another load of Lucas hogwash.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 1:26 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Yes, it is so important that income derived from investments pay less in taxes than those who work for a living and are paid by salary. I think not. Income is income. The time for investment income being treated differently than salary is long gone. It is just another vehicle for the uber wealthy to get our of paying their fair share of the load.

     
  • Gary Musto posted at 1:08 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Gary Musto Posts: 506

    CBO reports that the top 10% of tax payers paid over 70% of the total amount collected in taxes in 2010, in 1986, it was 55%.

    90% pay just under 30%, the bottom 40% took in $18,950 dollars per year in what the CBO calls, "government transfers." To the average low information Obama voter, "transfers" mean freebies, provided by the average, hard working American tax payers.

    CBO has also determined the bottom 40% paid -9.2% of income taxes for 2010.

    President Obama has also determined that starting in 2014, another tax will be levied on those tax payers that make over $200,000 per year, that should teach those rich, mean spirited Americans that dare earn more than minimum wage.

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:35 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2028

    Mr. Lucas I will concede the fixed income made in the economy to maintain it.

    How do you feel about how much of the taxes generated by hard working Americans going to foreign governments and political "pet projects" rather than to stimulating our economy? (I am remembering things like a government grant years ago that allowed researchers to put windows in cows stomachs to see how they digest food.)

    government is getting bigger and bigger and as a result costing more and more. The more a government costs, the more $$ it takes out of the economy

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:20 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Andrew. Do you notice I ignore you? Questions like this are the reason. We are not talking about what anybody did or said. We are talking about tax policy. If you want to not be ignored try having something interesting to say. Nonsense like this question is boring. I will now put you back on ignore.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:15 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    [thumbup] Yes. this is why Reagan was one of the worst Presidents we ever had. He conned a whole generation into trickle down or supply side economics. He was a great politician but his policies spell doom for the middle class.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:13 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    According to the CBO it is not true but when confronted with facts that you cannot dispute, you ignore them and go straight to your talking points.
    [sleeping]
    http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44604-AverageTaxRates.pdf

     
  • Jackson Scott posted at 12:10 pm on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jackson Scott Posts: 386

    Raising the taxes on investment profits would cripple the millions of retirees who took their hard earned money and invested it in the stock market. Those profits (ie: dividends &/or sales of stock) is what a lot of retirees NEED to survive on top of their social security. Not everyone has a government or union pension.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:44 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Thank you Jeff. You are exactly right.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:35 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    And this makes it right?

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:34 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 549

    Correct, they re-lable their income as income from investments which has been subsidized under the "more money for the rich = more investment" canard. I agree, a marginalized tax rate for ALL types of income would be more fare.

    Also, most people could probably understand that the highest tax rate is around the high 30's%. Currently 39.6%. But do people know for what income level that is? $400k. What about those that make over $1M? $2M? $10M? $50M? Shouldn't there be another higher marginal rate for those that make obscene incomes, whether they be from work or investments? There was in the past (when adjusted for inflation), right up until the 80's. Funny, that is when the income inequality gap really started to widen.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:25 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Jeff you are correct. What Jerome is doing is trying to change the conversation. He has no answer for what I am saying. We have heard the last of him in this LTE.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:22 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I am glad to hear where you stand on the issue. You think the working poor and the middle class should pay more in percentage than people like Mitt Romney. What have you got against the middle class? Are you a member of the middle class and enjoy being made a fool of ?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:17 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    First of all FICA and Medicare takes about 15% of your salary. The idea that employers pay half is just an illusion. It is part of what the employer is putting up for your labor. If you own a home or rent you are paying property tax. If you are making $9 an hour you are spending just about all of it to survive. You pay sales tax on just about everything except food. All taxes and fees is money that goes to the maintenance of the economy. Just because the taxes are hidden or you do not count them makes them no less real.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:10 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Every year they calculate the GDP. Every year there is some much income made from the economy. What I am saying is because of people like you who vote Republican the uber rich pay a much less percentage of their income to the maintenance of the economy thereby forcing more onto the working poor and the middle class. It is true and it is that simple.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 10:30 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    I've Googled Congressional Pension cuts, Mr. Kinderman, and found nothing about that. Only Congress targeting federal employees and veterans for pension cuts.

    What should be done is either throw out all of the cheapskate Republican lawmakers who use their congressional offices for sleeping and eating quarters instead of renting an apartment.

    At least 50 male Republican members of Congress use their offices to sleep and have set up "kitchens" complete with microwaves, crockpots, hot plates and electric griddles.

    Whined one $174,000 a year congressman, "I have 3 kids, two mortgages and private school to pay for. I cannot afford a DC apartment." WAHHHH!!!

    According to law:

    "Living in a House office violates the prohibition on using taxpayer resources for anything other than the performance of official duties. The Members' Handbook states that the Member Representational Allowance may not be used for personal expenses."

    "Further, under the Internal Revenue Code, members who sleep in their offices are receiving a taxable benefit. The IRS treats lodging as a taxable fringe benefit unless it is offered on the employer's business premises, is for the employer's convenience, and is required as a condition of employment. As living in a House office clearly is not a condition of serving in Congress, members must pay taxes for imputed income based on the fair market value of their lodging."

    We, at the very least, need to start 1099ing these squatters for their free digs.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Mr. Lucas,
    If the "uber-rich" aren't paying their "fair share" and the president speaks so "eloquently on the problem of income inequality" why is he advocating for the Trans-Pacific Partnership which exempts corporations from paying ANY taxes?
    [sleeping]

     
  • robert maurer posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 447

    Joe: Many politicians and the wealthy give more to charities (as a tax write-off ) than they pay in taxes. That's the way it is. So, are they to be looked down upon for following the law? Good 5:51 am post[thumbup]

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:27 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 549

    I, and probably Mr. Lucas, too, agree with you that that was the wrong answer... military pension cuts. A change in tax policy, as Mr. Lucas has proposed, would have been better.

     
  • John Kindseth posted at 10:26 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Kindseth Posts: 243

    John L: "A country’s economy produces so much income."

    Are you saying that the economy is a fixed output system so that if the rich get another dollar there will be one less available for you ?

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:20 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Kevin the thing that has to be understood is that all taxes go to keeping the engine of the economy going. It is like maintenance on a truck. When we allow the uber rich to pay a much less percentage than others it means someone else has to take up the slack. It falls on the middle class. The amount of taxes those making $80,000 to a $106,000 is an outrage. People like Mr Baxter and Mr Kinderman think the answer is letting 3 year old go hungry by cutting SNAP. SNAP is such a small part of the budget and will make no real difference. Their other answer is to make sure that this who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own should not get unemployment benefits. Both of these program are very good at stimulating the economy as well as helping people in need. One of their suggestions is that people on minimum wage should pay income taxes ignoring all the other taxes they pay. This will not work either. Jerome and Joe are good Republicans. The one thing they will fight to the death is that a person like Mitt Romney pay as much in percentage as a minimum wage worker. They believe in freedom and, after all, Joe and Jerome have "values".

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:18 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 549

    "I take every advantage of tax law to minimize my taxes, as do most prudent people. As long as taxpayers follow the laws, what is your beef? If you don't like the tax laws, write your Congressman to get them changed."

    DUH! This is what he is advocating in this and his previous letters. He is not demonizing the rich (liberal or conservative) for taking advantage of the laws, he is demonizing the LAWS. Now you finally understand.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:08 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Like Mr Baxter, I see you agree with the basic points of my letter. Thanks Jerome.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 9:56 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 447

    John; WHAT?? I have my receipts over a lifetime of work that proves you are wrong. Here is a tiny example:When I made $14 per hr. base pay, my gross pay was over $1100 per week, yet I netted only 56% of my gross income. 44% went to deductions.When I entered the automotive field at $9 per hour, I brought home nearly everything I made minus approximately 12%. When income tax time came ,I received more than I paid in! Who paid for this discrepancy? Guess!! Those who made more! Is that fair? Not in my book, and as a decent human being I gave my ill-gotten gains to various charities.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:42 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Thank you, Joe. I am glad that you at least agree that people like Mitt Romney pay less in percentage to the government than a minimum wage worker. It is sad that you think this is the way it should be. I do write my congressman and I do write LTE's about what to me is an obvious injustice. You are doing the same thing. You are writing about your approval of this obvious injustice which is why we love you so much. Most Conservatives try to hide their contempt for working people and try to claim what I am saying is not true. You are upfront about your contempt and uncaring attitude for working people and we appreciate it. I have said it many times. You do more for the Liberal cause than any other writer on this forum. Thanks for your contribution to our cause.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 8:42 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Rich Congresmen, both Repulican AND Democrat are not about to sponsor a bill that would raise their own taxes. Most all are deriving income through investments and enjoying the tax base for investment income, Obama included..

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 8:17 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 549

    Well lookie here...
    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_AP_ECONOMY_SURVEY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

    " The growing gap between the richest Americans and everyone else isn't bad just for individuals.

    It's hurting the U.S. economy.

    So says a majority of more than three dozen economists surveyed last week by The Associated Press. Their concerns tap into a debate that's intensified as middle-class pay has stagnated while wealthier households have thrived."

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 7:14 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2028

    I'll just make one point: Romney pays less in taxes because he is paying taxes based of NVESTMENT profits, which are taxed at a lower rate than income tax. The SAME rate anyone making a profit on investments would be taxed.

    That said I can see and support a incremental scale on investment income on a steeper scale than income taxes Maybe peaking at close to 75% instead of the 19% it currently is.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 6:28 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2357

    You may very well get your heart's desire, Mr. Lucas. All those ultra-rich veterans are about to get those oh-so-excessive pensions cut. Finally!! The rich paying their fair share.

     
  • Joe Baxter posted at 5:51 am on Wed, Dec 18, 2013.

    Joe Baxter Posts: 1850

    Here we go, AGAIN. More whining from the liberals that wealthy people don't pay their "fair share". Tell us, Mr. Lucas, what is your idea of "fair share"? Don't regurgitate the Romney example, which is a bs assumption on your part.. There are plenty of super wealthy liberals that most likely pay less in taxes than Romney but we couldn't have a liberal complain about liberals, could we. I take every advantage of tax law to minimize my taxes, as do most prudent people. As long as taxpayers follow the laws, what is your beef? If you don't like the tax laws, write your Congressman to get them changed. But you have to remember, most Congressmen are rich and don't want to pay more taxes. Good luck with that.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 6 hours ago by Linda W Reichert.

article: Four tenants could move into Walmart’s …

We should turn the old Wal-Mart into an indoor sports center, like the city's talked about before. First, buy up those older houses behind…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Angie McDaniel.

article: Steve Hansen: Climate change is real, b…

Hey, I thought we were debating here? Steve's hero, Jimmy P., is full of beans. Therefore, it's now your turn to prove the existence of thi…

More...

Posted 8 hours ago by Ted Lauchland.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

I wouldn't take yuck yuck to heart all that often Mr. Werner. Brainiacks tend to pop now and again. Criticism promotes more criticism. Neve…

More...

Posted 10 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

The best thing regarding the Madeleine Cosman is that she is dead and cannot say these things anymore except when people like the Mr Portal…

More...

Posted 11 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Letter: Immigration crisis is linked to…

Eric No one should endure such polluution inside or out.

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Featured Events

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists